The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Anna Burke) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Private Members' Motions
Reference to Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (10:00): In accordance with standing order 41(g) and the determinations of the Selection Committee I present copies of the terms of motions which notice has been given by the honourable members for Fraser, Kooyong, Shortland and Chisholm. These matters will be considered in the Federation Chamber later today.
BILLS
Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (10:01): by leave—I move:
That the following bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Health Insurance (Dental Services) 2012; and
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) 2012.
Question agreed to.
PETITIONS
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:02): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:
Marriage
PETITION TO RETAIN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN
To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:
We the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled that the definition of marriage as "a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex "marriage" would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children:
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that you protect the unique institution of marriage as traditionally understood and actually lived as the complementary love between a man and a woman.
And, as in duty bound will ever pray.
from 118 citizens
Medicare
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of women patients draws to the attention of the House:
We believe that the Government has the health and safety of Australian women and their babies, as a high priority. This includes mothers-to-be and newborns in regional and remote communities.
There have been clearly unintended consequences of the Government's decision to cut the Extended Medicare Safety Net for Obstetrics. Since the EMSN cuts came into effect on January 01, 2010, there has been a significant shift of births into the overburdened public system.
The Extended Medicare Safety Net used to cover up to 80% of the average charge for obstetrics. Now it covers less than 25%. As mothers-to-be struggling with the cost of living, we feel this is unfair.
Women want choice and access to affordable gold standard pregnancy care, and the greatest opportunity to conceive with effective fertility treatments when necessary. We want to be cared for before, during and post our birth by the doctor of our choice.
We therefore ask the House:
to do all in its power to influence the Government to restore the Extended Medicare Safety Net for Obstetrics to cover the average out of pocket costs to women patients and their babies, which is $2,000.
Please listen to our concerns and increase the safety net funding from covering 20% of the costs of having a baby under the care of a specialist to at least 50%.
from 2,480 citizens
Marriage
To the Honourable Speaker and Member of the House of Representatives
We the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled that the Marriage Act 2004 states “marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntary entered into for life” which is the foundation upon which families are build and on which our Australian society stands.
To amend the definition of marriage to include same sex homosexual or lesbian “marriage” would be to change the very structure of our Australian society, especially the education system to the detriment of all, particularly children.
We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that any Marriage Equality Amendment Bill be opposed. And, as in duty bound, will ever pray
from 939 citizens and 9,462 citizens
Foreign Investment in Agriculture
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: concerns about the sale of rural land, farm land, and agricultural business to foreign investors.
We therefore ask the house to: keep Australian farm land and agricultural businesses in Australian ownership so Australians can continue to grow and export food. Farmland sold to foreigners who will grow their own crops and export them to their own countries, we will loose our valuable export trade.
from 27 citizens
Heritage Listing: Dampier Archipelago
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
The petitioners support for World Heritage Listing of the Dampier Archipelago as shown in the underlying map and oppose the development of any further industrial infrastructure on any of the islands that make up the Dampier Archipelago that may impact on the National and World Heritage values of the place.
It is acknowledged that the Dampier Archipelago contains what is probably the largest assemblage of prehistoric rock engravings (petroglyphs) anywhere in the world and provides one of the few chronologies in the world of environmental and social change through the last ice age to the present.
We therefore ask the House to:
Review all scientific data and expert advice on the scientific, cultural and heritage values of the rock art, standing stones and other components of the archaeology that exists on the islands of the Dampier Archipelago to test its value as a World Heritage nomination.
Investigate what activities the Federal Government has made or may undertake to encourage the State of Western Australia to nominate the area for World Heritage listing and make ensuing recommendations to the Federal Government to pursue such nomination.
from 157 citizens
Older Australians
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens draws to the attention of the House:
As representatives of retired trade unionists, we warn the House and older Australians that radio shock jocks and the Murdoch Press are manipulating retirees, in a "Tea Party" campaign on Canberra. This is an attempt to bring down the Labor government and insert Big Capital's man, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott into the Lodge. Members of CRUMA strongly protest against the extreme right and mining corporations, wanting to remove an elected government by using these tactics. We call on the Australian people to support our voting rights.
We ask the House to request the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, to explain how older Australians would not be damaged by his "seventy billion dollar financial policy deficit."
from 278 citizens
Financial Services
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House to the fact that certain corporations in Australia's financial services sector have adopted a practice of off-shoring work that results in the loss of jobs and confidential customer data being accessed by third parties without the express consent or prior knowledge of the customers involved. We believe that our customers should have the right to know before their data is accessed offshore and this will enhance the likelihood of work and jobs being retained in Australia thereby ensuring that we have a comprehensive local financial services industry.
We therefore ask the House to support legislation that would mandate that before customer information was accessed off-shore, the service provider must disclose this practice and obtain the customer's express written consent.
from 289 citizens
Centrelink
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of an Australian mother with the dependent child (Centrelink ref no. 306-170-987L), draws to the attention of the house; his dilemma of being denied his entitlement to access the concessional medicines of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme during the process of his mother being transferred from a parenting pension to another eligible benefit after he turned 16.
Centrelink Correspondence/March 6 2012/Reference: 301 762 845J
Your Parenting Payment has been cancelled.
This decision has been made because you do not have a dependent child under 16 living with you. I now have a dependent child 16 living with me.
Your Pensioner Concession Card is valid until 2 ApriI2012.
Please destroy this card.
An electronic check will show that you are no longer entitled to the concessional rate of Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme medicines.
{for the following days 2012, April 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15, on the 16th finally a Confirmation of Concession Card entitlement was issued to his parent representative.
I wonder if you realise the "Reality Gap" in this current policy.
For my son it was13 Days of being denied his entitlement to access the concessional medicines of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme.
I therefore ask the House to re-examine the transition processes of this statue, and perhaps implement a policy covering the subject matter which prevents dependent children from being denied their entitlement to access the concessional medicines of the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. Their lives may depend on it.
from 1 citizen
Marriage
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition against Same Sex Marriage Legislation draws to the attention of the House the vast number of people who oppose this legislation.
We, the undersigned, representing the Christian and Muslim communities, wish to express our opposition to legislation that advances the cause for same sex marriage. Though our beliefs may differ in terms of religion, both communities stand firm in terms of the natural law and mutually express concern over such legislation, seeing it as an attack on values that are conducive for order in society.
Marriage is an institution vital to the well-being and natural order of society. In particular, it confirms the importance of motherhood and fatherhood and seeks to protect children's biological identity. It has a meaning that we hold deeply for its cultural, religious and social significance.
Request for Action: the petitioners ask the House to vote against Same Sex Marriage Legislation.
from 4,700 citizens
Abortion
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of a group of citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the need for respect for the sanctity of human life.
In some States of Australia late term abortion is being practised even though God's word says, "You created my inmost being, You knit me together in my mother's womb." Even life in the womb is sacred to God.
Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva argued in The Journal of Medical Ethics that there can be nothing wrong with infanticide if there is nothing wrong with abortion. How far can these ideas go.
Euthanasia is now on the agenda to be discussed in Parliament as a viable way of dealing with severe suffering. Surely pain management is preferable.
We as citizens of Australia ask the House to protect our nation from adopting any of these as law. We want a righteous nation with laws that honour God.
from 41 citizens
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:03): The following ministerial responses to petitions have been received:
Petition: Highett Grassy Woodland
Dear Mr Murphy
I refer to your letter of 8 February 2012 concerning the petition on the protection of the Grassy Woodland CSIRO site in Highett Victoria.
As you may be aware, the Australian Government only has a role in regulating proposals that impact on matters protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This includes matters of national environmental significance, actions involving the Commonwealth and actions taken on, or impacting on, Commonwealth land. Matters of national environmental significance include World and National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance, nationally listed species and ecological communities, listed migratory species, nuclear actions, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Commonwealth marine areas.
Under the EPBC Act, any person proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance must refer their proposal for environmental assessment and approval before it can proceed. This occurs via submission of a formal referral of the proposed action to me of my delegates for consideration. This is in addition to the normal assessment and approval processes administered by state and local governments.
The department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) is aware of the proposed sale of the Highett CSIRO site and has initiated discussions with the CSIRO with regard to their obligations under the EPBC Act. In this case, the proposed action falls within Division 2 of Part 3 of the EPBC Act relating to protection of the environment from proposals involving the Commonwealth. Further discussions between the CSIRO and the department will determine the need or otherwise for a referral. The department will ensure that all requirements under the EPBC Act in relation to the proposed sale of the Highett property are appropriately addressed.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Mr T Burke
Education
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2012 concerning a petition on the learning resource, Learning from One Another: Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools.
All Australian governments are committed to implementation of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. The Declaration sets goals that seek to ensure that Australian school students become not only successful learners but also confident, active and informed citizens who appreciate Australia's social, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. The Declaration can be found at www.mceecdya.edu.au.
The Australian Constitution prevents the Australian. Government from making any law to establish any religion, impose any religious observance, or prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
While the Government plays a leadership role and provides funding for areas of national educational importance, such as the development of the Australian Curriculum, it does not run schools or determine the teaching-learning resources they use. These decisions are matters for state and territory government and non-government education authorities and, in many instances, individual schools.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
from the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Mr Garrett
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2012 regarding a petition recently submitted for consideration by the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding refugees and Australian immigration laws. I apologise for the delay in responding.
The Australian Government is committed to treating asylum seekers and refugees humanely and fairly while maintaining its commitment to managing risks to the Australian community. Immigration detention of all unauthorised arrivals is mandatory for the purposes of determining any health, identity or security risk presented by unauthorised people arriving at the border. This is in contrast to those who arrive in Australia lawfully and have been assessed during the visa application process in relation to matters such as identity, security, bona fides and health.
Australia accepts its human rights obligations towards all persons in Australia. Some differentiation in the management of persons who arrive, or remain, in an irregular manner is consistent with Australia's international obligations, including the Refugees Convention and Article 13 of the ICCPR.
Non-citizens who arrive without a valid visa at an excised offshore place, such as Christmas Island, are subject to a visa application bar. This means that they cannot apply for a visa unless the Minister allows them to. All other laws apply in the same way. Successive governments have maintained these arrangements to preserve the integrity of Australia's borders.
The Australian Government provides the Protection Obligations Determination (POD) process for Irregular Maritime Arrivals (IMAs). Under this process:
Determinations are in accordance with the High Court of Australia's judgment relating to procedural fairness requirements and are consistent with Australian law;
IMAs have access to an independent review of negative outcomes through an Independent Protection Assessment (IPA);
IMAs are able to access judicial review of the decisions made under the POD process.
On 25 November 2011, I announced a new approach to the management of asylum seekers. Following an initial mandatory detention period for health, security and identity checks, eligible boat arrivals who do not pose risks to the community will be progressively considered for community placement on bridging visas while their asylum claims are assessed.
As part of these changes, the Government will introduce a single protection visa process for both boat and air arrivals in 2012, using the current onshore arrangements for application and independent review through the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) system, as needed.
The Government is conscious of the need to ensure people are not held in immigration detention for long periods, however, time is required to determine whether a person meets the criteria for grant of a visa. Longer processing times can be due to a number of factors including the volume of cases, difficulty in satisfactorily determining a client's identity, complexity of claims, developments in country information and, for those who have been found to be a refugee, assessment of other immigration related criteria.
The Government is committed to reducing people smuggling activity and working with countries in the region under the Regional Co-operation Framework to improve protection outcomes for refugees. The Government will continue to advocate for changes to the Migration Act 1958 that would enable the cooperative transfer arrangement established with Malaysia to be implemented. As offshore processing is not able to be implemented at this time and consistent with the Government's announcement of 18 October 2010, priority is being given to the transfer of minors, families and other vulnerable individuals out of detention facilities and into community-based detention.
As at 22 March 2012, I had approved more than 3400 clients (1850 adults and 1550 children) for accommodation in the community detention program, since expanding the program in October 2010. Around 1500 clients have left the program after being granted a protection visa. There are over 630 children in and transitioning into community detention arrangements. All eligible children who arrived in Australia prior to 20 November 2011 have been moved into community detention arrangements.
The Government is also using existing visa provisions to progressively allow clients who are assessed as satisfying mandatory identity, health, character and security requirements to be granted a bridging visa. This will allow some clients to reside in the community under certain conditions while their processing continues. Initial priority is being given to those who have been in immigration detention for the longest time. Clients who do not meet these criteria will remain in detention facilities or a community detention placement that is appropriate for the management of any security risks or support needs.
Since 25 November 2011, more than 1000 clients have been released into the community on a bridging visa.
The Government will continue to look at ways to prevent, deter and enforce compliance to preserve the integrity of Australia's migration and humanitarian programs, while treating individuals humanely.
Thank you for writing about these matters.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen
Petition: HRL Coal fired Power Station
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 15 February 2012 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning a petition opposing Australian Government funding for the HRL Dual Gas project in Victoria.
The Australian Government recognises that no single technology will provide all the answers to the challenge posed by climate change and has a suite of programs designed to encourage the uptake of renewable energy and the development of technologies which reduce carbon emissions. These programs include:
The Renewable Energy Target, which will provide a cross subsidy of $20 billion to the renewable energy sector over the period to 2030.
Over $17 billion in clean energy technology development including, but not limited to:
$10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation;
$1.6 billion for Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships;
$1.5 billion for Solar Flagships;
$1 billion for Connecting Renewables; and
$272 million for the National Solar Schools Plan.
The Australian Government's Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) was initiated to help Australian firms commercialise world-leading low emissions technologies. The objective of the LETDF was to demonstrate the commercial potential of new energy technologies.
In 2007, the then Howard Government granted the HRL Dual Gas project $100 million towards the construction of a 400 MW power plant to demonstrate HRL's brown coal integrated drying and gasification combined cycle technology. The payment of the proposed grant, under LETDF, is subject to a number of conditions, some of which have not as yet been met. Accordingly, no LETDF funds have been provided to the project.
Matters relating to the HRL project are before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The proceedings have been delayed by the ill health of the presiding officer. Given these circumstances the Commonwealth granted an extension until 30 June 2012 for the HRL project to meet outstanding conditions precedent.
This should provide HRL with a reasonable period of time, after the VCAT decision is handed down, to work towards meeting all outstanding grant preconditions.
Importantly, the Commonwealth has indicated that it does not intend to grant HRL any further extensions.
I emphasise that the Australian Government is treating all projects under the LETDF program equally and will not discriminate on the basis of technology. The Australian Government will continue to treat the HRL grant with the same measure of good faith that it has shown to other LETDF grants, including the Silex Solar project. This includes granting extensions to both projects, and administering the grants in a manner that gives the projects every opportunity to succeed.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention.
from the Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Tourism, Mr M Ferguson
Petition: Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 1 March 2012 regarding a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions about negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).
The petition covers many important issues in the TPP, and reflects a large body of correspondence that I have received since TPP negotiations commenced. I am happy to confirm the Government's position on these matters and confirm that I am mindful of the concerns that have been raised.
The aim of the TPP negotiations is to develop a comprehensive and ambitious 21st century free trade agreement which eliminates tariffs and other barriers to trade and investment. The TPP offers an opportunity to further enhance economic integration within the Asia-Pacific region, which in turn will help ensure that we continue to build a prosperous Australia that provides opportunities for all.
The Government sees the Pharmaceuticals Benefits Scheme (PBS) as an integral part of Australia's health system. Retaining the ability to ensure access to quality, affordable medicines for Australian consumers is a priority, and the Government will not accept an outcome in the TPP that would adversely affect the integrity of the PBS.
The petition also refers to giving 'special rights for corporations to sue governments'. This concern is around the inclusion of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TPP. The Gillard Government's Trade Policy Statement, which was released in April 2011, made clear that Australia will no longer seek the inclusion of ISDS provisions in our trade agreements.
As to Australian content in film, television and digital media, the Government recognises that the audiovisual market has undergone significant transformation over the last decade and that this change is ongoing. The Government will continue to consider the policy implications of such changes, including through the Convergence Review of media and communications regulation.
The petition also raised a number of other issues including the labelling of genetically modified foods and government procurement. The Gillard Government's Trade Policy Statement also made clear that Australia will not support provisions in trade agreements that constrain our ability to regulate legitimately on social, environmental, or other similar public policy matters. Equally, the Government will not seek the inclusion of provisions that act as a disguised protection against imports.
The issues of trade and labour, and trade and environment, are under discussion in the TPP negotiations. Australia will continue to support provisions that uphold our international obligations on labour and the environment. Australia will not agree to any provisions that are inconsistent with our labour and environmental laws.
In relation to publication of the text of the agreement for public and parliamentary debate before ratification, the Government has taken every opportunity to engage with stakeholders, regardless of whether they are private individuals, civil society or corporate. As with other free trade agreement negotiations, we have called for written submissions and held regular frank meetings and teleconferences with stakeholders to provide updates on progress of negotiations and seek input. Regular updates are posted on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website after the conclusion of each negotiating round. In addition, in accordance with the Government's treaty-making process, the final text of the TPP will be tabled in Parliament for twenty joint sitting days to facilitate public consultation and scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) before binding treaty action is taken. Once tabled, the treaty text and an accompanying National Interest Analysis will be published on the JSCOT website and in the online Australian Treaties Library.
Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention, and providing me with the opportunity to respond.
from the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, Mr M Emerson
Taxation
Dear Mr Murphy
I refer to your letter of 13 February 2012 regarding a NSW citizens' petition.
The petition raises issues regarding the constitutionality of a New South Wales tax which is described in the petition as an 'excise' and as being 'calculated by estimated number of livestock (carrying capacity)'.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether the tax described in the petition is contrary to the Australian Constitution. Only a court with appropriate jurisdiction can determine the validity of State or Commonwealth laws. In our system of government, it is not within the competence of the Commonwealth executive to ascertain whether a law contravenes the Australian Constitution or to 'issue a statement on the constitutionality of Excise' as requested by the petitioners. It is of course open to the petitioners, if they wish, to seek private legal advice about the constitutionality of any relevant New South Wales law and the prospects of a successful legal challenge.
from the Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management, Ms Roxon
Diabetes
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of I March 2012 regarding a petition to the House of Representatives about Medicare-funded allied health visits for diabetes related lower limb problems.
I acknowledge the issues raised in the petition in relation to the value of podiatry services in managing chronic conditions, including diabetes. I also acknowledge that the petition advocates for access to additional Medicare-funded allied health services per year for patients with diabetes-related lower limb problems.
The Australian Government is committed to supporting patients living with chronic disease and provides support for podiatry services through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS). Under the Chronic Disease Management (CDM) items, patients who have a chronic medical condition and complex care needs, who are being managed by their GP under a GP Management Plan (MBS item 721) and Team Care Arrangements (MBS item 723), can be referred for up to five Medicare rebateable individual allied health services per calendar year, including podiatry services (MBS item 10962). In 2011, almost 1.5 million services were provided and more than $76 million in Medicare benefits were paid for chronic disease podiatry services.
In addition, the Government also provides support for people at risk of developing type 2 diabetes through MBS health assessment services (MBS items 701-707) and support for people living with type 2 diabetes through MBS group allied health services (MBS items 81100-8 1125).
The chronic disease allied health services currently available under Medicare are not intended to fully cater for patients who require intensive ongoing treatments. Rather, these Medicare services complement services provided by state and territory governments and increase access to private allied health services by improving their affordability.
The Australian Government also supports access to allied health services more generally through some subsidies for private health insurance premiums.
I note the principal petitioner, the Australasian Podiatry Council (APodC) calls for amendments to the legislation governing Medicare. In order to progress this issue, if the APodC believes there is sufficient evidence available to support proposed new items or amendments to existing items, an application could be submitted to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC).
The MSAC was established by the Australian Government in 1998 to appraise new medical technologies and procedures proposed for public funding. The MSAC provides advice to the Government about the level and quality of evidence relating to the safety, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such services. The MSAC's advice has enabled the Government to make informed, evidence-based decisions about the public subsidy of new medical services and from I January 2011, the role was expanded to include advice on amendments to and reviews of existing MBS items.
Applications made to the MSAC for consideration and for advice to the Government are based on currently available documented evidence. The MSAC utilises consumer representation, as well as relevant clinical expertise in its assessment processes to ensure the views of potential patients are taken into consideration. This process ensures that public funding is provided to medical services that have been shown to be safe and clinically effective, and represent value-for-money for both patients and taxpayers in the Australian context. Further information about the MSAC is available at www.msac.gov.au.
I appreciate the time taken by the APodC and Australian citizens in drawing attention to this issue.
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek
Gambling
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 13 February 2012 enclosing a petition about the introduction of mandatory pre-commitment for poker machines that was presented to the Standing Committee on Petitions by the Sawtell Bowling and Recreation Club. I apologise for the lengthy delay in responding.
On 21 January 2012, the Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, announced a comprehensive plan for national problem gambling reform. This reform plan includes Commonwealth legislation to rollout pre-commitment infrastructure on every poker machine in the country.
The Australian Government also announced its support for a large scale trial of mandatory pre-commitment in the Australian Capital Territory to build the evidence base for mandatory pre-commitment.
The trial will be rigorously evaluated and subject to an independent review by the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission will report to the Parliament in 2014 and make recommendations about whether a national rollout of mandatory pre-commitment should proceed.
This staged, evidence-based pathway to implementing pre-commitment reflects the approach recommended by the Productivity Commission in its 2010 Inquiry Report on Gambling.
The Commonwealth will legislate to ensure:
new machines manufactured or imported from the end of 2013 are pre-commitment capable;
all gaming machines be part of a state-wide pre-commitment system and display electronic warnings by 2016, with longer implementation timelines for small venues; and
These Bills will be the first ever national gaming machine regulations. They will make sure that pre-commitment technology is installed on every one of the country's more than 200,000 poker machines. This will mean that the infrastructure is in place to move to a mandatory pre-commitment system, if the results of the trial support it.
Thank you again for writing on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions.
from the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform, Ms Macklin
Pharmaceutical Services
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 19 March 2012 regarding a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions requesting the approval of a pharmacy in Hackett, Australian Capital Territory, under subsection 90A(2) of the National Health Act I 953 (the Act).
Before a pharmacist can be approved to supply Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines at particular pharmacy premises, certain criteria must be met under the Pharmacy Location Rules. These criteria are detailed in the Rules which aim to ensure access for all Australians to a well distributed network of community pharmacies, including in rural and remote areas.
The Rules are intended to promote community access to PBS medicines by ensuring that a viable and appropriately located pharmacy network is in place. They do this through location based criteria that encourage an appropriate geographical spread of pharmacies, whilst ensuring that pharmacies do not become too closely clustered together, which could lead to some pharmacies having insufficient volume of work to allow efficient and viable operation.
The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority considers applications against the relevant criteria in the Rules and is unable to consider other issues outside the Rules. If the Authority finds that an application satisfies the requirements of the Rules, it must recommend that the application be approved. The Authority can not recommend approval if the requirements of the Rules are not met.
If the Authority does not recommend a pharmacist to be approved and the Secretary's delegate rejects an application, the pharmacist may request that I exercise my discretionary power under the Act to approve the pharmacist to supply PBS medicines. Such a request must be made within 30 days of receipt of advice that an application has been rejected.
The aim of the Ministerial Discretion provision of the Act is to address exceptional circumstances where there are unintended consequences of the Rules. There is a two stage process for me to exercise my discretionary power. Under the Act, I have three months from the date the request is received in which to decide whether or not to consider the request. If I decide to consider a request, I then have a further three months to decide whether or not to exercise my discretionary power.
I can only exercise my powers if I am satisfied that:
a decision not to approve an application will result in a community being left without reasonable access to PBS medicines supplied by an approved pharmacist; and
it is in the public interest to approve the pharmacy.
In deciding whether the Hackett community has reasonable access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits I will examine a range of factors including why the pharmacist's application did not satisfy the requirements of the Rules, the characteristics and demographics of the local area, the community's current level of access to the supply of pharmaceutical benefits, and any other factors that are relevant to this matter.
Once again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek
Petition: Gladstone Post Office
Dear Mr Murphy
Petition - Gladstone Business Centre
Thank you for your letter dated 1 March 2011 concerning a petition submitted for the Committee's consideration regarding the closure of over-the-counter services at the Gladstone Business Centre.
Under the Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 Australia Post is responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation, including all decisions relating to the postal network. As far as practicable it is required to perform its functions in a manner consistent with sound commercial practice.
Australia Post has advised that its retail network is made up of a variety of operating models, including business centres that are designed to service the needs of small to medium sized business customers. In recent years Australia Post has experienced a downward trend in visits as customers move from traditional postal services to electronic alternatives. In response, it is continually adjusting its retail network to ensure it meets its ongoing commercial and social responsibilities.
The front counter of the Gladstone Business Centre closed on 27 January 2012 due to the decreasing number of customers using the facility for posting mail and paying bills. The Gladstone Delivery Centre, which was co-located with the Business Centre, has expanded and improved its operations, particularly in managing the storage and delivery of an increasing parcels business.
Australia Post has advised that to ensure the continuity of service to its customers there are four retail outlets located within four kilometres of the Gladstone Business Centre:
Gladstone retail outlet (1.7 km);
Gladstone South Licensed Post Office (3.1 km);
Kin Cora Licensed Post Office (3.2); and
Clinton Community Postal Agency (4.1).
I trust this information will be of assistance.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy
Petition: Private Health Insurance
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of I March 2012 regarding a recent petition opposing means testing the private health insurance rebate.
The changes to the private health insurance rebate and Medicare levy surcharge will operate as follows from I July 2012:
|
Unchanged |
Tier I |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Singles Families |
˂ $84,000 |
$84,001-97,000 $168,001-194,000 |
$97,001-130,000 |
˃ $130,001 ˃ $260,00 I |
|
|
REBATE |
|
|
< Age 65 |
30% |
20% |
I 0% |
0% |
Age 65-69 |
35% |
25% |
15% |
0% |
Age 70+ |
40% |
30% |
20% |
0% |
MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE |
||||
All ages |
0.0% |
1.0% |
1.25% |
1.5% |
Note: The thresholds increase annually, based on growth in Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings. Single parents and couples (including de facto couples) are subject to the family tiers. For families with children, the thresholds are increased by $1,500 for each child after the first.
Nine out of ten Australians will not be affected by these changes at all. Single people earning less than $84,000 a year and couples or families earning less than $168,000 a year will keep their 30, 35 or 40 per cent rebate (depending on their age).
It is estimated that 99.7 per cent of people with private health insurance hospital cover will keep their insurance, with only 27,000 people dropping their cover. Last year from October to December alone, 50,000 people took up private health insurance. The private health insurance industry is strong and growing.
The small number of people who may drop private health insurance cover will not significantly burden public hospitals or cause premiums to increase.
Once again, thank you for writing.
from the Minister for Health, Ms Plibersek
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Mr Murphy
Petition regarding a request to reinstate lawn bowls broadcasting by the ABC
Thank you for your correspondence dated 19 March 2012, regarding a petition requesting the reinstatement of lawn bowls on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
I understand that in accordance with House Standing Order 209 (b) I am obliged to provide the Standing Committee on Petition with a response within 90 days of presentation.
I note that this petition is identical to a petition that was tabled in the House on 23 November 2011, to which the Australian Government tabled a response on 13 February 2012. I request that you refer this recent petitioner to the government's tabled response.
Thank you for bringing this important issue to my attention.
from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy
Asylum Seekers
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your letter of 15 December 2011 relating to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the Australian Government's proposed amendments to the Migration Act 1958, 'Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2011' (the Bill). I apologise for the delay in responding.
On 31 August 2011, the High Court of Australia made a decision which effectively removed the ability of the Government to pursue offshore processing under current legislation.
The main purpose of the Bill is to restore to the Executive the power to set Australia's border protection policies. In particular, the power to transfer asylum seekers arriving at excised offshore places to a range of designated third countries within the region, while ensuring protection from refoulement, and providing the opportunity for their claims to be processed.
The Government believes offshore processing, appropriately implemented with regional countries as part of an agreed regional framework, is the best way to respond to people smuggling while meeting Australia's obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the Refugees Convention). The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has also accepted that processing in a third country can be a workable arrangement. No single country acting alone can provide the whole range of solutions required to resolve the problems of displacement - it is a regional challenge that requires a regional solution.
As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres said in February 2012 while in Australia:
"… what is important is to guarantee that effective protection is granted, that people will not be refouled, that people can have humane reception conditions, they will not have arbitrary detention, that they have access to educational systems and employment. And so it's not only a question of knowing whether a country is or not signatory to the [Refugees] Convention, it's a question of knowing whether a country is able to fully respect these protection concerns."
The Government's view is that processing asylum claims in a third country is consistent with our international law obligations and accepted practice, so long as:
transferring the asylum seekers will not amount to refoulement under international human rights or refugee law (either directly or by the third country refouling them to another country); and
the asylum seekers will be given an opportunity to have their refugee status determined in that country.
The Transfer and Resettlement Arrangement with Malaysia was an important initiative under the Regional Cooperation Framework agreed to by the Bali Process members on 30 March 2011 and reflects these key tenets of the Refugees Convention.
The Arrangement was developed in close consultation with UNHCR and contains several protections and commitments from the Malaysian Government. This includes access to services and education supported by UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration, as well as a commitment to durable solutions through resettlement for those in need of protection and safe and dignified return for those not in need of protection.
As a party to the Refugees Convention, Australia takes its international obligations seriously and is committed to providing protection to refugees consistent with the obligations set out in the Refugees Convention. As a member of the international community, Australia shares responsibility for protecting refugees worldwide and resolving refugee situations through the system of international refugee protection.
The recent devastating Indonesian boat tragedies in November and December 2011, and the incident in Malaysian waters in February 2012 - in addition to the loss of life as a result of the SIEV 221 tragedy off Christmas Island in December 2010 - illustrate the significant dangers involved in irregular maritime journeys facilitated by people smugglers who seek to take advantage of vulnerable people. There is nothing humanitarian in having a system that encourages asylum seekers to risk their lives getting to Australia in order to be provided with protection. For this reason, the Government remains committed to the Malaysia Arrangement.
In the absence of legislative amendments required to enable the Government to implement the Arrangement, the Government has commenced working towards making greater use of existing powers to more flexibly manage and process irregular maritime arrivals to Australia. This includes greater use of community detention and bridging visas, on a case-by-case basis, to allow residence in the community while refugee claims are assessed. Individuals will continue to be subject to mandatory detention for initial health, identity and security checks. Individuals who present unacceptable risks to the community will continue to be placed in held detention.
I trust this information is of assistance.
from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Mr Bowen
Petition: Automotive Industry
Dear Mr Murphy
Thank you for your correspondence of 16 February 2012 to the then Minister for Manufacturing, Senator the Hon Kim Carr, concerning a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions (the Committee) regarding assistance for the Australian automotive manufacturing industry. Your letter has been forwarded to me for reply as I have portfolio responsibility for this matter.
I find it encouraging that Mr Darren Cheeseman MP, Member for Corangamite, has presented a petition to the Committee demonstrating widespread support for the Australian automotive industry.
The automotive industry is a major employer in Australia, with around 55,500 people working in the sector. By some estimates, a further 200,000 jobs directly depend on the automotive industry in industries such as steel, glass, plastics and services. Importantly, the automotive industry is a major driver of research and development in the economy, spending $668 million in 2009-10 on R&D and employing around 3,200 staff. This R&D benefits the entire economy, through the automotive industry's extensive linkages with other sectors, particularly the heavy engineering sector.
For these reasons, the Government is committed to securing the future of the automotive industry in Australia. This is why the Government introduced its automotive policy—A New Car Plan for a Greener Future (the Plan). Under the Plan, the Government is assisting the automotive industry to prepare for a low carbon future and to improve linkages with global markets and supply chains. The Plan gives the automotive industry the certainty it needs to invest in the vehicle technologies of tomorrow. It rewards research and development, innovation and productivity.
The Plan consists of:
a new, better targeted, greener assistance program, the Automotive Transformation Scheme (ATS), running from 2011 to 2020-21 and providing in excess of $3 billion to the industry;
changes to the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme in 2010 to smooth the transition to the ATS ($79.6 million);
$116.3 million to promote structural adjustment through mergers and consolidation in the components sector and facilitate labour market adjustment;
$20 million from 2009-10 to help suppliers improve their capabilities and their integration in complex national and global supply chains;
$6.3 million from 2009-10 for an enhanced market access program;
an Automotive Industry Innovation Council, bringing key decision makers together to drive innovation and reform; and
a $10.5 million expansion of the LPG vehicle scheme that doubles payments to purchasers of new private use vehicles that are factory fitted with LPG technology.
In addition, the Green Car Innovation Fund made around $500 million available to the industry and has leveraged major investments by the industry. For example, Toyota commenced production of the hybrid Camry in December 2009, Holden commenced production of the Cruze in 2010 and Ford will apply a fuel-efficient EcoBoost, four cylinder, turbo-charged engine to the Ford Falcon in 2012.
The Plan has contributed to successful trade missions to our traditional export markets and identified opportunities elsewhere in India and China. Last financial year, over $500 million in commercial business was facilitated through the Automotive Market Access Program.
More than 70 automotive product manufacturers are boosting productivity and competitiveness through the Automotive Supply Chain Development Program and the Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program.
The Government believes that the automotive industry needs consistency, clarity and certainty about its future and that is what the Plan provides until 2020.
With the ongoing support and encouragement of the Government under our blueprint for the automotive industry, I am confident that the local automotive manufacturing industry will remain one of that select group of 13 countries that has the capacity to design, build and sell cars.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the petition.
from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation, Mr Combet
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (10:05): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I would like to reflect on the origins of the House's current petitioning framework. In 2007, the House Procedure Committee examined the practices and procedures of petitioning the House. This inquiry culminated in significant recommended changes which were adopted by the House the following year. One of the recommendations, I am pleased to say, was for the establishment of a Petitions Committee. During its review the Procedure Committee adopted six essential principles of petitioning and I will now outline how these principles have been strengthened since the new arrangements began in 2008.
Firstly, petitions belong to the public. Underpinning this principle is the belief that petitions are the most direct form of communication between the public and the House and thus are an important part of our democracy. Secondly, petitions sent to the House should be addressed by the House. The Procedure Committee believed the establishment of a committee to facilitate the tabling of compliant petitions and to communicate with petitioners about the status of their petitions was an effective way for the House to address petitions received. Thirdly, governments should respond. The committee believed that strengthening the ministerial response process would ensure petitions are seen as a worthwhile democratic tool. Fourthly, members' involvement should be enhanced and streamlined. The committee recognised the important role members play in liaising with citizens, raising petition issues in the House and tabling petitions. It wanted better support for members to contribute to this process. Fifthly, rules should be relevant and fair. Importantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, preparing a petition should not be excessively difficult and the rules governing petitions should not prove unnecessarily onerous. And, finally, information technologies should be used more effectively. So, how do we measure up some four years after the committee's review? Firstly, petitioners continue to embrace the petitioning process, which currently remains a traditional paper based system. A greater number of petitions have already been received by the committee in the 43rd parliament than in the full 42nd parliament.
The Petitions Committee has provided not only a procedural function but also an educational, communication and facilitation role. The secretariat assists many prospective petitioners with information about petitioning requirements. This service has informed the committee that many petitions would not have met the basic petitioning requirements without this liaison.
The committee refers petitions to the relevant subject matter minister in cases where the issue has not recently been explored. Ninety-eight per cent of petitioners have enjoyed a response to their petition within the specified 90-day response period. Members are engaging with citizens in the petitioning process by ensuring petitioners get the information they need, by delivering petitions to the committee promptly and by either presenting petitions themselves or arranging presentation by me in my capacity as chair of the committee.
The standing orders governing petitioning were amended based on recommendations of the Procedure Committee to ensure that procedures were fair and that petitioning was acceptable. Next week I will discuss these, and the practical reasons why they were formulated as such.
Finally, in terms of principle 6 I can say that information technology has been more effectively utilised, both in disseminating information and in responding to requests. Petitioners are informed of tabled petitions and responses to these through direct correspondence or information published to dedicated committee web pages linked from the House of Representatives home page.
COMMITTEES
Australia's Immigration Detention Network Committee
Report
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:09): On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, I present the committee's final report, incorporating a dissenting report and additional comments.
At the time that the report was tabled out of session on 30 March I made a statement, and I think it is appropriate for most of that statement to be put on the parliamentary record.
Australia has for many years, and under consecutive governments, struggled with the challenge posed by irregular maritime arrivals. The sobering facts outlined in this report speak for themselves. This inquiry unfolded in a highly contested political scene, and it is no secret that the report had little chance of ever being unanimous. However, I am proud of the process and the manner in which we as a committee conducted the inquiry.
The committee received over 3,500 submissions and conducted 11 public hearings and site visits. These included visits to various detention facilities at Christmas Island, Darwin, Derby, Villawood, Adelaide, Weipa and Melbourne. The committee has made a total of 31 recommendations for the government to consider. These vary from straightforward procedural matters for the department and its contractors through to recommendations for the existing network, children in detention and processing of protection claims and security assessments, together with the implementation of the Hawke-Williams recommendations.
The committee's fundamental conclusion is that asylum seekers should reside in held detention for as little time as is practicable. Evidence overwhelmingly indicates that prolonged detention exacts a heavy toll on people and, most particularly, on their mental health and wellbeing. One study by the Physicians for Human Rights found clinically significant symptoms of depression were present in 86 per cent of detainees, anxiety in 77 per cent and post-traumatic stress disorder in 50 per cent.
The committee applauds the substantial efforts already underway to reduce the number of people in held detention. To date, over 3,700 people have either been placed in community detention or placed on bridging visas. A number of the recommendations are grounded in the desire to build on the successes of the community detention and bridging visa programs, or to point to other means to minimise time spent in detention. To this end, the committee recommends that all reasonable steps are taken to limit detention to 90 days. Where people are held any longer the reasons for their prolonged detention should be made public.
As a committee we grappled with the vexed issue of security assessments. The current system does not allow refugees to access the existing avenues for a merits review of adverse decisions. This results in practically indefinite detention for detainees with adverse assessments. It is necessary to provide procedural fairness in a system where a person's liberty is at stake, while being mindful of the need to keep security sources and procedures confidential. The committee believes the current system does not strike an appropriate balance.
Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the ASIO legislation be amended to allow the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review ASIO security assessments of asylum seekers and refugees. In my forward to the report, at page xii, I had the following to say:
… the Committee grappled with the question of security assessments, and the fact that the current system bars refugees from accessing existing avenues for a merits review of adverse decisions, resulting in practically indefinite detention for detainees with adverse assessments. While it is necessary to be mindful of the need to keep security sources and procedures confidential, the overwhelming imperative to provide procedural fairness in the system cannot be ignored where a person's liberty is at stake. The Committee believes the current system does not strike an appropriate balance. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) legislation be amended to allow the Security Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review ASIO security assessments of asylum seekers and refugees.
The Committee has recommended implementing further safeguards in the security assessment process, including periodic internal reviews of adverse ASIO assessments, and the exploration of whether control orders (currently used in the criminal justice system) could allow for the release from held detention of those refugees and asylum seekers who are in indefinite detention or cannot be repatriated.
I make the point publicly that I do not believe we can say that there is not one person in the whole of Australia who can adequately reassess security assessments delivered by ASIO and still have no threat to security. Of course we can; we just need to get on and do it. I actually think that having a system like that protects ASIO. It does not detract from ASIO. There is a saying, 'who guards the guard while the guard guards you'—it is applicable. I also want to say that given the enormous human and financial cost of held detention as well, the committee has reached the fundamental conclusion that less harmful and far more cost-effective alternatives are available and should be pursued.
I want to thank the members of the opposition; they supported 16 recommendations without condition and another three of the 31 recommendations with some modifications. I want to thank the secretariat, who were exceptional in the conduct of the inquiry, and other members of the committee—I think the cooperation that was extended on the committee did the parliament proud. And I want to thank Senator Hanson-Young, who is the deputy chair.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (10:14): I rise to speak to the report which has been tabled. This report was principally about the riots that took place just over a year ago. In March 2011, Australia's immigration detention network descended into chaos. There were riots, there were fires, there was violence, there were mass break-outs and there were attacks on detainees, Commonwealth officers, Australian staff and Federal Police, first at Christmas Island and just a few weeks later at Villawood. Australians watched in disbelief as Federal Police were forced to retake a Commonwealth facility in the middle of the night by force. The nation was rightly appalled. The coalition has demanded answers in this parliament. It was the coalition who moved that a parliamentary inquiry be established into what happened and, more broadly, the issues within the detention network. When this was first put forward, the government dismissed this as a stunt; they only later recanted and were forced to support the inquiry after the coalition gained the support of members of this parliament in the House and in the Senate.
The rolling crisis that overwhelmed our immigration detention network was the product not of a mandatory detention policy but of a simple failure of a border protection policy that resulted in too many people turning up on too many boats. What these events demonstrated is that you cannot run an effective immigration detention network under a mandatory detention policy if you are not going to support a strong border protection policy regime at the same time, as was practised by the Howard government.
The Hawke-Williams review found that these incidents were not entirely unpredictable. There had been numerous reports and events that indicated that a major event was brewing. Critical amongst these was the draft received from Knowledge Consulting by DIAC in May 2010, which was briefed to the then Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans, and also to the department secretary. That report said:
… it is likely that a serious incident will occur in the next six months and highly likely during the next twelve months … North West Point Immigration Detention Centre is overcrowded and understaffed … staff and client safety is compromised … client mental well being is at risk … the potential to escalate into a serious incident or incidents … far too many clients accommodated in NWP for the current capacity of the infrastructure … Lilac Compound in a High Risk category … hunger strikes and self harming, riots, burning and trashing of infrastructure, mass escapes, serious injuries to IMA's and staff' …
All of this was in the report received by the minister in May 2010. It is not surprising, then, that when the detention population had risen to 6½ thousand IMAs in detention, up from just four when the coalition left office, and serious incidents were occurring at a rate of one every 5½ hours in the first quarter of 2011, as opposed to one per month at the end of 2009, the Hawke-Williams review found that significant overcrowding, an increase in the length of detention time and 'the increasing proportion of detainees on negative pathways' all contributed to the situation that presented itself.
But, as our inquiry found in the report submitted by coalition members, these events and these forces did not occur spontaneously. They were a result of the government's decision to abolish the proven border protection regime inherited from the Howard government; the refusal of Senator Evans as Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to take action on that draft report he received in May 2010 either to restore the policies that worked, to abolish the discriminatory asylum freeze that had put the system under even further pressure or to take steps to further expand the detention network to cope with the rising rates of failure of the government's policies; the inability of Minister Bowen to adequately reduce the population as a result of the lack of expansion in the network when it was needed; the failure of Minister Bowen to comprehensively respond to clear warnings of escalating tensions, including security weaknesses identified in physical infrastructure; the failure to ensure that clear joint operational procedures for key agencies working with DIAC were in place; the failure to resolve the ambiguity of roles and responsibilities, particularly in relation to state and federal police; and the failure to send DIAC back to the table with Serco to renegotiate the contract to ensure that the arrangements that were in place were able to deal with the rising level of failures.
This is a serious report, and I want to commend the chair on the way he handled this inquiry. I particularly commend Tim Watling and his staff at the committee secretariat. The findings in here, as outlined by the coalition and as found in the Hawke-Williams review, sound a very clear warning to this government: if you do not restore proven border protection policies, you can expect further chaos. Last night 175 people turned up on the biggest boat to turn up since February 2010. There are as many people in the detention network today as there were when they set fire to the immigration detention facilities in March 2011.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:19): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report and Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (10:19): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:20): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 429: review of the 2010-11 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report, incorporating a dissenting report. On 6 December 2006, the JCPAA unanimously agreed to recommend that the Australian National Audit Office receive additional funding to produce an annual report on progress in major defence projects. This report would detail cost, schedule and capability information for a number of large acquisition projects. The government agreed with that recommendation and approved funding for the report in the May 2008 budget. The committee's purpose in recommending funding for the annual major projects report was to provide a means by which accessible, transparent and accurate information could be made available to the parliament and the Australian public about the state of defence major acquisition projects.
The Defence Materiel Organisation 2010-11major projects report is the fourth MPR to be produced by DMO and the third to be reviewed and reported on by the committee. Therefore the committee has had the opportunity to continue to monitor and evaluate issues raised in previous inquiries. This experience in examining the functioning of the DMO MPR over time has enabled the committee to make recommendations that will improve the quality of the MPR and increase its usefulness for external stakeholders. I am pleased to inform the House that there has been an overall improvement in the preparation and presentation of data in the 2010-11 MPR and that we are now seeing largely unqualified audits being presented. In the committee's inquiry into the 2009-10 MPR, it recommended that the DMO address the ongoing issue of the presentation of financial data in base date dollars. I take pleasure in announcing that, after considerable effort on the part of the DMO and the ANAO, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit has agreed with these organisations to now accept the presentation of financial data in what are known as 'out-turned dollar' terms, which should lead to better reporting. I acknowledge that it is a small win, and somewhat of a bureaucratic win, but an important one all the same.
I also update the House on the continued identification of inconsistent internal management systems across projects. Despite some action being taken to improve the quality of information provided for the MPR, expected consistency of business systems improvements has not yet been achieved. This is an area the committee will continue to monitor and to work on with both the DMO and the ANAO.
The committee has made three recommendations to improve the quality of information provided to the public via the MPR. The first is that the Defence Materiel Organisation provide more information on activities being undertaken to minimise schedule slippage—that is, when a project falls behind schedule. The second recommends administrative changes to the way the DMO and the ANAO work together to draft the guidelines that shape the whole exercise of the MPR. The third requires the DMO to examine the way in which external stakeholders use the MPR process, and to report back to the committee for further consideration.
The committee's public hearing was spirited and informative, and while there was some disagreement amongst the committee's membership on the handling of one issue in particular within the report, it must be acknowledged that such debate is healthy, shows that all members are strongly committed to the work of the committee and, ultimately, leads to better outcomes over time. It has become clear that the DMO has made improvements in its reporting through the MPR over the past few years, and that many of the growing pains associated with the MPR have been dealt with. However, there is still more work to do, and the committee will continue to work with the DMO and the ANAO to get everything right.
This sounds a very dry exercise, but it is $41 billion annually of taxpayers' money and 28 major projects in defence capability that are in question, and this is important and fundamental work in achieving the best accountability and efficiency this House is capable of on behalf of Australian taxpayers. In commending the report to the House I thank all committee members for the work they have done. I also once again thank sincerely the work of the committee secretariat, led by David Brunoro as secretariat head.
I commend the report to the House.
In accordance with standing order 39(f) the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (10:25): I rise to speak briefly on the report that has just been tabled by the member for Lyne and Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit: Review of the 2010-11 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report. The chair has already outlined how these reports have transpired over the last few years, and the fact that the 2010-11 Defence Materiel Organisation major projects report is the fourth MPR to be produced by the DMO and the third to be reviewed and reported on by the committee. Therefore, the committee has had the opportunity, as stated by the chair, to continue to monitor and evaluate issues raised in previous inquiries.
This experience in examining the functioning of the DMO major projects report over time has enabled the committee to make recommendations that will improve the quality of the MPR and increase its usefulness for external stakeholders. It is a positive step forward that the DMO and the Australian National Audit Office have reached an agreement that financial data based in date dollars are now to be reported in out-turned dollar terms, which should lead to better reporting. I expect there will still be ongoing discussions as to how that is presented within the report, but it is certainly a positive step forward and should see audit reports now being presented that are largely unqualified, which was the sticking point in past reports that the committee has received.
Of course, there are still improvements in internal management systems across projects that need to be undertaken in this area and, as the chair has stated, the committee will continue to monitor and work with the DMO and the ANAO to achieve these outcomes. The committee has made three recommendations to improve the quality of information provided to the public via the major projects reports, and these recommendations have just been outlined by the chair in tabling the report.
The chair has also stated that the DMO has made improvements in reporting through the MPR over the past few years, and this is a positive step forward. It is not an easy document to read, but we are talking about billions of dollars of investment in major projects for the Defence Force. This document provides an opportunity for the committee to further investigate whether the stakeholders understand the document and whether it is providing transparency and readability for those stakeholders in the way the report is tabled. I look forward to having some discussions with those stakeholders in the future to see if there are further improvements that can be made to the report.
However, there is more to be done. The committee will continue to work with the DMO and the ANAO to get everything right, as the chair has stated. I thank the chair for all of his work with this committee and the non-partisan way in which the committee operates, and I thank the secretariat for its ongoing support. I commend the report to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Burke ): Does the member for Lyne wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr OAKESHOTT: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report and Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:28): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:29): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report entitled Report 430: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos. 47 (2010 11) to 9 (2011-12) and reports Nos. 10 to 23 (2011-12), and an executive minute received by the committee, which constitutes the government response to JCPAA Report 418—Review of Auditor-General’s reports Nos 04 to 38 2009-10, recommendations 2 and 3.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr OAKESHOTT: The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, as prescribed by its act, examines all reports of the Auditor-General and reports the results of the committee's deliberations to the parliament. This report details the findings of the committee's examination of three performance audits selected for further scrutiny from the 34 audit reports presented to parliament by the Auditor-General between June 2011 and February 2012.
The committee's focus in examining these audit reports was on transparency and accountability—particularly in terms of decision-making and performance measurement. Following the committee's policy inquiry into national funding agreements and our ongoing interest in performance measurement, we continue to examine the findings of the ANAO's multi-agency review of key performance indicators. The outcomes and programs framework is in its third year yet the audit showed that agencies continued to find it challenging to develop meaningful and measurable KPIs.
After hearing evidence from the ANAO and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, we concluded that Finance needs to do more to engage and support agencies, improve guidance and include best practice models for developing KPIs. Work also needs to be done to improve the integration of KPIs in key accountability documents to ensure a clear read.
Another area of ongoing concern is grant administration. With the release of a damning audit report on the $150 million Infrastructure Employment Projects stream of the Jobs Fund, we felt it was necessary to further examine the findings. This stream did not achieve the anticipated economic stimulus objectives within the designated timeframe. There were questions over the project selection process and a range of administrative deficiencies were identified, including departure from the Commonwealth grant guidelines.
In its appearance before the committee, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport provided some indication that it was now working to implement sounder governance structures. However, the lack of acknowledgement of the problems found in this audit and the provision of incomplete responses to questions on notice provided little reassurance that adequate steps have been taken to ensure that identified problems would not be repeated in future programs. As such, we have recommended that the ANAO include the department in an audit that is currently underway into agencies' implementation of audit recommendations. The committee will continue to watch closely for evidence of improvement from this particular department.
The IEP audit report raised questions more broadly regarding the Commonwealth grant guidelines, so the committee has decided to examine a subsequent ANAO report on the administration of grant reporting obligations. The billions of dollars provided each year through grants require full transparency and accountability. The Commonwealth grant guidelines must be clear and there must be support for agencies to implement the guidelines and other requirements. In turn, ministers should have sufficient support from their agencies to ensure decisions can stand up to full public scrutiny. Yet the ANAO found that agencies did not seem clear on the requirements and did not take advantage of best practice models and this seems to be repeating itself over time. Competitive grant selection processes are being significantly underutilised, and ministers are receiving inadequate departmental support.
The committee acknowledges the work of the Department of Finance and Deregulation in developing the guidelines, providing updates and, most recently, in the release of model chief executive instructions. Nevertheless, we continue to see noncompliance and confusion.
Following the committee's release of ANAO's supporting documentation relating to ministerial under-reporting of grant approvals, there were a number of exchanges between the ministers named and the Auditor-General. These statements and letters disputed the categorisation of grants that should have been reported to the finance minister. The committee has since agreed to the public release of these letters on the JCPAA website in the interests of transparency and accountability.
Clearly, there are still practical problems with the system. Not only do the guidelines need to be clarified, but agencies need sufficient support to follow them. The finance department was provided ongoing funding to support agencies through the grants framework unit, but chose to redirect the funding to areas reviewing the broader financial framework. While we accept that grants are a subset of the framework, Finance missed the opportunity to maximise momentum following the introduction of the Commonwealth grant guidelines.
I have more to say but in closing I would like to sincerely thank each committee member for the non-partisan spirit of the work done and once again thank the committee secretariat for their work. (Time expired)
In accordance with standing order 39(f), the report was made a parliamentary paper.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (10:34): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak briefly in support of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report No. 430: Review of Auditor-General's reports Nos 47 (2010-11) to 9 (2011-12) and reports Nos 10 to 23 (2011-12).I do so as the Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
The chair has already outlined the role of the committee in reviewing the audit reports each year. The committee continues to take a pro-active role in pursuing opportunities for improvements in transparency and accountability, particularly in terms of decision making and performance measurement. The three reports were viewed by the committee in Audit report No. 430, Audit report No. 5 2011-12: Development and implementation of key performance indicators to support the outcomes and programs framework, Audit report No. 7 2011-12: Establishment, implementation and administration of the infrastructure employment project stream of the Jobs Fund, and Audit report No. 21 2011-12: Administration of grant reporting obligations.
With these reports and many like them across other agencies the committee has identified, during this term of parliament, that there needs to be ongoing improvement in the way in which Commonwealth guidelines are adhered to by agencies. Whether it is the grant guidelines or procurement guidelines, there are deficiencies in the way that those guidelines are being followed and adhered to by agencies and in the support that they are getting in clarifying and implementing those guidelines. The committee believes that there is a strong role to be played by the Department of Finance and Deregulation in providing guidance and clarity around agencies' responsibilities; however, it is fair to say that agencies themselves need to be taking more responsibility in the way they administer their obligations. The committee acknowledges the work of the finance department in developing the guidelines, providing updates and, most recently, the release of model chief executive instructions. I take note of the evidence that we have received from the finance department that, although they provide all of that guidance and assistance and there can be improvements in what they are providing, the fact is the agencies do stand alone. It is, at the end of the day, their obligation to ensure that those guidelines are being followed appropriately. This report makes recommendations to assist in continuous improvement in the areas of transparency and accountability, and the committee will continue to monitor the progress in these areas.
I wish to briefly go specifically to Audit report No. 21 2011-12 as it has attracted some media around it. The chair has already outlined that there was correspondence between the relevant ministers and the Australian National Audit Office in relation to the issue of declarations by the ministers of any grants within their electorates. This correspondence will form part of the public record for all to view. I think it is fair to say that, because of some of the media reports that have gone on around this issue, the evidence before the committee states that there is no deliberate act by the ministers in not declaring those grants within their electorates. The deficiencies do lie within the agencies and the briefings provided to those ministers, and it is expected that agencies' briefings to ministers in the future will clearly outline where a grant actually falls within a minister's electorate and advise of the need to provide notification of such grant to the finance department. So the Australian National Audit Office report and this report of the committee clearly outline that there are failings in the way agencies brief ministers, and that certainly needs to be improved on. But I do acknowledge that it was this government that brought that process into place in the first place. It is a process worth pursuing and improving on.
In closing, I would like to sincerely thank the chair and each of the committee members for their ongoing support and willingness to work together in a non-partisan manner to deliver these reports. I am also thankful for the ongoing support of the secretariat in the committee's ongoing work.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ) (10:39): The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Lyne wish to move a motion in connection with that report to enable it to be debated at a later occasion?
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:39): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Does the honourable member for Lyne wish to move a motion to refer the matter to the Federation Chamber?
Report and Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (10:40): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Robert.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (10:40): I present the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012 and the explanatory memorandum. I, like my coalition colleagues, believe strongly in supporting not only our Australian Defence Force personnel but also their families: their spouses and their dependants. Spouses or partners of ADF members and their dependants give so much to our nation. They are the ones who enable our ADF personnel. They are the ones who have the biggest influence on whether our ADF personnel choose to remain in the service of their nation in uniform. They are the ones who offer the greatest support to their serving family members. They are the ones who so often experience the greater hardships, the greater stresses, constant rotations, in many cases constant deployments and certainly constant training schedules. They are the ones who know sacrifices that few of us ever will. For the families of those who fight I am pleased to be able to introduce this bill on behalf of the coalition.
Simply put, the bill will ensure that spouses and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members—those serving members from other countries' militaries who seek to come and serve our country under our flag—will be able to gain citizenship at the same time as their serving ADF member. It is the right and fair thing to do. It is just. It honours those who honour us. ADF lateral transfers are members who have served in another nation's military and have subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Australian Defence Force. They come from a wide variety of countries, including New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom—and, of course, in publications we saw in newsprint on the weekend, a large number of US personnel are also seeking to join our military. At present the majority of lateral transfer members are still coming from the United Kingdom's Royal Navy, Royal Marines, army or air force.
The Australian Defence Force has a long and proud record of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. We do so in order to fill current capability gaps in our own armed forces. We do it only where it suits the parent country. For example, the Royal Australian Navy is presently taking advantage of the United Kingdom's strategic defence and security review, which amongst other things is reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services. It is in this context and this move by the Cameron government that the Royal Australian Navy is increasing its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill our capability gaps within our own ranks. It could take over a decade to recruit, train and skill engineers, pilots or other personnel with exceptionally high levels of skill. Having these personnel with these skills transfer from other militaries into ours saves the Commonwealth enormous time and enormous money.
The ADF is presently looking to recruit on their own numbers approximately 300 lateral transfer personnel each year. Importantly, 90 per cent of these ADF lateral transfer members have families that they would be looking to bring to Australia. It is the care for these families that is foremost in the mind of the decision maker: the lateral transfer member who is seeking to join the ADF. In terms of the Australian Citizenship Act, all lateral transfers are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before a member can take up a position within the Australian Defence Force and move to Australia. This is necessary as all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens and permanent residency is a prerequisite to citizenship. Spouses, partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members, at the time of moving to Australia, are afforded permanent residency, but they are not afforded citizenship in line with the lateral transfer member. Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, sections 21(2)(c) and 23(a)(i) and (ii), a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days permanent service in the ADF or six months in the ADF Reserves. These sections are regularly used in support of lateral transfer ADF members. The provision for 'early' citizenship under the act does not apply to the spouse or partner of the ADF member. Nor does it include dependants aged 16 or over—that is, those who cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application.
This situation can, and does, lead to discord within families of lateral transfer ADF members. For example, Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members not only serving extensively within our ranks here at home training, but also serving in combat operations. Should such a member be killed in training or in operations, there appears to be no legislative basis or guarantee that their spouse or dependants would be able to stay in Australia or have access to the range of benefits normally payable to the spouses and dependants of Australian ADF members.
This has been taken up with the government and, while I appreciate that the government has made assurances that support would be provided to their families, this is little comfort when there appears to be little evidence of such assurances. There is no reason that such assurances should not be enshrined in law. This is one purpose of this private member's bill in this place this morning—to provide that peace of mind to the over 300 lateral recruits who will be transferring to the ADF in the next 12 months and to their families. There are also significant issues for dependants of ADF lateral transfer members. For example, as permanent residents they are not eligible to receive a university HELP based placement, which may put a significant financial strain on families.
There also appears to be significant and fundamental disjunct between the interpretation of the current act and the departmental immigration policy as it applies to children who are permanent residents. While the act definitively states, under section 21(5), that a person under the age of 18 is eligible to become an Australian citizen if they are a permanent resident, departmental advice states that they must have fulfilled the general residency requirement—despite the fact that the legislation makes no mention of this requirement.
This bill will correct these problems and ensure families are not unnecessarily subjected to significant hardship. The simple fact is that the current legislation can lead to distress for families and should be changed. The bill removes the discriminatory provisions in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 that result in ADF members being granted citizenship years in advance of their partner and dependants over certain ages. The bill reflects the fact that, behind and beside every serving member is a supporting, serving family. The bill reflects the fact that we request, we desire, we want, serving men and women from other militaries to come and stand, serve and fight side by side with Australian citizens. But, to achieve that, we need to embrace their families and treat them equally.
I simply call on the government to support this bill. I also call on the Independents to support these sensible, fair and much needed measures. The policy in the bill is wholly welcomed and supported by Defence Families of Australia. Defence Families of Australia has been a wonderful advocate on behalf of Defence families and across a wide range of issues, ranging from defence housing to spousal support, and is vocal about the need to fix this inequity in terms of the families of ADF lateral transfer members. I know that my opposite, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, holds the Defence Families of Australia organisation in high regard. I have stood by his side when he has made that point. I thank Defence Families of Australia for their continual advocacy.
In conclusion, the coalition fully appreciates the sacrifices that ADF members and their families make, including those members who have come under lateral transfer arrangements. We also recognise the importance of ensuring tight family groupings, and we consider the current lateral transfer arrangements to be failing in promoting this outcome. This bill will simply remove the inequitable treatment of spouses and dependants of lateral transfer members. It will ensure that they all have access to citizenship at the same time. It will ensure that spouses and dependent children of lateral transfer members have access to the same benefits as the spouses and dependent children of the serving men and women their husbands or wives serve beside. This bill will provide families with the peace of mind that, in the event of their father, their mother, their wife or their husband being killed in training or in operational service to the nation, they will be unambiguously, properly cared for.
I commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Georganas.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (10:50): It gives me great pride to introduce my private member's bill, the Do Not Knock Register Bill 2012. This bill establishes a register that will allow consumers to opt out of receiving door-to-door sales and marketing calls at home. It is designed to address significant and sustained community concern about the impact of door-to-door sales calls on home and family life.
I have been contacted by many constituents in my electorate who have signed contracts whose details they were unaware of, who felt the pressure on their front doorstep to sign contracts to buy products from telcos, energy companies et cetera. I have also received many calls from people referred to me by the Leon Byner Program. I would like to thank Leon Byner and 5AA for their concern on this issue. Many, many callers were referred to our office asking us to investigate door-to-door sales contracts they had signed that were completely different to what they had been told. It also pursues one of the key objectives of the ACCC this year—to address unconscionable door-to-door selling. This bill will end any confusion and it will give a clear legal obligation for companies not to knock on the door of people listed on the register.
At the heart of the bill is the principle that everyone has the right to peace and privacy in their own homes. Too often these days a knock on the door or a ring of the doorbell means an intrusion by a salesperson into our home and our life. We have all experienced these feelings of dread when the doorbell rings, perhaps just as you have sat down to dinner or when you are reading the paper on a Saturday morning. There is someone there from an energy company, a phone company or an internet company and you just know that they are going to try to sell you something, that you probably do not want or need.
As they start talking you begin to wonder how you can politely tell them that you are not interested. But they are very persistent—I think all of us have been through this—and before you know it they are asking all about your energy company or phone plan: what your current rate is, how much you pay and how much you consume. If you are assertive enough—many of us in this place are—you might tell them at that point that you are not interested, and they will leave it at that. That is fine for a lot of people but for many consumers that is not the case. If you are elderly or living alone it can be very difficult to say no to a pushy salesperson.
I have lost count of the number of times constituents have walked through my office door and burst into tears because they have been forced to pay for something that they do not want and cannot even afford. Usually they come in with a bill or two, often a final notice, and they explain that they felt so much pressure to sign up that they did so, and now are having trouble paying the bill. Often they have been the victim of misleading and deceptive conduct, like the promise of particular benefits or savings which never materialise.
Frequently, consumers and constituents tell me that they only signed up for the company because they felt quite intimated by the salesperson and thought it was the only way to get them to leave. Usually, these are older people living alone or people from other vulnerable groups—the disabled and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds—and appear to have been specifically targeted.
Unfortunately, with one in five people in my electorate being over the age of 66, Hindmarsh is considered to be a prime target area for door-to-door salespeople. It is also a very multicultural area with a big ethnic mix, and I have seen a lot of people who have limited English language skills become victims of high-pressure sales tactics, and even outright deceit by salespeople.
In fact, until recently my own mother used to have a new phone company every week and I have had to teach her how to say 'No, thank you,' to all the people who knock on her door. She is quite good at it now. So this bill will not only protect the rights of all to peace and privacy in their own homes but also help protect some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
We know that there is big community support for this bill. As I said earlier, many constituents have contacted me—as well as a whole range of other people including the media—saying that this is a good thing. Some recent research by the Consumer Action Law Centre found that 85 per cent of respondents were in favour of a do-not-knock register. They also found that only three per cent of people have a positive opinion about door-to-door sales; 77 per cent actively dislike door-to-door sales; and 56 per cent of people feel greater pressure to buy from door-to-door sales reps as opposed to other selling environments.
Best of all, we know that this particular model already works. The Do Not Knock Register Bill is based on the existing Do Not Call Register, which, since its establishment, has been overwhelmingly embraced by telephone account holders. In November 2011 the total registrations hit seven million, which include more than half of Australia's fixed line home numbers. And not only has it been very successful in terms of take-up, but we know that it is very effective. In November 2011, 88 per cent of people on the Do Not Call Register have reported a reduction in the number of telemarketing calls they receive.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority, which runs the register, has also had great success in pursuing breaches of the Do Not Call Register Act. Like the Do Not Call Register, this bill has hefty financial penalties for salespeople and companies who do not comply with the law. Penalties for breaching the provisions of the act include infringement notices, injunctions and civil penalties.
It is important to note that this bill does not affect some key public interest organisations including government bodies, charities, religious organisations, politicians and political candidates. It is specifically designed to cover marketers that affect your back pocket. For example, we do not want to stop the Salvation Army from conducting their Red Shield Appeal, which took place over the most recent weekend.
For this reason the Do Not Knock Register, like the Do Not Call Register, has special provisions for charities, religious organisations, politicians and educational organisations to allow them to continue to make house calls. Since I first proposed the legislation it has been greatly encouraging to receive an enormous amount of support not only from my own electorate but from people across Australia. I have received many letters, phone calls, emails and messages from people from all corners of our nation in support of the legislation.
But the campaign has been building for some time. Consumer Action Law Centre's sticker-based Do Not Knock campaign, has been so successful in the community already that it has been embraced by governments, including the government of my state, South Australia. But until now there has been some uncertainty about the legal status of the stickers.
This bill will end any confusion and it will give a clear legal obligation for companies not to knock on the doors of people who have opted to list on the register. Of course, the bill will build on the existing provisions in the Australian consumer law which came into full effect on 1 January 2011, and has done a lot to improve consumer rights.
Under the ACL, door-to-door salespeople are restricted in their door-to-door calls to between 9am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and 9am and 5pm on Saturday. This means that even if you choose not to be on the Do Not Knock Register you are still provided with some protection against intrusion into your home and family life. Under the ACL, door-to-door salespeople must also offer a cooling-off period—a set time frame in which you can return the goods and get your money back if you change your mind. As of 1 January 2012, this is now 10 days, and this will apply to anyone who does conduct door-to-door sales into the future. If the salesperson does not tell you about the cooling-off period, you are entitled to an even longer cooling-off period. These are good things that have been put in place and I would like to acknowledge the minister, who is here in the chamber with us today.
There are a number of very important elements within the ACL that will provide key protections even to those who choose not to register with the Do Not Knock register. I thank all the community members in Hindmarsh who contacted me over the years to tell me about their experiences with door-to-door sales. I spoke to, and received letters and emails from, many people who told me of their plight and their stories about how they felt pressured into signing a contract only to find out that the telco they had gone with had doubled the price or the energy company was far more expensive. The calls of all these people, the letters, their calls to the Leon Byner show on 5AA—many of which we investigated—have not gone unnoticed, and today is their day. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Lyons ): In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Economy
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia's economy is strong, resilient and outperforming any comparable nation;
(b) Australia's unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent is historically low when compared to Europe and the United States;
(c) the International Monetary Fund ranks Australia's 2011 per capita GDP as sixth, ahead of 176 other nations; and
(d) Australia's government net debt as a percentage of GDP, which at peaked at 8.9 per cent, is extremely low when compared to nations such as Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) living conditions for Australians are the best in the world;
(b) Australia was ranked second in the 2011 United Nations Human Development Index; and
(c) Australia was ranked first in the 2011 OECD Better Life Index; and
(3) the Australian economy is becoming a knowledge economy with the finance sector accounting for more of the total economy than mining or manufacturing.
Australia's economic fundamentals are among the strongest in the world. Our economy has grown by more than seven per cent of its pre-crisis level of output and is expected to outperform every major advanced economy over the next two years. We have low unemployment at 4.9 per cent, with around 800,000 jobs created since this government came into office in 2007. We have a record investment pipeline, and economic prospects in our region remain very healthy. We have strong public finances and a AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies for the first time in Australia's history.
Our economy is the envy of the developed world because Labor has made the tough calls and the right calls in a tough economic climate. We did this by most recently doing exactly what we promised: delivering on major reforms and returning the budget to surplus. We were able to achieve this through supporting growth and jobs at the height of the global financial crisis under the stewardship of the world's best Treasurer, and we avoided the untold damage done to so many families, communities and economies around the world. Looking at other economies, it is clear that no economy is immune to global instability. Global developments in Europe have triggered volatility in global financial markets and the Treasurer anticipates that Europe's economy will contract by three-quarters of one per cent this year and that bouts of global volatility are likely to continue for some time. Even in this difficult economic climate Australia has managed to come through the greatest economic crisis since the depression as the envy of the world.
One of the many reasons we are the envy of the developed world is our exceptional record of job creation. Just two days after the budget we got a clear demonstration of what strong economic management is all about. Figures showed that there were more people in the workforce than ever before—just over 11.5 million Australians. Nearly 90,000 more people have gained the security and the dignity of a job so far this year, taking the total number of jobs created since Labor came to office to around 800,000. This is a big achievement, particularly when you consider that over the same period about 27 million men and women have joined unemployment queues elsewhere in the world. It is another indication of our economy's resilience despite the pressures of the high dollar, cautious consumer spending and ongoing global uncertainty, all of which are weighing on many businesses. Australia's unemployment rate at 4.9 per cent is among the lowest in the industrialised world and well ahead of the United States at 8.1 per cent, the United Kingdom at 8.3 per cent, France at 9.8 per cent and Spain at 24.4 per cent.
It is not just our employment record that puts Australia in a league of its own. The IMF ranks Australia's 2011 per capita GDP as sixth ahead of 176 other nations and we are returning the budget to surplus in 2012-13 before many of our peers have even halved their deficits. Our economy is forecast to grow faster than every single major advanced economy over the next two years. It is also important to highlight that Australia's government net debt as a percentage of GDP peaked at 8.9 per cent, which is extremely low when compared to nations such as Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.
The 2012-13 budget was a Labor budget—a budget that recognised Australian families are feeling cost-of-living pressures and need a hand up. We know that Australians already have some of the best living conditions in the world, but in the latest budget we made sure that those Australians who are feeling the pinch most are able to share in some of the benefits of our mining boom and our strong economic fundamentals. The Labor budget demonstrated that you do not need to choose between a surplus and good social policy that will strengthen our economy and improve living conditions for the most vulnerable groups in Australia's society.
Few in our society are more vulnerable than those who will benefit from the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This scheme will provide Australians who have a significant and permanent disability with the care and support they need to participate in society, no matter where they live or how they acquired their disability. As the country's most fundamental social policy reform since Medicare, the scheme will take some time to implement. We know that we need to work through the details with the state and territory governments; we also know that this reform cannot wait. That is why $1 billion in the budget has been allocated to this reform. From July 2013, a year ahead of schedule, launch locations around the country will start to lift the standard of help for around 10,000 people with a significant and permanent disability, and the number of people receiving this help will grow to 20,000 from mid-2014. I know that those of us from Queensland—the member for Moreton, I am sure, feels the same way—really hope that the state government wants one of the launch locations to be in Queensland. I talk to many families in my electorate every day who are caring for loved ones with a disability, and I understand the pressures they are facing. We do need these launch locations to start as quickly as possible, and I want to see one of the launch locations in Queensland.
This reform is just one of many that the government has made. Another of these reforms is the securing of funding in the budget for aged-care reform. This is another very important issue for the electorate of Petrie. There are many seniors in my electorate, and many want to know what the future of aged care is. Are they going to be able to stay at home for as long as they would like to and have someone care for them at home? When they or their family makes the difficult decision that they need to move into a nursing home, will help be there and will there be an aged-care system that can support them in the long term? Also, the government is delivering a dental package that will ensure that all Australians are able to benefit from our strong economic fundamentals. There are many people on the public dental waiting lists in the electorate of Petrie, and this package will go a long way to assisting those people. Reforms such as these are exactly the reason that Australia is ranked second in the 2011 United Nations Human Development Index and first in the 2011 OECD Better Life Index. These are really important achievements and reflect not just on Labor's sound fiscal management, which promotes good living conditions, but also on the values, resilience and dedication to fairness of all Australians.
Finally, I urge that the House acknowledge that the Australian economy is becoming a knowledge economy. The finance sector accounts for more of the total economy than do mining or manufacturing. In addition, we know that the small business sector is one of the drivers of the Australian economy. Nearly five million Australians are employed by small businesses, and 96 per cent of all businesses are small businesses. These provide 47 per cent of the nation's jobs, which means that about 4.8 million employees are employed by small businesses. Across the electorate of Petrie there are over 12,000 small businesses. This Labor government is acting in the interests of these businesses and of our communities through responsible fiscal policy, and the government will continue to work in the interests of this nation in keeping our economy strong, resilient and outperforming that of any comparable nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Mr PERRETT: I second the motion.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (11:11): I rise to speak on the motion moved by the member for Petrie. In beginning I say that this place deals with two great responsibilities. One is ensuring Australia's national security; the other is the management of the national economy in the best interests of all Australians. I congratulate the member for Petrie for raising this motion today and bringing the attention of the House to the Australian economy, but that is where the congratulations must end. That contribution was as delusional as the contribution we will hear in this House in about 50 minutes time.
This government is causing five great problems for our economy and for our future. There are two things I will pick the member for Petrie up on. The first is that governments do not create jobs; entrepreneurs—wealth creators—create jobs. But all they see at the moment, particularly from the Treasurer, is constant attacks on them and their ability to go out and create those jobs. We have heard the rhetoric of the last few weeks. Jacques Nasser, the chairman of the BHP board and one of Australia's most respected businesspeople, said last week that the attacks—the class warfare—that this government is pursuing is dragging our economy down even further.
The second thing I must raise with the member for Petrie's contribution is that the reforms of today will affect the economy of the future, just as the reforms of yesterday affect how the economy operates today. If we look at history, we can point to the fact that the reforms of the Howard and Costello era were the reasons that Australia was able to successfully handle the crisis that came about in 2008. Undoubtedly the reforms of the 2000s introduced by John Howard and Peter Costello were the reason that in 2008 the Australian economy was able to deal with the buffeting it experienced in international waters. We were also lucky in the sense that we are well positioned in this century to be able to take advantage of the Asian economic drive. In 2008, when the crisis hit, there was no government debt; there was a huge opportunity for government to rely on fiscal policy to address international events. We said rightly at the time of the crisis—and we still say—that the government's measures were too much and that there would be too much waste. People in the gallery today will know of the waste which has been built up since that time. Programs such as the overpriced school halls and the pink batts were just two examples of the waste contained in the government's stimulus package. Also, cash payments went to dead people, to people living overseas and to animals. We know that all these wasteful programs were part of the government's response—a response they were able to put in place because the fiscal policy of the Howard and Costello governments was so strong that they did not have any debt when they came to government.
The other factor that helped us get through that period was that the labour relations laws operating at the time were pre the so-called Fair Work Act. That factor gave businesses the flexibility needed to handle the reduction in growth. These same Fair Work Act laws are the ones this Labor government now stands by and are causing so many problems in our economy—and I will come back to that.
As I said earlier, I will put forward five reasons that this government's management of the economy will cause long-term and significant harm to our future prosperity. The first is that the government is spending far more than it earns. Since it came to office, it has increased spending from the approximately $270 billion of the last Howard-Costello budget to some nearly $370 billion in the current budget. That is a massive increase in government spending in that time. The second—and I think we will hear more about this in 45 minutes—is the confidence-sapping inability of this government to manage anything properly. The country sees that inability and this minority government's failure and sees a desperate need for an election to clear all this up. The third reason—and I note that the member for Petrie, who has left the chamber, refused to mention it—is the reverse tariff carbon tax, which will come into force in just five weeks time, and the massive impact it will have on the Australian economy at the wrong time. The fourth reason, thanks to this government, is that our economy is mired in red tape, is overregulated and has particularly devastating industrial relations laws, which are causing untold damage to both big and small business. The final reason is that this government is obsessed with tying down our most successful industry at a time when we should be trying to encourage that successful industry to take advantage of the unique circumstances that we face.
It is not just us making these points. Last week we heard quite an astonishing speech by Jac Nasser, the chairman of BHP. He reflected on three or four major areas of the current government's management of the Australian economy. In particular, regarding industrial relations, he said:
Restrictive labour regulations have quickly become one of the most problematic factors for doing business in Australia.
Today we have seen even more evidence of that, with Tom Albanese, the head of Rio Tinto, one of our great companies in Australia—one of our big employers and big exporters—saying:
… I'm sorry to say now that, lately, when I speak with investors around the world they say to me: 'Tom, are you worried about your over-exposure to Australia?'
That is not a good thing. That is damning testimony of where Australia fits. It is not something to be fretful about, but it is something that should be recognised as a problem—and it is indeed a major problem.
Mr Perrett: There's too much investment in Australia!
Mr BRIGGS: The problem is that the planned investment is now being reconsidered. The biggest reconsideration—and, as a South Australian, I am highly fearful of this—is the investment in Olympic Dam. The Olympic Dam project is one of South Australia's great opportunities to take advantage of the unique circumstances in our region. Make no mistake about this: the Olympic Dam project is now in doubt because of the federal Labor government's policies, which are making doing business in mining in Australia too expensive. Jac Nasser, the chairman of the BHP board, said exactly this last week.
The member for Moreton may know everything about every other subject in this place, but I suspect he does not know more about the BHP business than Jac Nasser does. I think Jac Nasser knows a little more than the member for Moreton about his business and the investment that was planned for Olympic Dam but is now at grave risk. There is a grave risk to the South Australian and Australian economies because of your policies, Member for Moreton. Because of the policies your government is implementing, the reforms of today will affect the performance of the economy tomorrow, and this will hang over the federal Labor Party for a generation. The performance of this government—with the debt it has built up, the re-regulation of Australia's labour market, the mire of red tape that Australian business is now caught in and the cost of doing business in our country, at a time when we should be freeing the economy to take advantage of the growth in Asia—is a disgrace, and this motion should be amended to reflect so.
This motion should be amended to reflect the great damage that this government is doing not just to business confidence and to the reputation of this great institution, the federal parliament, but to the Australian economy in the future. I bemoan the fact that too much attention is directed to the great scandals which we see before us today, brought to you by the federal Labor Party, and not enough of the Australian people's attention is directed to the great policy shamefulness that this government has inflicted on our future generations.
Far and away one of Australia's most respected economists, Warwick McKibbin, wrote very clearly about this in the Australian Financial Review:
Right now, the Australian economy faces a perfect storm. The federal government has bet that a crisis in Europe will not happen during the 2012-13 financial year.
The financial year starts on July 1, when a carbon tax set four times above the world price begins to raise input costs, particularly energy costs. No amount of compensation changes the economic negativity of this shock.
… … …
Unsound political decisions have put the global economy into a dangerous position. Australia has wandered aimlessly down this same path thanks largely to a minority government. In the wash-up of events over the next several years, one hopes that some of those responsible for putting Australia unnecessarily in the eye of a perfect storm are held to account.
And, my word, they will be. When the government finally take us to an election, the Australian public will know. They will blame you for the economic chaos you have caused our country. (Time expired)
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:21): To hear those opposite speak in here, you would think that Australia was mired in doom and gloom, with its economic circumstances just seconds away from recession. But when those opposite go overseas they speak the truth. When the Leader of the Opposition visited London last year, he said:
Australia has serious bragging rights. Compared to most developed countries, our economic circumstances are enviable.
They are enviable indeed. I just want to speak today to this motion and draw the House's attention to some long-run patterns in real government spending across recent decades. Terrific analysis by Stephen Koukoulas in the AustralianFinancial Review the day after the budget pointed out:
Not once did the Howard or Fraser governments in about 20 years in office achieve a single year where government spending was cut in real terms, while Labor governments have been able to cut real spending in five years since the mid 1980s.
Mr Koukoulas pointed out that the ratio of government spending to GDP is now '0.7 per cent of GDP lower than the average of the 12 Howard government budgets'. There is around $10 billion less spending as a result of that lower tax to GDP ratio. Mr Koukoulas concluded:
This is important to recognise because it repudiates the mantra from various opposition spokespeople about the government being "addicted to tax" or not delivering "genuine savings" …
'Nothing,' he said, 'could be further from the truth'.
The argument picks up on a terrific article by George Megalogenis last year in the Australian in which Mr Megalogenis looked at the average annual real spending increase when the government grows at better than two per cent a year. That figure under John Howard was 2.3 per cent, under Paul Keating was 2.2 per cent, under Peter Costello mark 1 was 1.9 percent but under Peter Costello mark 2 was three per cent, and under Wayne Swan prior to this budget was just one per cent. So economic commentators have concurred that it is this government that has managed to hold real spending. Unlike the Howard government, which never managed a cut in real spending, this government has managed to cut real spending. It has done so after putting in place important fiscal stimulus. If those opposite had their way then when the global financial crisis hit they would have cut back on government spending. They would have had to because they say they would not have taken the government budget into the red. So as the revenue write downs hit, they would have had to cut back on spending—throwing Australians onto the scrapheap.
I graduated from high school in the teeth of the early 90s recession. I know what it is like to be a young kid looking for work in the teeth of a recession because I saw many of my high school classmates do exactly that. It is a rough labour market when you hit a recession and that is what we managed to avoid through our fiscal stimulus. In relative terms, we have very low debt levels. Australia's net debt as a percentage of GDP will peak at 9.6 per cent of GDP in 2011-12, around a tenth of the level of the major advanced economies, who, in many cases, have debts equal to their entire national income. So if you put it in a household context, it is like somebody earning $100,000 a year and owing $9,600. Many Australian households would take on debt at that level, for example, to buy a used car so they could drive off and get a job. In some sense, that is what the government did: we used that money to put in place fiscal stimulus to make sure Australians could get and keep jobs. Absent that fiscal stimulus, we know the Australian economy would have slid into recession.
When you hear members of the Liberal and National parties castigating debt, remember that as they do so they are saying Australia should have lost more jobs in the global financial crisis and we should have let more small businesses go to the wall. That is the logical implication of their position on debt. They should raise the debt cap as is responsible, not take the Tea Party approach they seem so inclined to do.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (11:26): As usual from our colleagues opposite, the contribution to this debate is plenty of words, again, lacking in substance. It is interesting to note that the member for Fraser says that they are spending $10 billion a year less as a percentage of GDP but their spending has actually gone up by $100 billion. The only reason the halt in real spending occurred is because they failed to put key spending measures such as the NBN on the budget. Again, it is just another example of smoke and mirrors and obfuscation.
Mr Perrett: What about the Future Fund?
Mr VAN MANEN: I always get a worthwhile contribution from my esteemed colleague from Moreton. I would like to thank the member for Petrie for her motion as it allows me the opportunity to dispel some of the economic myths that are perpetuated by this government. Firstly, let us look at the credit claim by the current government for Australia's economic resilience in the face of the turbulent economic headwinds of the GFC. This government proudly claims success for this. However, in reality, the credit should be given to the reforms enacted during the Hawke-Keating years and built upon by the Howard government. It is the legacy of these reforms from which this country still benefits today. It is in spite of, not because of, this current Labor-Green government that our economy continues to perform well on average. However, averages never tell the full story. There are many sectors of the economy struggling today yet in the budget there was little to assist small-to-medium business. On 1 July they will face the full effects of the world's largest carbon tax.
Let us look at unemployment, which currently stands at about 4.9 per cent. In the budget papers it is expected to increase to 5.5 per cent. In my electorate of Forde, the unemployment rate is already 6.6 per cent. If you look at Roy Morgan's figures from April 2012, unemployment stood at 9.3 per cent according to their calculations and underemployment stood at 8.2 per cent. That is a total of 17.5 per cent of the workforce unemployed or underemployed. How much higher are these figures going to get if business begins to lay off staff or reduce their hours to stay afloat due to the impact of the carbon tax? The compensation package will be of little relevance to people who have their working hours cut or who lose their job.
The member for Petrie correctly notes in her motion that Australia's net government debt is low when compared to Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France. However, this again is not a credit to the current government. It is a credit to the former Howard government which, under the stewardship of the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, succeeded in repaying $96 billion in accumulated Labor debt. Not only was that achieved, but the Labor government came to office with $70 billion in the bank and a $20 billion surplus. Since then, the government has gone on a merry spending spree, with accumulated budget deficits of $174 billion and the country now staring at a net debt of $145 billion, all in only four and a bit years. This is a staggering deterioration in the government's fiscal position by $245 billion, or some 16¼ per cent of GDP.
The member's motion also seeks to acknowledge the living conditions of Australians as being the best in the world. I do believe that we live in a wonderful country and we have much to be thankful for, but, once again, this is not something that this government can take credit for. It is due to the hard work, sweat and tears of many generations of Australians. A great community is not something governments create. It is created by the individuals in our community working together. We have seen, over the past several weeks, attempts by the government to break down these great community bonds through its class warfare rhetoric and through pitting rich against poor, pursuing a path of wealth redistribution and seeking to demonise those that disagree with it. In many areas our living expenses such as rent, grocery prices and consumer prices are higher than those in the US, Canada and the UK. It is this government that, despite its attempt— (Time expired)
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:31): In a recent edition of the popular ABC program Q&A, the member for Indi was forced to dissociate herself from former minister Peter Reith, who came up with the idea that the best thing for Australian employment would be to make it easier for workers to be sacked—with this theory that if they could sack people quickly they would get people more jobs. Mr Reith also distanced himself from the pretence the opposition is putting on that they actually believe in protecting Australian industry. Peter Reith said, 'Oh, we don't believe in protecting any industry at all,' so there was a reason for dissociation. That is perhaps also why Tony Abbott, having persuaded Peter Reith to run for president of the Liberal Party, publicly voted against him.
There are some true believers—the member for Mayo today came out supporting the Reith analysis—but I am inclined to believe the words of Paul Krugman, 2008 winner of the Nobel Prize in economics. It is perhaps more worthwhile listening to his analysis of what this country should be doing with regard to employment, and of what this government has done, than listening to the member for Mayo. In this week's edition of The New York Review, Paul Krugman said:
Tens of millions of our fellow citizens are suffering vast hardship, the future prospects of today's young people are being eroded with each passing month—and all of it is unnecessary.
For the fact is that we have both the knowledge and tools to get out of the depression. Indeed, by applying time-honored economic principles whose validity has only been reinforced by recent events, we could be back to more or less full employment very fast, probably in less than two years. All that is blocking recovery is a lack of intellectual clarity and political will.
So Paul Krugman, the 2008 Nobel Prize winner in economics, believes that the American government should do what the government of this country did.
Kenneth Davidson, in his analysis in Dissent magazine of what this government did in respect of the global financial crisis—that is, making sure that people were not terminated, making sure that jobs were available, making sure that people spent money in shops and making sure that industries were kept going—said:
From the macroeconomic perspective, the response to the global financial crisis was brilliant.
In another article, in Dissent No. 38, he went on to look at this pretentious performance by the opposition about national debt in this country:
One would think that it was just a matter of the brilliance of former Treasurer Costello. They don't compare apples to apples. We in the interim have faced a global financial crisis which has seriously eroded government tax take.
One hears the previous speaker saying that unemployment is at this level, compared to another point in time. Let us look at the reality of unemployment levels in this country compared to the rest of the world. Australia is now at 4.9 per cent, but if I go back to when it was 5.2 per cent just recently, the United States was 8.3, the United Kingdom was 8.2, Canada was 7.2—and that is without going to the worst parts of Europe, such as Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. Even compared to those countries that are regarded as more successful, our rate is far better. If we look at inflation rates: when Australia was at 1.6 per cent recently, Canada was at 2.6, France was at 2.3 and Italy was at 2.3.
Returning to government debt, part of the reason that those opposite can claim, and pretend, that they were so successful in reducing the government debt to national GDP ratio was the fact that they sold government utilities. Of course you reduce your debt if you sell the Commonwealth Bank! You reduce your debt if you sell off our airports. You reduce debt if you sell off Telstra. Davidson, with regard to another one of their brilliant policies—that is, selling off government buildings around the country, where they sold off any building that did not yield over 16 per cent return—said in Dissent No. 38:
The asset fire sales of these government buildings was no different to a householder deciding to sell the family home in order to pay off the mortgage and then rent the house back at a far higher rental.
What we are seeing is a group of people over there who are exploiting the fact that in some parts of family expenditure, particularly food, there has been a significant rise, but we all know the overall CPI for this country is far lower than elsewhere. They have also exploited the falsehood that recent energy costs are something to do with a carbon tax that has not yet been introduced. It is worthwhile knowing the realities of energy charges in this country: 46 per cent of rises in recent years have been in regard to the poles and wires, 32 per cent have been because of the actual cost of generating electricity and 15 per cent have been on profitability. Nothing whatsoever to do with the upcoming carbon tax change. So this resolution— (Time expired)
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (11:36): You would think that with a government that is plagued with scandal, a government that has its Prime Minister on her knees, it would not come into this place and deliver a motion which reeks of such hubris. You would think that a government which is asking this parliament to increase the debt limit to a record $300 billion would not come into this parliament and move a motion which claims its economic success.
But this is exactly what this motion does. This government has the temerity to come in here and to claim, 'Haven't we been so successful? Haven't Australians been so lucky to have us?' Reading between the lines, it actually says, 'Haven't Australians never been better off than they are today?'
Australians are smarter than this government, because they know the real truth in relation to the economy. To start with, they know that we should not be comparing ourselves to Greece and to Spain and to Italy—countries which are on the brink of collapse. They know that their real-life experiences on a day-to-day basis show that prices are going up exponentially while their wages are only going up by two or three per cent per annum, and therefore making it tougher and tougher from a cost-of-living perspective. They know that if you are paying $8 billion or $9 billion in interest payments alone, which is what we are now doing as a nation, you do not have the economy under control.
This government has an enormous amount of hubris to come in and tell Australians that they should be thankful for their economic performance. Let us remind ourselves, in the time that we have available, of exactly what the government has done in relation to the economy. Let us just look at two or three key measures.
First of all, let us look at taxes. Since this government was elected at the end of 2007, there have been 26 taxes which have been introduced or increased: 26! That is almost every facet of our society and, of course, that is before the granddaddy of them all, the carbon tax, is introduced come 1 July.
Let us look at the expenditure side of the equation, as the member for Mayo pointed out. Expenditure has increased by $100 billion per annum since the Rudd government was elected. When the Rudd government was elected, the government was spending $270 billion: the government is now spending $370 billion per annum, and climbing. What do you think that extra $100 billion has gone towards? Do we see brand-new roads? Do we see all this rail infrastructure? Do we see the port bottlenecks being addressed? We do not see that. We see cars stuck in traffic, we see bottlenecks at the end of the Eastern Freeway, we see the Rowville rail link still waiting to be completed and we see ports up in Queensland not being developed. But we have seen, of course, an enormous amount of money wasted—gone! An enormous amount of money has been wasted on pink batts, on many overpriced school halls, on the green loan programs and on all sorts of other programs.
So that is on the expenditure side of the equation, and when you net those two out and look at the debt then you see that this government inherited a $20 billion surplus and they inherited $70 billion in the bank, and now we have had four of the biggest deficits in Australian political history, back-to-back, and we have net debt of $145 billion.
This government likes to claim that it is going to reach a surplus in the next financial year. We will wait to see if they are actually going to deliver that, because they said that this year's deficit was going to be only $12 billion and it ended up being $44 billion. So their claim of $1.5 billion has to be seen actually to be believed. But even if they reach that, it could take a full 100 years of those surpluses to pay back the debt that they have left us.
So that is the economic legacy of this government. That is the economic legacy: increased taxes, wasteful expenditure, record debt that will take years to pay off and flat line productivity. Next time the government puts up a motion like this, ask yourself why the Australian people are not thanking it for its record. (Time expired)
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (11:42): Just listening to the former speaker I was wondering if the children up there in the schools area of the gallery were wondering whether their new multipurpose facility, their new library or their new outdoor learning centre has been a complete waste. They certainly have not been in Canberra: in Canberra, every project has been delivered on time and on budget, and everyone I talk to in the community is absolutely over the moon.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ): Order! Can we not have so much debate in the chamber. The member will be heard in silence.
Ms BRODTMANN: It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this motion today because it goes to the very heart of what this Labor government has achieved; that is, a strong, stable and resilient economy.
Our unemployment rate continues to go down, and is incredibly low when you consider the unemployment rate in much of Europe. I know Spain is looking at unemployment at around 24 per cent, while the fiscal crisis in Greece continues to get worse with the jobless rate hovering at around 21 per cent. However, the latest figures for Australia show our unemployment rate to be less than five per cent.
This is no accident; it has been achieved through careful economic management and well-developed employment participation programs by the Labor government. In fact, more people are in employment now than ever before: just over 11.5 million Australians are participating in the workforce, taking the total number of jobs created since Labor came to office to around 800,000.
We are privileged to enjoy some of the best living conditions in the world and we continue to rank highly on the UN Human Development Index and the OECD Better Life Index, as this motion suggests. Our per capita GDP is ranked sixth according to the International Monetary Fund, and our net debt as a percentage of GDP is extremely low when compared to other countries.
All this is reason why now is the time to return our budget to surplus and to look at transforming our economy for the future by introducing a price on carbon pollution. If anyone is in doubt about the need to return the budget to surplus, I suggest you consider what the IMF had to say on the issue just a few weeks ago. The IMF said:
… we welcome the authorities’ commitment to return to a budget surplus by 2012-13 to rebuild fiscal buffers, putting … government finances in a stronger position to deal with shocks and long-term pressures from an ageing population and rising health-care costs.
Putting our finances into a stronger position, which we are doing, will give our economy a buffer against any future uncertain economic times. Returning to surplus also sends a very clean sign to the rest of the world about our strong fundamentals, amidst all this global uncertainty—and it is indeed uncertain. It will also give the Reserve Bank flexibility to cut rates if it feels that is necessary, on top of the rate cuts that we have already seen. Returning to surplus will also allow us to concentrate on what we all came to parliament to achieve: necessary reform for a better future, making a difference. We will be able to help Australia prepare for an ageing population, which Labor is doing through the reform of the aged-care package. We will be able to establish a National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will do nothing short of revolutionising disability services in this country.
I am proud of the work we are doing, and even more proud of the state of our economy just four short years after the height of the global financial crisis. This is in stark contrast to what those opposite continue to say and do, which is talk down our economy—and we have heard a lot of it today—and vote against the vital fiscal measures that have been so beneficial in ensuring that Australians do not experience the same unemployment that has befallen the eurozone. This is the same opposition that voted against the schoolkids bonus because it did not trust families to spend that vital cash on school supplies and new uniforms. The Leader of the Opposition did not trust families with their own budget, so why should Australians trust him with the nation's budget?
I strongly support this motion. It concisely states the remarkable result of Labor's careful economic management during the worst economic crisis of our time. I can only imagine what state our economy would be in today if those opposite had been in charge.
Dr STONE (Murray) (11:46): I cannot believe that the Labor Party would willingly expose itself to commentary on the state of the economy by putting forward this motion. Everybody knows that it was the strength of the regulation of our banking system, and the $70 billion-plus in the bank which the Costello-Howard government managed to leave to this new government after it had paid down all of Labor's debt, which helped us survive the global financial crisis. The tragedy, of course, is that under Labor we are back into deep debt and deficit, borrowing over $100 million a day, and we are told by this government that there is now an enormous and urgent need to increase the borrowing limits so that, basically, it can borrow even more—a legacy we will inherit at the next election to pay back once again. So I am absolutely astounded that we have been given this opportunity to say it like it is.
The fact is that national statistics disguise the patchwork economy, as quoted in this motion. There is, for example, a deep constriction of economic activity in some areas. Some are doing quite nicely—for example, in the mining economies of parts of Western Australia—but in the regional areas in southern and eastern Australia there is a markedly different story. I think of the more than 100 empty shops and small businesses in my regional centre of Shepparton, a situation which has us worried sick as we contemplate and count down how many months are left of this government before we can put the show right with a change to the coalition.
But let us stay with the national statistics for one moment. Let us look at the real indicators of what this country thinks about this government. Mums and dads are frightened about their futures—obviously, given who is in charge of the country and the national policy and the finances. There is a real fear of the future and a collectively held breath across the nation—consider, for example, the construction sector. This is a major generator of jobs and has a multiplier effect across the economy. In the first seven months of this financial year, dwelling approvals collapsed by some 14,000. That is 14,000 fewer construction home approvals to February 2012. Vehicle sales, another key indicator of families' and businesses' faith in their future, were down nearly 17 per cent in the months from November to February 2012. In January this year, youth unemployment figures for 15- to 24-year-olds in the Goulburn-Ovens-Murray statistical region were 18.1 per cent, compared to 12 per cent for January for the nation. In February this figure was 17.4 per cent of young people in the rural region unemployed, compared to just 13.3 per cent in the nation. Youth unemployment was 19.4 per cent for the region in March, a shocking statistic, compared to only 12.7 per cent for the nation. In April the unemployment rate for youth was 14.4 per cent in my area and just 10.9 per cent for the nation.
So let us really quote what is happening out there. National statistics are like damned lies when you do not burrow down and see what is actually happening on the ground. No developed nation, surely, can tolerate such a difference in life chances and life experience between those who live in the more favoured places in the capital cities and those who live in the places beyond the suburbs, beyond the tram tracks, beyond the access to public transport and beyond the places where I acknowledge there are jobs still being generated in some sectors but those sectors are basically places like Centrelink dealing with the unemployed. I have to tell you that according to the national statistics for retail sales, people are also showing an extreme lack of enthusiasm for going out and borrowing more right now or buying the essentials. Only the food category showed a small increase in retail sales as per the ABS statistics.
I am appalled and shocked, too, that this motion refers to the 'knowledge economy'. We all know that NAPLAN is a farce—it is not a sensible way to measure your children's increasing knowledge across the nation—but we already have NAPLAN indicating that there is a substantial drop in literacy, numeracy and people being able to interpret literature. We are failing in the OECD league tables when we are compared with some of our Asian developed neighbours in terms of our kids being able to understand and compete well in maths, science and overall literacy and numeracy. This government stands condemned for what it has done. (Time expired)
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (11:51): I congratulate the member for Petrie for bringing this matter before us. I notice that all those who have spoken from the opposite side of the chamber have failed to mention anything today about the OECD, the International Monetary Fund, the UN Human Development Index or any of those things which were embodied in the motion. Not once do you hear those opposite—the naysayers over there—saying anything in this place about the global financial crisis.
When you think about it, we had the worst economic shock in over 60 years, and what we saw was many countries—particularly in Europe and America—suffering, and still suffering as they come through the worst of the global financial crisis. Recall, when that occurred in 2008, the position of those occupying the shadow Treasury benches opposite. Their position at that stage was, 'Wait and see how bad it gets.' That is all they could offer to the economic debate in this country.
The International Monetary Fund is a reputable organisation that ranks Australia's performance in coming through the global financial shocks imposed by the global financial crisis as one of the best economies in the world. The Leader of the Opposition, when he travelled over to London, claimed that this country has serious bragging rights when it comes to our economic performance resulting from the handling of the economy. In contrast with that, all those opposite could offer was, 'Wait and see.'
Based on other countries over there—and we read on a daily basis what is occurring in the European nations, whether they be Ireland, Greece, Spain or Italy—the average unemployment rate in the European countries is 10.5 per cent. The growth rate is effectively zero. Compare that with what we have here in this country: we have a 4.9 per cent unemployment rate and we have positive growth. As a matter of fact, since the global financial crisis, our economy has increased by a further seven per cent. That is why the Leader of the Opposition can be confident, when he goes to London, in saying that this economy has serious bragging rights.
This country has an economy that is $1.4 billion strong. For the first time last year we were recognised for this economic management. The economy has a AAA credit rating from each of the three major rating agencies. We do not hear that being said too often over the other side. They cannot claim that because it has never occurred before in Australia's history.
Whilst adjustments needed to be made when coming through the economic crisis that required decisive management—and that is what I say occurred—they were not made at the expense of investing in schools and education and regional development. I am happy that in coming through the global financial crisis we doubled our commitment to education in this country.
As regards the schoolkids bonus, in the short time I have available I note that in the last couple of months in many areas in my electorate—which is predominantly Asian—many people who are entitled to the education tax refund did not apply because they understood they were not entitled. They did not have jobs and they did not pay tax; therefore their children were missing out. We also discovered that in excess of 10 per cent of families that are eligible for the education tax refund missed out over the last two years.
So in coming through the global financial crisis we have, like Mr Abbott indicates, serious bragging rights, and I encourage some of those opposite to read some of the international statistics when it comes down to— (Time expired)
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (11:57): To start with, I am very concerned about the entire premise of this motion. We have heard in this chamber the members for Petrie and Canberra compare Australia's economic performance with that of Spain to suggest that we are doing well. That reminds me of a friend I once had who would down eight schooners in a day and did not think he had a problem because he compared himself with other alcoholics who would down a dozen or more. That is what this government has come in this chamber to do today: to compare Australia's performance with Spain and say we are doing well.
I say we are here in the Asian century, and we should not be comparing ourselves with broken-down European nations who are now paying the penalty for engaging in decades of reckless and unsustainable spending, the type of which we have seen from this government over the last four years. Instead, we should be comparing ourselves with our Asian neighbours and other similar countries with resources like Australia's. By that comparison our performance over the last four years has been very ordinary. Take Singapore, for example; its current unemployment is just 2.1 per cent, less than half of ours here in Australia. Because Singapore has been banking surpluses year after year, this year it will enjoy $7 billion in return on those investments. In contrast, this year, thanks to Labor's deficits, we will have to pay out $7 billion in interest payments.
This motion also gives us the opportunity to look at the reason Australia has not descended into the basket case that is Spain. The answer is simple: it is because the last coalition government paid off the debt it inherited from the previous Labor government. It paid off every single cent of that $96 billion that the previous Labor government left, and it also paid back the interest on that—a further $50 billion. Let us not forget that this was done during difficult international times. It was done through the Asian financial crisis. It was done through the tech wreck of 2001 and it was done following the terrorist attacks of September 11. But we have seen what has happened in just four short years of this Labor government which, thanks to its reckless and wasteful spending, has run up the four largest deficits in this nation's history: a cumulative total of $174 billion. We have heard the government's speakers parrot the line, 'Don't worry—we are returning the budget to surplus.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): It being 12 noon, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate is interrupted. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS
Member for Dobell
Mr CRAIG THOMSON (Dobell) (12:00): Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
Mr CRAIG THOMSON: 'Go cut your wrists or, better still, hang yourself.' 'Go out the back, cut your throat—that's the only way.' 'Have you slashed your wrists yet?' 'You are dead. A bullet between the eyes will save taxpayers' money.' 'You have unleashed the lynch mob and you have fanned it and for that you're, ultimately, responsible.'
These are the types of emails, letters and phone calls that my family, myself and my staff have received. Since these allegations were first raised I have consistently and on many occasions made it clear that I have done nothing wrong. I have, in fact, wanted to make a statement for some time but sought counsel, sought advice, from a variety of people—including legal advice—and took that advice not to make a statement. Can I say that is something that I probably regret in hindsight. I did not realise that this was going to go four years, but once that decision had been taken, of course, then the next opportunity to speak really is when a report is concluded—and Fair Work have done that.
In making this statement I am very conscious that in the eyes of many of the public I have already been charged, convicted and sentenced. The public will hold these views because of the quite extraordinary media coverage which has taken place. I, like every member of this House, understand and value the importance of an independent and robust news media and the important place that it can play in our democracy. However, all of us who have regular dealings with the news media know that the news media can often get it wrong, and sometimes seriously so—particularly as today the media is dominated by self-important commentators, not reporters, and I will say a little bit more about that later. So I think it is important to once again remind the House that I have not been the subject of any conviction, not even the subject of any legal proceedings; none of the allegations have been tested in any court or tribunal.
I am going to bore you a little bit now because I am going to talk a little bit about my history—my work history. One of the things that my friends say to me is, 'We read about this Craig Thomson; we don't know who that person is because we see a very different person—we know you in a very different way.' So I am going to take some time and talk about, firstly, the young industrial officer who joined the Health Services Union and worked there for 19 years. Can I say that, despite the coverage, unions are not a dirty word. Unions are a very good thing and are very much part of this country's history and culture and have made enormous contributions to the wellbeing of ordinary Australians over many years.
My first job at the university was as an industrial officer and I used to look after university workers. Can I say that I still get regular letters of support from people like Richard Black at the University of Sydney, Ellis Skinner at the University of New England and Ted Davies at Macquarie University. I was very proud of the work that I did representing general staff at universities around the country. I an also very proud of a lot of the work that I have done at the union. I was able to personally prosecute, in the Industrial Relations Commission, the first ever award for radiographers working in private practice. I was responsible for the first national agreement with what was then the Mayne Health private hospital chain, later becoming Ramsay Health Care. I have spent a great deal of my time, both when I was at the New South Wales branch and nationally, looking after aged care workers and, in particular, looking at making sure that we can try and push for better staffing levels—minimum staffing levels—in aged care so that the elderly, the most vulnerable, are guaranteed some level of support and care in those places.
I am particularly proud of two issues: negotiating the first ever staffing level agreement for ambulance officers in New South Wales. My friends the ambulance officers and paramedics on the Central Coast tell me, of course, this agreement, which was only meant to last for 10 weeks because it was the first time it was there, is still in operation some 10 years after it came in. Guys, it does need to be updated and upgraded, but it is good that there is a floor that is there. The other issue that I am particularly proud of when I first joined the union was a 17 per cent pay increase over three years for New South Wales public sector workers, particularly the cooks, the cleaners—those most in need. Seventeen per cent over three years is a very big increase. They certainly deserved it and they certainly deserve more. So I have had nothing, can I say, but letters of support from many HSU members, both past and present.
One would think, given the media coverage and certainly from some of the emails that I have had, that the allegations against me were made while I was a member of parliament. Of course that is not the case. These are allegations that arise from my time at the Health Services Union many years ago. But it is worth talking about my wonderful electorate and the people who live there. Since 2007 we have been able to achieve some great things. It is important to point out that, in 2010, there was a swing to me in that seat based on the good work that we had been able to do in that electorate—a swing to me when there was a big swing against Labor in New South Wales. We have been able to achieve more than $330 million in funding for my electorate since 2007. That is more money that has been spent on infrastructure in the last five years than in total for the whole time that that seat has existed since 1984. There are a whole range of projects, and I will just list them briefly. The schools project, of course: over $100 million. Trade training centres: $13 million. The Apprentice Kickstart program. The Central Coast campus of the university—a campus that was brought about under a Labor government in the first place: $20 million. Very importantly, the Mardi to Mangrove pipeline: $80 million, making sure that the Central Coast was drought-proof. We got down to 13 per cent of our water supply. A Labor government made sure that those issues never happen again. Two brand new surf clubs. Major clean-up of Tuggerah Lakes: some $20 million over five years. $10 million for a centre of sports excellence. A GP superclinic that I know is often derided here, but can I tell you: the people in my electorate are very proud of having a GP superclinic, which has been used ever since it, opened some months after it was promised, on a temporary basis.
We have given money to netball courts so that Wyong can hold state championships in terms of netball for a first time. We have upgraded parks around the area. We have made sure that our parks have disability access for children. I fought and stood against opening the Wallarah coalmine and continue to be committed to making sure that that coalmine does not upset the pristine environment in which it was proposed to be built. And, of course, we now have the NBN rollout. So, for those of you who have only seen Craig Thomson through the eyes of some of the media glare, these are the things that have been occupying me every day, every night in my electorate—things that I am very proud of and things that I think stand my electorate in the Central Coast in a much better position than when I was first elected.
I want to now go to the HSU national office, which I moved down to and was elected to take over in 2002. I moved to Melbourne to be there because that was where the national office was at that stage. This was a union that had a very poor history of factional infighting. It had started, I think, with left against left, which became left against right, which became right against right. The only common practice was that the HSU was the battleground for these political fights.
When I took over as national secretary the debt levels in the national union were close to $1 million. There was no accountability for the way in which money was spent. The rules of the union at that stage set out that the national council would meet only once every two years and that at that particular meeting you could have proxy votes. So half a dozen people would sit around once every two years and that was the accountability. It rarely had national executive meetings. They rarely met. It did not have budgets. The reason this was the case was, of course, because the union rules make sure that the national secretary has broad powers. Rule 32(n) says that 'between meetings of the national executive control and conduct' of the business is in the hands of the national secretary.
So, if you do not want to have transparency, you do not have meetings. If you do not want to be accountable, you do not have meetings. So what did I do when I went down there in relation to these issues? One of the first things I did was make sure the rules of the organisation were changed. I made the rules so that national executive meetings had to happen every four years. I changed the way in which a national council meeting took place. They became national conferences every year with rank and file delegates at which the finances of the union were presented and the auditor was available for questions. There was specific time set aside. I put into the rules a finance committee so that a finance committee had to meet and had to approve budgets. But even that I did not think was enough, because there was a very broad rule saying the secretary can still do whatever they need to do. So at one of the very early executive meetings I set a delegation of how much the national secretary could spend without reference to those bodies. So we put further issues of transparency in place.
The reason I am saying these things is because, if your modus operandi was about ripping off an organisation, you would do none of that, because the rules enabled you—when I went there—to do whatever you liked and be virtually unaccountable. By putting those accounting practices in, that meant that there was accountability, and you would not do that if you were seeking to avoid scrutiny. Was it perfect? Were these A-1, benchmark accounting practices that you would put in place? Of course they were not, but we came from a position of absolute zero where there was nothing, where there were not meetings, and you have to start somewhere. So the HSU was a work in progress. These were the things that were put in place.
You have to ask who was not happy with this. There were two large branches that were not happy with this, and those are the New South Wales branch and the Victorian branch of my former union. That is because they did not like this scrutiny. In fact, I was approached by the now national secretary, Kathy Jackson, and Michael Williamson, saying: 'What are you doing? Why don't you just collect your salary and do nothing?' 'And do nothing'—that was what they expected you to do in relation to these issues.
We will be coming to the Fair Work Australia report shortly, but the Fair Work report's allegations are largely based on allegations—I repeat, allegations—made by two people: Kathy Jackson and Michael Williamson. One of the issues with Fair Work Australia is the weight that has been given to those allegations. I raise these next points only in the context of the weight that Fair Work gave to those allegations. You have to look at what standing these people have if you give weight to the allegations. Kathy Jackson drives a union-paid-for Volvo. It is alleged she has child care and gym fees paid for by the union. These are issues that I am raising that are on the public record; this is not something that I am seeking to use privilege for that is not already out there. She has had numerous overseas trips, none of which, as national secretary, I was aware visited any unions. Within weeks after I left, her salary almost doubled from the salary that I received, allegedly now being around some $270,000. She sat on the board of HESTA, collecting board fees for many years, rarely attending meetings. But when the union decided the board fee should go to the union, she left the board. She got an $84,000 golden handshake from her branch when they merged and formed the HSU East branch of the union, the branch that is in so much trouble and the subject of so many inquiries. She rarely attended national executive meetings, and when she did it was to have her name marked off and then she would leave.
That is the record of this person, someone who wants to address the HR Nicholls Society in relation to where she is. She may have had a conversion on the road to Damascus—and I will come to those sorts of things later—but this certainly is not someone who comes to this issue with clean hands. She is also accused, of course, most seriously—and again this was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald and is the subject of a police investigation—of paying money to contractors and then receiving it back privately with it being paid to her. She is entitled to the presumption of innocence in relation to those issues, but they are issues that she has to answer for. The other person is Mr Williamson. There has been a great deal of coverage following the release of the Temby report in relation to the activities there. These are the two people who primarily put those allegations.
The Fair Work report, can I point out, is the report of one man on the national office of the union. Its so-called findings amount to no more than assertions. I find it curious that after four years of work, $1 million in external legal fees, the general manager of Fair Work Australia was not prepared to release the report publicly, apparently because she had a concern that it may be defamatory. She instead released it to a Senate committee so it would be protected by parliamentary privilege. Given that truth remains a defence to defamation in this country, this suggests that Fair Work Australia either does not consider the report to be accurate or considers it incapable of substantiation by admissible evidence or both. I think it should also be of concern, to any person who considers the effective and efficient regulation of Australia's industrial relations system is important, that Fair Work Australia has also announced it will now spend $450,000 of taxpayers' money with a major accounting firm to investigate its own incompetence in relation to dealing with this matter.
Fair Work Australia itself makes the point, on page 133 at paragraph 33, that the general manager or his delegate is not a court and is not bound by the rules of evidence. Can I say that I also find it quite disturbing that the Senate committee, when presented with a 1,100-page report that Fair Work Australia was not prepared to stand by, spent half a day looking at it before they released it to the public. I think there are issues in relation to those processes and procedures that need to be questioned.
I have seen in many, many articles the word 'forensic' when people are describing the Fair Work report. The definition of forensic is: 'relating to or denoting … scientific methods and techniques to the investigation of crime; relates to courts of law'. In its own words, Fair Work Australia said it is not bound by the rules of evidence. As I said, it took four days for the Commonwealth DPP to say that this report was not forensic, that there was not a body of evidence. Rather than forensic, Mr Nassios, the delegate, was selective and biased. He was so biased, in fact, that I had to write to the general manager last year asking for his removal from this position. Mr Nassios had an outcome that he wanted to achieve and he was trying to link assertions. There was no body of evidence that supported his position.
This can be borne out by the witnesses that he did not speak to; more than half a dozen that we suggested should be spoken to. In fact, there are only four members of the union's finance committee and this is an investigation into the finances of the union. He only spoke to two of them. He took four years and could only get around to two of the finance members. One wonders what he was doing. I myself had only one interview with Fair Work Australia, close to two years ago. That was it: one interview, two years ago.
In relation to Fair Work Australia and the report, the opposition have made much, some months ago, although they seem to have changed their tune since the report has come down, about the competence or the interference in relation to the writing of the Fair Work report. We were regaled here daily at question time about what role the government played in interfering with this report and making sure that the member for Dobell was protected. I make it absolutely clear that I do not think I was done any favours by a report taking four years to get there. I am very surprised that that point was not made by anyone in the media over the four years. You continued to write the drivel that was coming from this side about some advantage to the Labor government in taking their time on a report. It is manifestly obvious that that is not the case.
I think the better questions, if you are looking at interference and the questions that need to be answered, relate to Ms Jackson's partner. Rarely has it been raised in the media that her partner is the second in charge of Fair Work Australia. He did not stand aside from the body that was investigating these issues. The main accuser's partner is second in charge. The questions Fair Work has to answer, the questions the deputy president has to answer, are: what influence did he have in relation to the writing of the report? What influence did he have in terms of the time line that it has taken? What relationship, if any, does he have with the Liberal Party? This is a person who has been accused in writing—and a letter has gone to the President of Fair Work Australia—of interference in that branch. So someone in the union has gone to the level of actually writing to the President of Fair Work Australia and saying, 'This person has interfered in the branch.' They are very serious accusations and they need to be addressed.
One of the other issues that I find curious is that there were two investigations: an investigation into the national office of the union and an investigation into the Victorian office of the union. In relation to the Victorian office, there were credit cards which showed expenditure on escorts and prostitutes for at least two officials. Yet it is very curious that when the Fair Work report came out on the Victorian branch there was barely a mention. There are certainly no allegations, no findings of wrongdoing. One has to question why, in an investigation by Fair Work where the second in charge of Fair Work Australia's partner, their former husband, is the subject of that investigation, there is a different approach taken when it is looking at the national office. I also think it is passing strange that the delegate and DP Lawler are both on leave at the moment.
I want to go to the specific issues raised by Fair Work Australia. I will leave the one that I think most people are interested in until the end. That way I know that you are still going to listen. Many of the breaches in the Fair Work Act are because the delegate has misconstrued the rules of the organisation. He has construed the rules as saying that there was not approval for expenditure by the national secretary. That is despite the rules being very clear that there is. For example, he uses the issue of staff salary and the ability to appoint staff. It flies in the face of the rules, the law and, most importantly, the fact that these issues were in budgets that were approved on a quarterly basis by the union, every quarter that I was the national secretary. They were there, they showed the expenditure and they were approved. Can I say that, of the 150 allegations that deal with me, that deals with well over 100 in that broad position.
The second area that he raises, which is clearly an illogical argument, is that he says the national secretary was responsible for formulating policies in relation to a whole range of issues. There is nowhere in the law, in the regulations, in the legislation that says an individual in a trade union or any organisation is responsible for formulating these particular policies. If there is someone that is responsible then it is the union that is responsible. To pick out an individual at a particular point in time clearly is manifestly wrong in relation to a way in which you can construct these issues. But he then takes the great leap forward and says because there were not policies and there was behaviour in relation to these issues then that in itself is a breach, and that is clearly wrong.
The second area that he raises is in relation to travel and expenses. I note, of course, that the delegate travels business class and stays at five-star hotels in terms of his own travel. In reaching some conclusions in terms of the allegations about misuse of union money on travel and expenses, the delegate used the tax table to decide what was reasonable. There is a real argument as to whether that is appropriate in the first place, but you know what? He used the wrong tax table. If he had actually used the right tax table then there was no issue. So he did not even get that right when he was looking at what was appropriate.
In relation to spousal travel, we did not have a policy in relation to spousal travel. Should we have? Of course we should have. It would have been appropriate to do that. But the spousal travel was two return trips a year. Everyone who sits in this place gets far more family and spousal travel than I took in the five years that I was national secretary. So, if you want to gauge what is reasonable, then let's look at the ordinary test in relation to those issues.
The whole section in relation to the federal election I will come to later, because quite clearly the AEC report that was released last week blows a massive credibility hole in everything that Fair Work Australia did. While those areas have covered primarily almost every allegation that is there, there seems to be this mysterious thought that there was this extra pot of money that I could take cash withdrawals out from that was not accounted for by the union, that was somehow separate to everything else. This quite simply flies in the face of the facts that were there. We made it clear, and the evidence was clear, as was set out by the financial controller at the time when she was interviewed by Fair Work Australia, that cash withdrawals—this is what she said—were 'appropriately accounted for and imported into MYOB'. They were part of the union accounts—these accounts and budgets that went to the executive. Her replacement went on to say, 'Further, records for cash withdrawals were retained.' There is also evidence from the financial controller who was there some months after I left that that documentation was all there and present when she left. As I said, that was many months after I had been there. Are cash withdrawals going to get you a prize from the accounting college as being your best way of dealing with these issues? Probably not. But the issues with cash withdrawals were that it was the mode of spending not the accountability, not what it was spent on, not the receipts that were there—none of those issues are borne out by any of the evidence. The evidence, if someone were looking at the evidence and clearly Fair Work were not, was that they were accounted for. They were in the union's records and they were appropriately receipted. If they disappeared, then you need to look at explanations why—and I will come to that shortly.
Turning to credit cards and escorts, I have consistently from day 1 denied any wrongdoing in relation to these issues. I make it clear—and I hope I have already by painting a picture—that I had many enemies in the HSU, many enemies who did not like increased transparency, many enemies who preferred that there be no national office. I was the subject on numerous occasions of threats and intimidation. I had my door of my office graffitied. The national office shared an office with other Victorian branches of the Health Services Union.
There was, though, a particular threat that was made that I thought was just part of the routine threats that were constantly made in working in this environment. That was a threat by Marco Bolano in words to the effect that he would seek to ruin any political career that I sought and would set me up with a bunch of hookers. This was a threat that started in Kathy Jackson's office. The rant went right down the corridor and was witnessed by many people. It was then also the subject of a report. A letter was written to the Jacksons and to Michael Williamson complaining about this incident and putting, very importantly, this instance on record—on record when it occurred that there was this threat.
Later on, some years later, Michael Williamson said in front of a few witnesses, 'This is the way we deal with people in the Health Services Union when we have problems.' So we have the threat and, post facto, we have an admission. But Williamson went further. In the Daily Telegraph, a week ago on Saturday, he actually said he knew about this and it was commonplace in Victoria in relation to this union. So he made that absolutely clear. Of the seven occasions that are set out, three of them could not be me. There are alibis: on two occasions my being with other people, and on one occasion being in Perth and not being in Sydney for the month around the alleged incident.
I know that sitting up there we have a whole range of CSI journalists who think that they are the Inspector Clouseaus of the world—or perhaps that is how they really are—and they make these assumptions rather than report issues that are there. I want to try to help you with a couple of key areas that you have had difficulties with. The account details of my credit cards were known. They were reported. Everyone knew what my credit card account numbers were.
As for my drivers licence, can I say that there has been a deliberate and massive attempt to paint me in a different light by Fairfax by printing in the paper a copy of my drivers licence and making it appear as if a copy of that drivers licence was there on these occasions. That is not what the evidence is. The evidence is that my drivers licence number was written on three of those particular chits. Let us take a commonsense thing which we all know occurs. If you are asked for an ID and you have a photo ID, you hold it up. The person looks at your face. They look at the drivers licence and they say, 'Yes, that is you.' They do not then go and say that they need to write down details of this and put it there. That just does not happen. Can I suggest that of all places for it not to happen would be when you are seeking those sorts of services where, presumably, a degree of anonymity is what is being sought.
My drivers licence was also commonly available and on the records there at the union where it was needed for a variety of things including right-of-entry permits. What is interesting is that we have been informed that at these types of establishments they have to keep film footage of people who go in and out—for six years in New South Wales. I raised two years ago this issue with Fair Work Australia and said, 'Get the footage. See who was there on those days.' Fair Work Australia were not interested. It did not fit their story. Today I have spoken to the Victoria Police and I have urged them to go and get the records, get the footage from the cameras and see who was there. At the very least, they should be able to say that I was not there when they look at those records.
The most vexing thing for me and the most difficult thing in terms of making an explanation about these issues is—and can I say again: this is not a court of law and in this country we do actually have the presumption of innocence—explaining one's innocence and making out a case in relation to that, which for good reason is much more difficult and that is why we have that presumption at law in Australia. One of the things that I have difficulties in making an explanation about—and I am certainly not going to use parliamentary privilege to lie or change that—is in relation to phones and how records were on my phones. I do not have an explanation so that I can neatly say, 'This is what definitively happened. I know that this happens.' But that should not be unusual. What is important is that Fair Work Australia did not investigate any other scenario at all.
There are numerous scenarios as to how this could occur. For example, on many occasions, I would book all the hotel rooms at a particular conference that we would have. I do not know whether or not I did on these nights. I do not have access to those records. That is why we have the presumption of innocence. I cannot go back and say what actually happened there. But these things were not looked at by Fair Work Australia. They did not look at whether there was a bulk of rooms. Quite often I would book a bulk of rooms for a national conference or for a national executive meeting.
The second issue of course is in relation to phone cloning or various other issues as to how it is described. Identity theft in Australia and around the world is not new. It might be a shock to some people in the gallery to write about it, but it is certainly not a shock to those who deal in the law and who deal with this every day. I am going to read a very short extract from a lawyer who contacted me—a very senior barrister in New South Wales. He gives an example of a situation. He says:
Drug dealer A rings on a mobile phone drug dealer B. The police have interception warrants on the phone of drug dealers A and B. Drug dealer A, while sitting in a coffee shop, makes the call to B and the call is lawfully intercepted. However, when the police ask the mobile carrier to provide a record the record shows the call did not emanate from phone A but from another phone—phone C.
This is something that the Federal Police and our police authorities know is a very common issue and something that can happen in relation to criminals and people acting outside the law. Certainly, if you are looking to set someone up, it is a very easy process. I have here 30 or 40 pages from various websites saying how easy it is. In three steps, you can have someone else's phone number on a different account. The issue, I am saying, is that these things were not looked at by Fair Work Australia.
One of the other issues is that it was said there was a phone call made from Bateau Bay to one of these escort services. I moved to Bateau Bay in 2009, which is four and a bit years after this alleged phone call took place. I was not even living on the Central Coast when this phone call took place. I do not know how that phone record is on my record. But, again, one would have thought that these would have been things that Fair Work would have looked at.
People might say, 'Well, this is a great conspiracy theory and it is just about escorts and those sorts of things,' but it is more than that. The current national secretary of the union is accused of destroying documents—documents that even Fair Work say were there when I left as the national secretary. She also took a deliberate strategy of lodging late things like AEC returns, so that people on that side of the parliament could raise accusations saying, 'There are all sorts of problems with Mr Thomson's electoral spending,' when quite clearly the AEC have said that is not necessarily the case at all—in fact, have said it is not the case.
The union settled with me. They paid my entitlements—which, for a period of time, they decided to freeze while they did an internal investigation into whether or not this was right. When they finished their investigation they not only paid me my full entitlements; they also paid me in relation to a defamation case that I had against them. Can I make it absolutely clear that the union have never written to me, have never commenced an action, have never said, 'Mr Thomson, you owe us money,' and they have never put anything in writing. I do not even have an email saying, 'Mr Thomson, you have ripped off the union; you owe us this money.' I have not had one bit of correspondence from the union setting that out.
If a so-called whistleblower is uncovering corruption, the very first thing they would do is say, 'Give us back the money you took.' That is the very first thing they would do. The very last thing they would do is not write to the person that they accuse of that. I think it is an extraordinary thing that the so-called whistleblower's first action was to talk to the media—not to actually seek the return of the money, not to say that there has been some wrongdoing, but to talk to the media about assassinating my reputation.
If you look at the threats made about setting me up, the confirmation that it happens, the flimsy evidence that Fair Work have tried to put together in relation to that, the fact that someone has destroyed documents and that they have put in late lodgements, that they settled with me and paid me money afterwards and that they have never, ever asked me to repay a cent in relation to these issues, one can see a pattern, a very strong pattern, that this exercise is about getting someone, not anything else.
The other thing of course is that they got what they wanted. I remind the House that earlier in this speech I made the point that they said, 'Why don't you just take the salary and do nothing? Don't bring in these transparency issues.' And when I left, what happened? There is now no national office of the HSU. It has been taken over—they have formed this super HSU East branch—and it does not exist. They got what they wanted. They set out to take these things away, and that is why the vast majority of the secretaries of the still existing branches of the HSU, who want to have a full-time office, do not support Kathy Jackson—because they know what has happened. But do not just take my defence in relation to this. What investigations have taken place, and what have they found? The New South Wales Police said:
The assessment follows a letter sent to the New South Wales Police Force by Senator George Brandis SC, raising a number of allegations in relation to the use of the corporate credit card provided to Mr Thomson by the Health Services Union.
They went on to say:
There was no evidence—
Not 'not enough'—
to warrant a formal investigation by the New South Wales Police.
But they have had a further go at it, because these allegations seem to be on the rotisserie cycle of 'bring them up as much as you can'.
On 2 May this year, following a raid on HSU East by the police, Detective Superintendent Col Dyson, Commander of the New South Wales Fraud and Cybercrime Squad, was asked by one of the journalists if he had a copy of the Fair Work report. He said 'yes'. The only person who had been calling for the police to get a copy of that Fair Work report had been me. So he had a copy of the Fair Work report, and he made the comment that he had read it and the allegations were not of a criminal nature.
I think perhaps the most damaging investigation for this Fair Work report is by the AEC, released last week. They made a number of points. On page 3 they said:
Most of these comments—
by Fair Work Australia—
have overlooked the specific requirements in sections 304, and 309 of the Electoral Act.
They are pointing out that the investigator did not even know what to look for in terms of the investigation.
At page 5 they point out that, under the cover of a letter to the AEC, Ms Jackson lodged these AEC returns late. They also point out that none of the returns was subject to any qualification, meaning that there was no qualification as to why she was late. There was no reason. She put no explanation into being late. There is a particular provision of the act, section 318, that specifically says that if you do not have access to the documents, if there is a problem with the documents, you can put them in late. She did not do that.
At page 9 the AEC points out that paragraphs 151 to 162 of the Fair Work Act refer to:
… postage expenses at the Long Jetty campaign office totalling $9,574.17 that were incurred after May 2007.
The Fair Work report says:
Mr Thomson … as ‘ALP Candidate’ it seems probable that Mr Thomson purchased … the … stamps and … envelopes for mail-out purposes associated with Mr Thomson’s campaign for Dobell.
The AEC say:
The actual evidence to support this conclusion is not apparent …
And they make the obvious point that it could well have been spent on the Your Rights at Work campaign, a campaign run by the unions right around the country to get rid of some of the most draconian industrial legislation in this country, of which one of the targeted seats was Dobell.
Page 11 of the AEC report says:
Such comments have overlooked the facts in the FWA Report which disclose that some of her duties—
'her' being one of the staff members who Fair Work says must have been used for my political purposes, were to work on the Your Rights at Work campaign. On page 11 of the report the AEC report says that, irrespective of the characterisation of a particular organisation in the Fair Work report, Fair Work have got it wrong. They are saying, irrespective of the way Fair Work did it, they have reached the conclusion that this particular body:
… was not an “associated entity” under the Electoral Act due to its activities and operations.
I think one of the things that I regret most about this issue in terms of the attacks made was an attack on an organisation called Dads in Education. This is an organisation that no longer exists. It used to make sure that dads would come along and read stories to their kids in the first week of Literacy Week in the schools. Our union made a donation to it. The conclusion that Fair Work Australia reached was that it must have been for my personal benefit, my personal gain. As the AEC points out, there is no evidence as to what publicity, what sponsorship arrangements—what the member for Dobell got out of that particular issue at all. I regret greatly that there has been any attention on what was a terrific organisation doing a great job, trying to make sure that fathers played a greater role in their kids' school education, particularly in an area like mine where we have a lot of commuters who do not have that opportunity.
The AEC report has destroyed the credibility of the Fair Work investigation. It took three weeks for the AEC to come up with the truth, to come up with the real reasons, whereas it has taken Fair Work Australia four years to muck around on an investigation that is clearly wrong.
I want to talk briefly about the separation of powers and the presumption of innocence. Members of this House have a clear obligation to uphold and respect the rule of law. I think it should be of great concern to all Australians that the Leader of the Opposition has said that I am not entitled to the presumption of innocence because I am clearly guilty. I think that the Leader of the Opposition's concept of guilt means trial and conviction by media, and it suggests that, if he were to become Prime Minister, populism rather than principle, assertion rather proof, would be the guiding principles of his government.
The statements and the conduct of a number of his senior colleagues also suggest that the rule of law under any future coalition government would be a discretionary concept, to be readily put aside if it served their base political objectives to do so. I say this looking at the number of MPs, current and past who are alive, who have had either criminal or civil charges brought against them and the treatment that they have had in the various parliaments around Australia. I am not going to go through the list but, can I tell you, it is many, many pages, including at least half a dozen of you sitting here. I am going to talk briefly about the media. There are many, many good people in the media. There are many good people who do a terrific job and I am going to mention some of those people, so that is probably going to be a blot on their CV for evermore—people like Mark Simkin from the ABC; Simon Benson from the Telegraph; Phillip Coorey from the Sydney Morning Herald; Paul Bongiorno from Channel 10; Kieran Gilbert from Sky News; Latika Bourke, sitting there; and Laurie Oakes. People would have seen the Laurie Oakes interview. That was a very hard interview, but Laurie Oakes is someone that I respect and he gave the opportunity to put a case. That is what you expect from journalism.
What you do not expect from journalists is the 12 stories that have been written about me in the Fairfax media without coming to me for a comment, without seeking my side at all. What you do not expect is for Channel 7 reporters to be hovering underneath the bathroom window while my pregnant wife is having a shower. There is a great responsibility in reporting. You need to take that seriously.
I would like to read a couple of comments from Greg Barns, who wrote on the Drum:
That the presumption of innocence has been trashed by the media and those who feed them can be gleaned by the constant use of phrases and words which connote guilt.
… … …
But what 'scandal'? A scandal surely connotes that some facts have been established which the ordinary person would think constitutes outrageous or …illegal conduct.
… … …
The Australian media is, like its American and British counterparts, obsessed with titillation, hounding individuals, and giving credence to any allegation made against a person who is in the spotlight.
These are things we all have to guard against, these are things you have responsibility for—and can I say you have not done a very good job.
The replacement of journalists with commentators: I make a reference to a commentator that is often described as being from 'the Labor side of politics', a person who was involved or was a player in relation to negotiations with myself and Fairfax over a defamation issue. A person who wants to be a commentator needs to make it clear that they are actually a participant in this process, they are not just a commentator; and to do otherwise is both dishonest and misleading and something that we need to guard against.
Can I say in relation to the Fairfax defamation issue, because a lot of stuff has been written about that and people have made comments, that I did not receive money from Fairfax in relation to that agreement and perhaps my use of language in saying it was a 'settlement' rather than an agreement could have been better done. Part of the agreement, though, was to withdraw the defamation action. It was an agreement. I did not go off and suddenly decide I should withdraw it. Why did I do it? I did it for two reasons. One, this was a minority government, it was just after the election, and issues of stability were important. I was advised, and I took the advice, that it would be in the best interests of the government if we could have these things dealt with. I was also advised that three weeks of front-page news while the case went ahead would not be good for me or my family. Can I say, in hindsight, I wish for just three weeks of front-page news in terms of this. Can I also say that was a mistake I made, in reaching that agreement, and that is a mistake that I do not intend to make again with these matters.
I have obviously got a little emotional here, so I am going to truncate the last bit of this. There are many, many people I would like to thank who have stood by me: family; friends; my staff, who are here; and the people of the Central Coast. For the first time, in the last few weeks I have felt very anxious and nervous about walking into shopping centres. That is what we do, but I have felt affected by that. But for the welcome, but for the understanding of my constituents it would be impossible. The effect that this has had over four years on my health and mental health probably is evident. It is something that people need to be very conscious of when they go off on a witch-hunt, without evidence, based on just accusations.
This should never again happen. We should never be in this situation again where the rule of law is trashed completely by a parliament. What do you think you are doing here? Are we going to have parliament ruled by the mob? Are we setting ourselves up as some sort of junta, where a majority decision of a parliament can suddenly override anyone's rights? Is that the kind of Australia that you want? I was reminded by someone of a quote from To Kill a Mockingbird:
But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal—there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court … Our courts have their faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levellers, and in our courts all men are created equal.
That applies in this country, and you have trashed that. What you have done is not just damage to an individual or their family. You have damaged democracy and you continue to damage democracy, and you should hang your head in shame for that. What it shows of the Leader of the Opposition, that man, is that not only is he unfit to be a prime minister; in my view, he is unfit to be an MP.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! I want to thank everybody for their graciousness in listening to the member for Dobell. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order to inquire whether the Leader of the House will be moving that the parliament takes note of the member for Dobell's statement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is actually no point of order before the chair. If you are seeking leave, you can do so.
Mr PYNE: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had assumed that the Leader of the House would seek leave to take note of the statement.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr PYNE: We had a discussion about the lack of documents—
Mr Albanese: I told you I wouldn't.
Ms Roxon interjecting—
Mr PYNE: That was about tabling of the documents; there are no tablings of documents.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General is not assisting this situation.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE ( Sturt — Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 13:00 ): I seek leave to move the motion that the House take note of the statement just made by the member for Dobell.
Mr ALBANESE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As the Manager of Opposition Business knows full well—because I told him earlier on, in order to have a smooth functioning of the parliament, which is in everyone's interests; particularly, I would have thought, today—that there is no document from the member for Dobell. There is—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Mr ALBANESE: I will refer to House of Representatives Practice. I know it is unusual to actually refer to the rules of the parliament, but page 593 of House of RepresentativesPractice indicates that you can only take note of a document. There is no document to take note of.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Manager of Opposition Business, there is no document before the chair. Are you seeking leave for a document to be tabled?
Mr PYNE: No. I am seeking leave to move a motion that the House take note of the statement. No documents—the statement. If it is not granted, I will move to suspend standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no document before the chair so there is no ability for a take note.
Mr Pyne interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, but if we go back—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I understand what the Manager of Opposition Business is trying to achieve, but, as the Leader of the House rightly points out, I cannot grant leave for a motion if there is not a document before the chair. I cannot grant leave, but the Manager of Opposition Business can seek to move a motion, and he now has the call.
Mr PYNE: I would point out that I have not sought leave to move a motion in relation to a document; there was no document from the member for Dobell. But there is absolutely no reason why the Leader of the House could not give me leave to move a motion to take note of a statement. Clearly, the member for Dobell has just given an hour-long statement to the House. But, given that leave is not being granted, I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Sturt moving forthwith the following motion—That the House take note of the statement just made by the member for Dobell.
I do unfortunately find myself in the position where I have to move a suspension of standing orders to take note of the statement by the member for Dobell.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business does have the right to a suspension.
Mr ALBANESE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is a point of clarification with regard to the actual motion that the Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to move—I do not have a copy of it so it is hard to comment on it—for a suspension of standing orders. Is it in order to move a suspension of standing orders to allow a motion to be moved which would then be ruled out of order? It is difficult for me, because I do not have a copy of it, to make a ruling on it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is in order. The Manager of Opposition Business has the call.
Mr PYNE: I would ask for the clock to be restarted.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. There is no precedent to stop the clock. The clock continues, as it does in normal circumstances when points of order have been taken.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (13:04): Given that I gave the Manager of Opposition Business the courtesy of discussing with him the process that would take place, and given that he did not give me the courtesy of even showing me the resolution, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
The House divided. [13:08]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Anna Burke)
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (13:16): I second the motion. The government is still running a protection racket for the member for Dobell and debate should not be gagged. It is imperative that standing orders are suspended to allow the House to take note of this statement from the member for Dobell. While it was more a valedictory than an explanation of the very serious findings against him contained in the 1,100-page report by Fair Work Australia, standing orders should be suspended so that this can be debated in the parliament. That report was based on a three-year investigation, an audit that took evidence, evaluated that evidence and made findings—156 findings of breaches by the member for Dobell out of 165 findings involving the misuse of more than $500,000 of Health Services Union funds for personal gain. The report found that $270,000 had been misused to fund the member for Dobell's 2007 election campaign.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (13:17): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time allowed by standing order 1 for debate on the motion for the suspension of standing orders having expired and a question not having been proposed to the House, the motion lapsed.
The House divided. [13:22]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Anna Burke)
PRIVILEGE
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:29): Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a matter of privilege. I understand under the standing orders that it is my duty, should I seek to raise a matter of privilege in relation to the breaching of the requirements of the pecuniary interests register, to write to the Chair of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. I have done that today and I simply present a copy of my letter to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, out of courtesy so you might also be able to inform the Speaker that that matter has been raised.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (13:29): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter of privilege concerning the member for Hughes and his apparent failure to comply with the resolution of the House which requires members to register certain private interests. A resolution is in place requiring all members to register certain interests and to report changes to those interests within 28 days, as you are aware. Any member who fails to provide an accurate declaration of their interests or fails to report changes within the required time frame is guilty of a serious contempt of the House.
I have reason to believe that the member for Hughes has failed to honour his obligations under this resolution. I informed him earlier today that I would be raising this issue and, I must say, he proclaims his innocence of these matters. It appears the member may have failed to declare directorships of several—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am loath to interrupt the Leader of the House when he is raising a matter of privilege, but the correct process to raise a matter of breach of the register of interests is exactly the way I did it, which is to write to the Chair of the Privileges Committee. As we have discussed before, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have no role in whether this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is correct. If there is just an issue in respect of the register, the issue can be referred directly to the committee.
Mr Albanese: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it can also under the standing orders be raised with you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It actually will not be raised with me; it will be raised with the Speaker. The Leader of the House has the right to raise the issue and he will be heard.
Mr Pyne: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: the only purpose of raising a matter of prima facie breach of privilege with the Speaker or, in this case, the Deputy Speaker is so that the Speaker can afford it a motion to refer it to the Privileges Committee as a matter of priority. As there is no requirement to have a priority for such a motion, this is out of order.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the right to raise the issue before the chair. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: And I am. The member for Hughes may have failed to declare directorships of several companies, failed to declare potential liabilities arising from the collapse of a company with which he was involved, failed to declare possible criminal charges arising from that collapse and failed to declare that he has been practising as a solicitor at the same time as serving as a member of the House. For the benefit of the House, I will briefly outline the facts that I say potentially constitute contempt against the House. I refer to paragraph 2(d) of the House resolution.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that this is a clear breach of the standing orders of the parliament. I raised a matter of privilege entirely in the way that I was instructed to do so under the standing orders. This is a gratuitous attack on one of the members of the House and it should be done using the proper process.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the concern of the Manager of Opposition Business. The Leader of the House has the call. It is actually a matter of my response at the end of the Leader of the House's contribution.
Mr ALBANESE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member for Hughes has failed to declare registered company directorships for several companies, including Homewares Depot Pty Ltd—the member was a director until 25 March 2011, but this was not declared. He was also the company secretary, but the member failed to declare this on his register of interests too. The member was a director of Valentino Franchising Pty Ltd until 25 March 2011 but failed to declare this. The member was a director of Valentino Home Fashion Pty Ltd until 8 March 2011, but once again the member failed to declare this.
For the benefit of the House, I table an extract from the relevant Australian Securities and Investments Commission database documenting the member's involvement with the companies in question. I also refer to the member's statement of registrable interests for the 43rd Parliament lodged on 25 October 2010 and I table that document. At item 4 of that statement, 'Registered directorships of companies', the member has entered 'nil'. In contempt of the resolution of this House, the member has failed to declare the company directorships to which I have just referred.
What is perhaps more concerning is the member's failure to notify the House of the shadow director role that he allegedly played in another company. In a report of February 2012, the liquidators of the member for Hughes's family company have raised questions about whether he was acting as a shadow director at the time of the collapse. These very serious questions were highlighted by reports appearing on the Crikey news website. DV Kelly Pty Ltd, for whom the member worked as an export manager prior to entering the parliament, closed its doors earlier this year. At the time of its collapse, DV Kelly Pty Ltd, the member's family company, owed $4 million to creditors. Worryingly, this includes $325,540 in unpaid wages, superannuation and leave owed to 12 ordinary Australian workers, and $760,000 owed to the Australian taxpayer through the Australian Taxation Office.
The member might say the shadow directorship was too uncertain to require declaration under rules for company directors. This is a matter that the Privileges Committee will ultimately have to determine. However, even if the member were not required to declare his involvement with DV Kelly Pty Ltd under the rules for company directors, which I dispute, he was required to declare it under other—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House is now putting his own version of events to do with this privileges matter. It is quite out of order for him to be debating this issue. He should be referring it to the Privileges Committee, as I did, and not smearing the member for Hughes in the parliament this way.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has the call and I would ask him to come to a conclusion.
Mr ALBANESE: Paragraph 2(m) provides that members must declare any interests of any kind where a conflict with their public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to be arising. That is certainly the case here. The liquidators report that DV Kelly Pty Ltd may have been trading while insolvent, a grave allegation which could carry significant consequences, importantly for the ability of the member to continue his parliamentary career.
Under the Corporations Act 2001, directors, including shadow directors, of companies trading while insolvent can face civil penalties of up to $200,000 and may be held personally liable for debts incurred. Recall that at the time of the collapse DV Kelly Pty Ltd owed $4 million to creditors. As you would be aware, under section 44(iii) of the Australian Constitution, any person who is an undischarged bankrupt is disqualified as a member of the House of Representatives.
Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You asked the Leader of the House to come to a conclusion. He is now lecturing us on the Constitution. He is debating the issues. It is entirely inappropriate for him to conduct himself in this way in this House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Leader of the House has the right to bring the issue before the chair but I would ask him to try and come to a resolution.
Mr ALBANESE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That raises a serious issue with regard to the liabilities that could potentially be incurred there and, in addition, to the potential penalties to which they would be subject.
Finally, we come to the question of the member for Hughes practising as a solicitor while at the same time serving as a member of the House. There have been reports that after ceasing employment with this company the member represented it in several outstanding legal matters. A search of court databases confirms the member's involvement in this litigation. I table another document.
I refer the House again to the resolution concerning registration of interests, in particular paragraph 2(j), which provides that members must declare any substantial sources of income. If the member for Hughes was receiving any income as a result of his involvement in these legal proceedings—even if only costs were incurred in DV Kelly's favour—was this otherwise an interest that might conflict with the member's official duties within the meaning of paragraph 2(m) of the resolution?
I submit the matters I have outlined today indicate the member for Hughes may have failed to satisfy his obligations under the resolution concerning registration of interests and in doing so may have committed a serious contempt against the House of Representatives. This is an issue that should be referred to the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. In my submission I ask that you consider these matters with a view to allowing precedence. I table the document.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 216, the matter can be referred directly to the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests. I would ask the Leader of the House to write in that matter.
COMMITTEES
Gambling Reform Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Back has been discharged from the Select Committee on Gambling Reform.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (13:40): Just as the government sought to shut down debate on the member for Dobell, they are also in the business of shutting down debate about increasing the debt limit of the Commonwealth. I rise to speak on this package of appropriation bills that underpin the 2012-13 budget. These are the standard supply bills which allow for the appropriation of funds from consolidated revenue to fund the services and programs of the government and its agencies. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) are supplementary estimates bills to provide funds for changes in previous estimates of program expenditure, variations on the timing of payments, forecast increases in program take-up, classifications and from policy decisions taken by the government since the last budget.
The five bills are to be considered together as a whole and as a part of a cognate debate, and the terms of this were set by the government on budget night. I note the Leader of the House's comments in the media today that somehow this was a clever tactical move by the government to roll the debt bills into the appropriation bills and to have a procedural motion that the opposition did not vote against on budget night. Given this is the second time, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, we should have created mayhem on budget night instead of the Treasurer and I engaging in public debate about the merits of the budget and the contents of the budget. That is what he is inviting us to do—to become an opposition that does not facilitate the smooth working of the House at a time when the House is under such enormous scrutiny on budget night but rather to set off a series of divisions. This just illustrates what the Labor government is doing.
The most significant part of these bills is a bill that seeks to increase the limit of the Commonwealth's debt from $250 billion to $300 billion. Since Labor was elected, they have sought increases in the debt from zero to $75 billion then to $200 billion and then to $250 billion. Now they are saying they are living within their means but are also saying, 'Just in case, please give us an increase in the credit card limit to $300 billion.' It does not sound like a lot if you say it quickly but it is a hell of a lot of money that Australians have to repay. Enough is enough.
The coalition is going to keep them to their promises. I will be moving a second reading amendment which will require the government to vary the terms of the debate to allow substantive amendments to be moved and debated in regard to Appropriation Bill (No. 2). If this succeeds, the coalition will then move to remove the debt ceiling provision from the bill. The quest for a debt ceiling increase is also the clearest evidence that the claim of returning the budget to surplus is a hoax. The budget cannot be in surplus if you are in spending more than you are receiving yet, under Labor, Australia's net debt and gross debt just keep increasing.
The headline cash balance on page 36 of the budget overview shows exactly why debt keeps growing. It shows on the headline measure—and I am pleased Ross Gittins picked up on this point today—the only measure to include the NBN and CEFC, the budget would be in deficit every year until 2015-16 but it would be an $8.7 billion deficit for 2012-13, a point I have been making on numerous occasions since the budget was delivered. Further to this, we have a number of issues with this budget. The No. 1 issue in Australian politics today is trust. This budget lacks trust. It makes promises—
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 and the member for North Sydney will have leave to continue his remarks at that time.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Ryan Electorate: Return Serve Program
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:45): I rise today to speak about a not-for-profit organisation doing amazing things for the community in the Ryan electorate. Return Serve is a not-for-profit tennis organisation, which facilitates tennis opportunities for people who do not have the available resources to become involved in the sport. These may be people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, they may have a disability or they may be new to our country and still struggling to get on their feet. Tennis is one of those great sports that you can play and enjoy all your life, young and old, and is a great way to make new friends. The participants meet once a week and have access to top-level coaching and instruction. In addition, the program provides assistance to early career coaches in helping them attain higher certification levels. Queensland's young elite players also lend their skills to the program, providing them with an opportunity to give back to their sport.
During National Volunteers Week, I was honoured to attend a Return Serve session at the Queensland Tennis Centre and present certificates to the volunteers involved in the program. It was inspiring to see the participants, who come from a range of backgrounds, enjoying an afternoon of tennis activities and coaching with the dedicated volunteers. I must commend the founder of Return Serve, Queensland's National Academy Head Coach, Dave Hodge, who is ably assisted by Gary Tupicoff, the Multicultural Development Association and Return Serve's volunteers, on the important work they are undertaking in our community.
Bass Electorate: St Giles Society
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:46): I rise to congratulate a local disability provider in my electorate of Bass, St Giles. I recently had the great pleasure of making the pre-budget announcement of $6.8 million for paediatric services at St Giles, which will, in effect, benefit communities state-wide. St Giles Society will use the funding to redevelop the headquarters of the service, as well as implement modern e-health infrastructure. The investment will also help to fund the recruitment and training of allied health professionals in paediatric care. This is a big win for Launceston. Not only will this mean improved paediatric and disability services for all Tasmanians, but also the facilities will mean more health professionals are attracted to our great region. The funding is part of the government's Health and Hospitals Fund. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate St Giles on the fantastic work they do for people living with a disability in Tasmania and their families. I look forward to my continued work with St Giles CEO, Ian Wright, the management and staff, and the families that so greatly benefit from the support and services that St Giles provides now and into the future. Congratulations once again, and more power to St Giles!
Practice Incentives Program
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (13:48): I have recently been contacted by the directors of the Biloela Medical Centre regarding their concerns over the lengthy delay in payments under the Practice Incentives Program. Biloela is a key township in the Dawson/Callide region of my electorate that relies heavily on its own local health services. They built these services with their own money. It has been brought to my attention that it has taken over seven months to receive payments they are entitled to under the program via Medicare, since the establishment of their practice in July 2011. The medical practice is absolutely vital to the town and surrounding areas—they are few and far between in these regions. Their staff are dedicated, loyal and committed to serving their community.
The directors have tirelessly pursued this matter as these funds are vital to a start-up practice such as theirs. Their practice is being driven into the ground by lack of funds. They themselves have cited the biggest issue preventing them from solving the problem as being 'the lack of transparency and responsiveness of the agency'. It astounds me that such a practice could be under threat of closure due to such bureaucratic toing and froing. I urgently call on the health minister to examine the efficiency of the Practice Incentive Program to ensure that delays of payments do not threaten the survival of such medical practices.
Cheedy, Mr Ned
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:49): I rise today in tribute to Yindjibarndi elder and custodian, Mr Cheedy, who died on 1 April 2012 at the great age of 105. With his long life, Mr Cheedy beat all the odds that have been stacked against Indigenous Australians since colonial times. He is a shining light for his people and a motivational figure for this nation as we work to build on the 2008 Apology to the Stolen Generations and to improve the quality of life for Indigenous Australians.
Born in 1907 on Hooley Station at Cheedy Creek in the WA Pilbara, Mr Cheedy became a skilled stockman and windmill man before moving to Roebourne for the education of his children. He was an inspirational, beloved leader renowned for his dedication to teaching young people about his country, preserving Yindjibarndi law, culture, and language, and caring about the future of his country and people, including helping with the successful Yindjibarndi and Ngarluma native title claim in 2003.
Though he was born of another era and adhered to Yindjibarndi tradition, Mr Cheedy employed all the modern resources available—cultural mapping, books, films and recordings—to make sure that future generations would benefit from his knowledge. Dismayed by the ravaging impact of alcohol on Indigenous families, Mr Cheedy became a lay preacher with the Pilbara Aboriginal Church and travelled the state to help people suffering from alcoholism. In 2011, Mr Cheedy's service to his people and country was recognised with a NAIDOC Lifetime Achievement award. Mr Cheedy will be missed, but his legacy remains. As Thomas Paine wrote in 1791 in The Rights of Man:
My country is my world, and my religion is to do good.
Mental Health
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:51): I would like to raise a very serious issue about mental health in my home state of South Australia. We would all have heard the grand statements about national health reform that were made by the previous Prime Minister in 2010 and by the current Prime Minister in 2011. Specifically, the federal government promised to fund 179 subacute beds and places in South Australia and 159 of these were to be funded in the area of mental health. But it seems what is happening at the same time is that the South Australian government are pursuing their long-term agenda of closing 50 acute mental health beds. They have closed 10 mental health beds at Flinders Medical Centre, they have closed eight acute mental health beds at Glenside and they have also closed acute mental health beds at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The Commonwealth-state agreement is very specific: these are meant to be new, extra, additional beds. The state governments are meant to maintain the availability of acute beds. They are not meant to close acute beds. The state governments are meant to maintain their effort in this area. Mental health is a serious issue and it is very disappointing that, in a pea and thimble trick, the South Australian state government are using the cover of these new subacute beds to reduce their own responsibilities.
Wheatley, Ms Joyce
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:52): I want to draw the attention of the House to the sad passing of Joyce Elise Wheatley. Joyce died on Tuesday last week at age 74 after a long illness. Joyce was a Labor legend, a lifetime member of the party who moved to Kiama from her birthplace in Yass in 1965. She was a schoolteacher at Warilla High School for many years and bore the title 'mistress in charge of girls'. She was asked in 1980, along with her husband, to run for local council. Unfortunately, her husband, Frank, became ill and was unable to compete in that campaign. He hung on long enough to see Joyce selected and described her election to council as the happiest day of his life.
In 1992 Joyce became the mayor of Kiama and held that position until she was succeeded by the current mayor, Sandra McCarthy in 2000. Joyce moved on to more community activities after retiring as mayor, including in the St John Ambulance and Red Cross and acted as a marriage celebrant. In 2008 Joyce was selected as one of five women in New South Wales to receive the Women in Local Government award as a role model for other female councillors. She was the mother of Ian, Alan and Kathy and the grandmother of Joel, Christine, Daniel and Nicole, the wife of the late Frank and partner of Lionel. Celebrations of her life are being held today—and I regret that I cannot be there—in the chapel of Stan Crapp Funerals in Kiama.
National Youth Week
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:54): I rise today to speak about the National Youth Week celebrations in my electorate. National Youth Week is celebrated each year in Macarthur to recognise the positive contributions made by young people to our community. National Youth Week also gives young people the opportunity to connect with each other by taking part in activities, events, workshops and forums. In the Camden area, 25 different activities and events were organised for young people. These activities included: an art exhibition, gaming workshops, movie and pizza nights, mechanical bull rides, a dance party, youth forum and much more.
This year I attended the Regional Youth Forum, organised by youth advisory groups from all over Macarthur. The forum gave young people the opportunity to share their ideas with the leaders of our community. It was a fantastic opportunity for young people to have their voices heard and make a difference for the young people living in Macarthur.
I was very impressed by all of the contributions made by young people at the forum. Today I would like to encourage them to keep up the great work and enthusiasm representing their peers. I would also like to commend Camden Council and its youth council, Campbelltown City Council, Wollondilly Shire Council and its youth council, and all of Macarthur's youth services for their dedication to the young people in my community. This year's National Youth Week celebrations were a fantastic example of my community working together to support our young people. I am proud to say that, after attending this year's youth week events, I am confident that the future of Macarthur is in very good hands.
Lymphoma
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:55): On 27 April a group of intrepid cyclists set off from the Sydney Opera House and rode to Parliament House to raise awareness about lymphoma, Australia's No. 1 blood cancer. The gruelling 330-kilometre ride took them through Mittagong and Goulburn before arriving on 29 April in Canberra.
Jovan Pejic and his twin brother Nikola inspired the inaugural ride in 2011 when Jovan was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's follicular lymphoma at the age of 25. Riding with them this year was the host of The X factor, Luke Jacobz and NRL player Jamie Simpson who is also a lymphoma patient and came along as part of the support crew. At the finish line, where half of Canberra's Serbian community seemed to be, it was great to see the relief and joy on the faces of the riders when they knew the journey was complete.
The riders not only raised awareness about the disease but also raised $50,000 towards the cause. While survival rates from lymphoma have improved significantly over the past couple of decades, a new lymphoma diagnosis is made every two hours, and every six hours another Australian dies from this cancer. I commend the Opera 2 Parliament team for their great efforts and look forward to following their journey again next year, and I also welcome them back to Canberra.
Boothby Electorate: Flinders Centre of Innovation in Cancer
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (13:56): I was very pleased on 26 April to attend the opening of the Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer. This has been part of the long-term vision of the Flinders Medical Centre, and I want to pay tribute to a number of individuals who pushed for this project over a long period of time: Professor Graeme Young, Alan Young from the Flinders Medical Centre Foundation, Rhys Williams and Deborah Heithersay from the Flinders Medical Centre Foundation and her dedicated team of fundraisers. I was particularly pleased to have the Leader of the Opposition there as this was a project which he helped come to fruition when he was the Minister for Health. This was something that the Howard government was pleased to kick-start with a $10 million contribution in the 2007 budget.
The idea is to bring together the researchers and clinicians, but the centre will very much have a patient focus. It also has had a connection with Lance Armstrong, who visited during the early dedication ceremonies for the centre, and who has agreed for the LIVESTRONG name to be given to one of the research wings. It was a good day for the electorate.
St Hilliers
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:58): A very competitive German once said that history repeats itself—first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Karl Marx was wrong about very many things but, if he was looking at the recent collapse of construction firm St Hilliers—which was contracted by the New South Wales government to complete some affordable housing schemes—he would say this is indeed a farce. You might forgive the New South Wales government for getting it wrong once but to stuff it up twice, which is what has happened in the St Hilliers collapse, is an absolute disgrace.
Mrs Gash: Three times.
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I see the member for Gilmore opposite waving her hands around. We are seeing not only the subcontractors who are contracted to engage in these projects being done out of money—and many of them are out of pocket for thousands and thousands of dollars—but at the basis of this scheme has been the New South Wales government sticking its hand out and saying, 'We can build this affordable housing.' In my electorate, Throsby, and in the Illawarra and New South Wales this housing is much needed. So not only do we have the contractors who are out of pocket because the New South Wales government has stuffed it up, but we also have the low- and middle-income earners and the people on welfare benefits in the Illawarra without access to this muchneeded affordable housing. I condemn the New South Wales government—in particular Minister Pearce—for trying to shoot the blame for this terrible collapse home to the federal government when it was they who stuffed it up.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke): In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. I am not sure the member for Throsby's language is parliamentary, but he is going to get away with it this time.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:00): I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today until Wednesday, as she is representing Australia at the NATO summit in Chicago. The Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today until Wednesday, as he is with the Prime Minister at NATO in Chicago. I will answer questions on behalf of the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Defence Materiel will answer questions on behalf of the Minister for Defence. The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness will be absent from question time for the next sitting fortnight to attend APEC trade ministers meetings in Russia and OECD meetings in Paris. He will also be attending Expo in Korea and will hold bilateral talks in Japan, China and Malaysia. The Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development, Local Government and the Arts will be acting as Minister for Trade and Competitiveness during this time and will answer questions on his behalf. The minister will also answer questions on behalf of the foreign minister.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:01): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Why does the government's $36 million carbon tax advertising campaign not actually mention the carbon tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:01): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question, because I would have thought that anyone who has been listening to the debate in this country over the last five years knows that we are having a carbon price. I can well understand how sensitive he is about the assistance that we are providing to families through our carbon price assistance package, the clean energy package. I can see why he is so sensitive about the fact that we are providing additional assistance to pensioners, I can see why he is so sensitive about the fact that we are providing additional assistance to families and I can see why he is so, if you like, sensitive to the fact that we are providing assistance to trade-exposed industries. We make no apology whatsoever for providing this assistance to Australian families, because when there are deposits in their bank accounts they do need to know why they are there and where they came from. So he is very sensitive about this, but we are providing assistance to households and assistance to industry. That is how it should be as we make the transition to a cleaner carbon economy. We are putting in place a clean energy package because we understand that in the 21st century no first-class First World economy can be powered by anything other than clean energy and more efficient energy practices. That is why we are proud of the assistance we are providing.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): I have a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could the Acting Prime Minister please inform the House and the Australian people what it actually is that this compensation is being paid for?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:03): We have been talking about this day in, day out, but I am happy to go through all of the elements of the clean energy package. We are providing assistance to families who will be affected by price rises of 0.7 per cent. We are providing that assistance for—
Mr Abbott: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. The Acting Prime Minister should be able to bring himself to mention the carbon tax, surely—that which cannot speak its name.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. He is abusing the point of order.
Mr SWAN: Certainly. The carbon price will have an impact on the overall price level in the economy. We are proud of the fact that we are providing assistance to nine in 10 households. Almost six million households will get tax cuts or increased payments that cover their entire average price impact; over four million Australian households will get an extra buffer; and, of course, we have the tripling of the tax-free threshold, something that those opposite want to take away—which will be a very substantial tax increase if they ever have the chance of abolishing that very important reform, which gives substantial tax relief to low-income earners in our community. So we are providing assistance. We are proud of the fact. That is as it should be, and that is how we will put in place a carbon price that will drive increased investment in renewable energy.
Economy
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (14:05): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister update the House on the global economic situation and the implications for our economy?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:05): I thank the member for his question because, as all members would be aware, in Greece and many parts of Europe we face very profound economic challenges. These have been underscored in recent weeks by further events in Greece and across the European Community. The G8 has acknowledged at its weekend summit that growth and jobs must be the imperative for the global economy, and indeed here in Australia they have been our imperative from day one of the global financial crisis. The Prime Minister and I will continue to work through the G20 to ensure that the European leaders meet their commitments and put jobs and growth to the forefront of their decision making.
As we said very clearly in the budget, the situation in Europe continues to cast a very dark shadow over the global economy. We expect that Europe's economy will contract by three-quarters of a per cent this year. That was there in our budget forecast, published on the night of the budget. Australia is not immune from this global instability, but we do need to remember that we have some of the strongest economic fundamentals amongst developed economies. Our economy has grown something like seven per cent on its pre-crisis level. This is absolutely outstanding growth, and that is why over the next year and the year after that we will outperform every other major developed economy. That is something that everyone on this side of the House is very proud of. We have a low unemployment level here of 4.9 per cent. Compare that to what is going on in Europe. There have been something like 800,000 jobs created in this country since this government was elected, and we have a record pipeline of investment, very strong public finances and a AAA credit rating from the three major rating agencies for the first time in our history—not something ever achieved by those opposite at any time they were in government. And what is the reason for this? It is because we got the big economic calls right at the height of the global financial crisis. We supported small business, we supported employment and we supported our communities. That is what we are doing with the budget as well: bringing the budget back to surplus and putting in place the big reforms to continue the economic growth that is so important to the future of all Australians.
We have had a lot of negative talk from those opposite about our economy. They continue to talk it down on a daily basis. For them, it is as if the global financial crisis had never happened, the floods had never happened—none of these things had ever happened. They just go out there and talk down these fundamentals. But when it comes to putting the runs on the board for the economy we on this side of the House have gone there in spades. Those opposite can go out and talk our economy down, but we on this side of the House will continue to support it. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (14:08): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to an article in today's Courier Mail stating that Queenslanders will be hit with multimillion dollar bills from rubbish created from Cyclone Yasi because the government will not allow a natural disaster exemption from the carbon tax. Can the Acting Prime Minister explain why the victims of Cyclone Yasi will now also be victims of the carbon tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:09): I am very pleased that I was asked that question, because one of the things this government is very proud of is the assistance that we have put into North Queensland and Far North Queensland following Cyclone Yasi. It has cost the Commonwealth budget something like $6 billion, and when we came to this parliament to discuss how that could be funded we were opposed by those on the other side. We were opposed in one of the most substantial packages that has ever been put in place in this country to support communities that have been hit by a natural disaster. This has been particularly the case in assistance we have provided to local government areas—
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Acting Prime Minister was asked a very straightforward question, which was, 'Why will the victims of Cyclone Yasi also be victims of the carbon tax?' and that is the question he should be answering.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister has been answering the question and he has the call.
Mr SWAN: I certainly have, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have been providing assistance particularly to local authorities right throughout that region—very substantial assistance—which has been welcomed. When I was there earlier this year locals came up and congratulated both the Commonwealth and Queensland governments on the degree of assistance that has been provided.
I have also been asked about landfill operators. There are a number of steps they can take to reduce or offset their carbon liabilities, and they ought to take those steps.
Mining
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:11): My question is to the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and for Disability Reform. What policies is the government putting in place to spread the benefits of the mining boom to Australian families? Have alternative policies been outlined, and what impact would they have on families?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (14:11): I thank the member for Corangamite very much for his question, as he knows this government is all about spreading the benefits of the boom, especially to those families who have been finding it difficult making ends meet.
Just last Wednesday families started receiving money from the household assistance package—up to $110 per child per family for families on family tax benefit part A, and up to $69 per family for those on family tax benefit part B. We want to make sure that families get this extra assistance before the carbon price starts on 1 July, and we also want to make sure that it is the big polluters that pay the carbon price, not Australian families. What we know from those opposite is that all they intend to do is to claw back this assistance from Australian families and from pensioners.
I am also very pleased to let the House know that, from 20 June, families will be receiving the first round of the schoolkids bonus—opposed by each and every one of those opposite. From January next year at the start of term 1 we will start paying the first part of the schoolkids bonus, and the second part will be paid in term 3. This will amount to $410 per child for those in primary school and $820 per child for those in secondary school. This means that one million Australian families will get more money as a result of this government's change and the introduction of the schoolkids bonus.
The Treasurer also announced in the recent budget that families are going to receive another increase next year as part of our spreading of the benefits of the boom. Families on the maximum rate of family tax benefit will get up to $600 extra if they have two children or more. This government is all about spreading the benefits of the boom, but all those opposite say to each and every one of these measures is a great big 'no'. We have just seen from the Victorian government that, while we are introducing a new schoolkids bonus, the Victorian Liberals are just getting rid of their school start bonus. We are helping families: all those opposite can do is hurt them.
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (14:14): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has outlined the benefits to Australian families from the mining boom. What does this mean for my electorate of Corangamite?
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga—Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform) (14:14): I thank the member for Corangamite. I know how hard he works for the people of Geelong and the people on the Surf Coast. More than 11,000 families in his electorate will receive an initial payment this fortnight to help them make ends meet before the carbon price starts on 1 July. Around 9,100 families in Corangamite will receive the schoolkids bonus from 20 June and around 10,000 families in Corangamite will get a boost to their family payments in the middle of next year. Thank goodness—because, at the same time that this government is doing everything we possibly can to help families in Corangamite, we see the state Liberal government down there in Victoria ripping money away from families as fast as they possibly can! While they are ripping money away we have every Liberal here saying no to families. Whether it is in Aston where 7,500 families would miss out if the member for Aston had his way, or in Casey where 8,500 families would miss out, or 8,500 families in Dunkley, or 9,500 families in Flinders and more than 9,000 families in Indi—you have just said no to each and every one of those families because you want to hurt them. We want to help them.
Economy
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:17): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the downgrades last week of numerous Spanish banks; concerns about escalating withdrawals from the Greek banking system; evidence of further slowing in the Chinese economy; and the recent decline in the spot price of key commodities such as iron ore. Against this global backdrop, does the Acting Prime Minister agree that now is the worst possible time to be hitting Australian businesses and jobs with the world's biggest carbon tax?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:17): What we have here is yet again another example of the opposition talking our economy down and trying to undermine confidence in our community. I can think of nothing more reckless than that sort of assertion, which somehow tries to equate what is going on in the Spanish banking sector with what might be happening in the Australian economy. This is the same sort of wrecking-ball politics and economics we have seen from those opposite throughout the whole global financial crisis and global recession. They come into this House, on the one hand, and pretend it never happened—that it never had any impact on our budget bottom line and that we did not have to put in place a stimulus to support our economy—and then, on the other hand, come back and say, 'Oh, there's a big problem in Europe!'
There is a challenge in Europe for the global economy and we have got the runs on the board in handling that global volatility. I recall that when the global economy was challenged by events everywhere, including in Europe, those opposite opposed the actions we took to support the Australian people. I remember that well and so do the Australian people.
Mr Pyne: Madame Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Acting Prime Minister was asked about the wrecking-ball effect of the carbon tax on the economy and he is not even attempting to answer it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
Mr SWAN: As I was saying earlier, if you look at our forecasts, the forecasts of the IMF, the forecasts of the major private forecasters or of the OECD, what you see is an assessment of an Australian economy which, relative to all of our peers, is strong. We are growing at trend. We have unemployment at 4.9 per cent. We have a strong investment pipeline. We have our public finances in good nick. We have a AAA credit rating from the major agencies for the first time in our history, and yet those opposite have the hide to walk into this House and compare the Australian economy and our financial sector to Spain! To ask a question like that—to come in here and talk down our fundamentals—just shows how reckless those opposite have become in their assessment of the economy and how incompetent they are. They are not capable of being put in charge of a $1.4 trillion economy.
The fact is our forecast, the private forecasts, the IMF forecast and the OECD forecast all show that we can achieve this with a carbon price. We are achieving it with a carbon price because we have the guts to put in place the longer term decisions which secure our prosperity and ensure that we continue to have 21 years of continuous growth. Far-sighted Labor governments brought in superannuation, enterprise bargaining and competition policy and brought down the tariff wall. Just as measures in that vein have strengthened our economy, putting a carbon price in will strengthen our economy. We have the guts to face up to the challenges of the 21st century and to support our economy and our people, but those opposite are so reckless they just talk our economy down every day of the week. (Time expired)
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:20): My supplementary question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the Acting Prime Minister's statement that we are currently 'growing the economy at trend'. Can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House what the impact of the carbon tax will be on growth forecast?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:21): I said less than a quarter of a per cent.
Goods and Services Tax
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. In light of the Leader of the Opposition's inconsistent and ambiguous comments regarding Tasmania and GST, do you agree that Tasmania currently receives its fair share of GST and do you promise the GST fiscal equalisation process will not be changed in any way that will see Tasmania's share of GST reduced?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:21): I thank the member for what is a very important question. Horizontal fiscal equalisation—that is, the method where the stronger states in Australia have supported the smaller, economically-weaker states—has been in place throughout all of our history and used to be a point of bipartisan agreement in Australian politics between the Labor Party on this side and the Liberal Party on that side. It has been there for a very good reason: it is so that we do not end up with those big disparities that you see in countries in Europe, that we all grow together, that we do not grow apart. That is why we have had this in place for over 100 years and it is why we have had bipartisan agreement on it until recently, until this wrecking ball Leader of the Opposition has put his wrecking ball through what has been a long-established method of ensuring that, wherever you lived in Australia, you would get comparable services to anybody else wherever they lived. That is what HRE is all about.
The Leader of the Opposition went down to Tasmania and blew the whistle. He said, 'We're going to cut you adrift.' That is what he said, and all of the other, Tasmanian Liberal members were scattering for the hills. 'He's here! He's here! He's going to cut us adrift!' And then he went to South Australia and did the same, and he got driven out of South Australia as well. The truth is we are having an independent review of the formula, as we should. We said we would do it. We had a request from the Western Australian Premier to do it. That review has produced an interim report. The final report is not too far off. I welcome a very significant debate in this House about how we support all Australians no matter where they live, but the Leader of the Opposition does not. He has wrecked consensus on some of the most basic matters of economics. He is now wrecking consensus on something that goes to the core of the social and economic stability of this country. When we have that report out, it is going to be very interesting to see what all the Liberals from South Australia and all the Liberals from Tasmania do when he tries to fudge his response like he has tried to fudge everything else.
Budget
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:24): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. How is the government's budget helping to spread the benefits of the mining boom to small business and Australian families?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:24): I thank the member for her question, because the fact is that our economy is now something like seven per cent bigger than it was prior to the global financial crisis. We should recall that many other developed economies have not even got back to where they were prior to the global financial crisis. So growing around trend but also coming back to surplus does give the Reserve Bank of Australia in particular greater flexibility when it comes to the setting of monetary policy, and that is a very good thing.
In addition to putting in place all of our plans to grow the economy, we also want to spread the opportunities of our economy around every corner of our country. We grow the economy, we grow the pie but we also do that to spread opportunity. In particular, given the fact that we have a mining boom, this budget was an opportunity to spread some of those benefits right around our economy to many of those people who do not feel like they are in the fast lane of the mining boom, to those people who feel like it is somebody else's boom. That is why we have put in place very substantial assistance to 1.5 million lower-income families. That is why we have put in place the new schoolkids bonus that the minister was talking about before. It was incredibly opposed by those opposite. How could you oppose an existing measure which really gives cost of living relief to families when they need it?
They come in here and talk cost of living all the time, but suddenly it disappears when it is the cost of kids going back to school. Then it is not a matter for them to be concerned about. They do not care. They simply do not get it. They really do not get it when it comes to growing our economy. They certainly do not get it when it comes to cost of living pressures on families, particularly those for people who are trying to educate a couple of kids. But they also do not get it when it comes to tax reform and relief for small business. Our loss carry back is a very important initiative. They also voted in this House against the $6,500 instant asset write-off that is going to be so important to up to 2.7 million small businesses right across our country.
But where they really do not get it—and I think this is where we had a real clanger from the shadow Treasurer during the week—is where it comes to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. They can give a tax cut to Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart, but they cannot support disabled Australians in our community. We heard the truth about that from the shadow Treasurer. They are happy to see people in a wheelchair go to the back of the queue, but they are happy to put Clive and Gina at the front of the queue.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, the last statement by the Acting Prime Minister was, (1), un-prime ministerial and, ( 2), a slur on all members of this side of the House. I ask that it be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): We have had difficulty with groups being slurred and asking for withdrawals, so I am not going to seek it at this time.
Mr Pyne: I take offense personally that the Acting Prime Minister would slur me in terms of my regard for people with disabilities. I would ask for it to be withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the assistance of the House I do ask the Acting Prime Minister to withdraw.
Mr SWAN: I withdraw.
Economy
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (14:28): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to his comments only a fortnight ago on Fran Kelly's program that the increase in the debt limit was 'no big deal'. The very next day before the parliament he told the House that the very same provision was now a 'very serious issue'. Acting Prime Minister, does the government view the increase in the nation's credit card limit from $250 billion to $300 billion as a very serious issue or no big deal? (Time expired)
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:28): I do thank the member for that question. I want to spend a bit of time on it because I think it just demonstrates how irresponsible the opposition is. As I indicated to the House last sitting week, we were seeking to get a buffer over and above the debt cap of $250 billion simply because there were variable moments during a year when we went over the cap. I explained the reasons for all of that in the House: we would be at the end of each year within the $250 billion cap. I even went to the lengths of giving the shadow Treasurer a minute from the AOFM as to why this is not controversial. But if it does become controversial then it is a serious issue. If you are going to take the wrecking ball out on this issue, in this environment, given international markets, that is seriously reckless—that is seriously dangerous. What it demonstrates is what a danger you are to the Australian economy and the Australian people.
Budget
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:29): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation. What is the government doing in the budget to ensure hardworking Australian families and businesses share in the benefits of the boom?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:30): I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I know, like so many people on this side of the House, he spends every waking moment of the day fighting for those hardworking families and businesses in his electorate and right across this country. That is why, I know, he is very proud to be a part of a government that is delivering a surplus budget, a part of a government that is showing economic leadership. That leadership is demonstrated by the fact that we have growth returning to trend; we have unemployment at a very low level, with a 4 in front of it—4.9 per cent—we have inflation contained; and we have a record pipeline of investment coming into this country. All of the indicators demonstrate this is a strong economy—a strong economy being managed in the interests of working people.
But on this side of the House we understand that, whilst this is a strong economy, there are many families and many businesses across this country that feel as though they are not sharing in the benefits of the boom. That is why we are determined to spread the benefits of the mining boom and that is why we are increasing family payments. Indeed, the member for Moreton will know, because he fights so hard for his community, that 9,000 families in his electorate will benefit from this measure. He knows that there are 6,800 families in the Moreton electorate that will benefit from the schoolkids bonus. He knows that there are 19,400 small businesses in his electorate that are very keen to take advantage of the instant asset write-off when that comes into effect on 1 July. And he, along with the rest of us, is very proud of continuing our reform agenda when it comes to productivity and job creation, and that is why he supports the loss carry-back measures that we have introduced as well. Of course, all of these economic fundamentals underline the importance of us returning the budget to surplus, and that is what we are doing to give the Reserve Bank the room that it needs to cut interest rates if it chooses to do so and to spread that relief to families and businesses across our economy.
I think what most Australians cannot understand is why those opposite came into this place and voted against the schoolkids bonus. What most Australian cannot understand is why the Leader of the Opposition last week said that he will refuse those families an increase in their family payments. All of this is because he does not trust Australian families. He says he does not trust them to manage their budgets. Well, they should not trust him. He has a $70 billion black hole and he has no plan in terms of how he intends to fill it. But we all know to fill that black hole he would have to rip away payments and rip away services that these hardworking Australian families and businesses rely upon. He just will not tell us what they are. He will not stand up for working families and small businesses, but when it comes to spreading the benefits of the mining boom he is happy to see them trapped in the deep pockets of Clive Palmer and co.— (Time expired)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (14:33): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Why is it important to show leadership and manage the economy in the interests of families and businesses? That is to the Assistant Treasurer again.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think it is fair to say that that supplementary question is certainly out of order. It bears no relation at all to the answer that has just been given—nor does it even make an attempt to say that it arises out of the answer that the minister has just given.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I am going to ask the member for Moreton to state his question again. I did not actually hear all of it amongst all the hubbub.
Mr PERRETT: It is to the Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting on Deregulation, flowing from the earlier question. Why is it important to show leadership—that is the key word—
Mr Robert interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Fadden might get a key word very shortly.
Mr PERRETT: and to manage the economy in the interests of families and businesses?
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (14:34): I am not surprised that they are troubled by a question that goes to economic leadership.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Assistant Treasurer will not test my patience either.
Mr BRADBURY: I thank the member for Moreton for his supplementary question. He is correct: when it comes to economic leadership, that is what this government has shown. We have shown that economic leadership when the tough times have presented themselves. When it came to the global financial crisis we intervened, we stimulated the economy and we saved hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy. We ensured that hardworking Australian people continued to have the opportunity to go to work each day and to contribute to the economy, to make a contribution. We continue to do this by demonstrating economic leadership with the budget that we have handed down.
Those opposite, just as they came in and recklessly voted against the schoolkids bonus for families, came into this place and voted against the stimulus measures during the global financial crisis. I think Australians are entitled to ask the question: what was the Leader of the Opposition doing during this time? What was he doing when the biggest economic decisions this country has ever faced had to be taken? Some might argue that he needed some time to weigh up the pros and the cons, that he needed some time to maybe even sleep on it. In fact, he did not just sleep on it; he slept through it. He slept through the global financial crisis and the debate that occurred in this parliament.
Asylum Seekers
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (14:36): My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that more than 1,000 people have arrived on illegal boats this month, including three boats in the past 24 hours—with one carrying 175 people, the most in over two years. Given that taxpayers will be paying an extra $1.1 million per day for Labor's border failures next year, according to his budget, which assumes just 450 arrivals per month, is the Treasurer concerned that arrivals at more than double this rate may impact on Labor's promised but mythical budget surplus?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The last part of the question was out of order.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:37): It is true that we have had higher than expected arrivals on average in the last couple of months. It is true. But the fact is that they go up and they go down. You are not entitled to claim, on the basis of two months, a permanent figure. You are not entitled to claim that at all.
You did correctly say that the budget estimate is 450 arrivals per month. That is true. Of course, as is usually the case, you are out there, really, conducting a campaign against the government's forecast. You always get that wrong. You will be wrong on this occasion.
They are just out there, trying to get a figure, trying to multiply it by 10, running their usual scare campaigns.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cook is warned.
Mr SWAN: The fact is this: if we had some cooperation on overseas processing these costs would be a lot less.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Indi will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Indi then left the chamber.
Mr SWAN: If we had some cooperation from those opposite we could really get these costs down. The ball is in their court.
Carbon Pricing
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Minister, how is the government assisting households with the modest impact of the carbon price and broader cost-of-living pressures? Minister, why is it important that this assistance is delivered?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:38): I thank my New South Wales colleague the member for Reid for his question. The carbon price, as the member for Reid indicated, will have a modest impact on the cost of living and, as the acting Prime Minister indicated earlier, only 0.7 per cent increase in the consumer price index—less than one cent in the dollar.
To help households, the government is providing tax cuts. We are trebling the tax-free threshold to implement those costs. We are providing increases in family payments and we are increasing the pension and many other Commonwealth benefits.
What this means is that nine out of 10 households will receive some assistance, six million households will receive assistance covering their entire expected average price impact, and four million households will receive assistance covering 120 per cent of the average price impact that we expect them to experience, meaning that they will have a buffer that will leave them—the four million lowest households in the country—better off. In fact, some of these payments for increased family tax benefits began last week and payments to pensioners will also be made during the months of May and June—an initial $250 for a single pensioner, for example, and $380 for a couple.
Contrary to some of the commentary that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition, these increases are permanent and they are indexed. In addition to this, the budget provided for more general relief from cost-of-living pressures. That is why the budget included no less than $5 billion in new support for low- and middle-income households.
These new measures will spread the benefits of the mining boom. They include our schoolkids bonus, which will give families $410 a year for each child in primary school, and $820 a year for each child in high school for those eligible under family tax benefit arrangements. Those initial payments will begin next month, as my ministerial colleague indicated earlier.
The budget also included a supplementary allowance of $210 for singles and $350 for couples, to help the unemployed, to help young people, and to help single parents, with things like utilities bills. Those opposite showed their true colours in their response to many of these measures, including the schoolkids bonus. First, they patronised people by arguing that families could not be trusted to spend the money on their children. Then they voted against the schoolkids bonus, seeking to deny families thousands of dollars in assistance.
On the one hand they create cost-of-living fear and on the other hand, when it really counts, they vote against— (Time expired)
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:42): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister that it is not appropriate for the member for Dobell to participate in the Labor caucus but it is still appropriate for the government to accept his vote in the parliament?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:42): The fact is that those opposite want to turn this parliament into a kangaroo court. There are two very important principles at stake here. One is the presumption of innocence and the other is the separation of powers. Somehow those opposite want to say that this parliament should be making definitive judgments, not the courts of law. That is the proposition that goes to the very core of the question that has been put by the Manager of Opposition Business. They want to turn the parliament into a kangaroo court for their own political purposes, because there is no institution, there is no principle, that this Leader of the Opposition will not trash.
This is not a consistent position from those opposite. We have already heard some words from a number on the cross bench here about how it is important to have the separation of powers in the parliament—that the parliament should not become a kangaroo court—but someone else has said something pretty telling about this. Of course, that was the current Leader of the Opposition, in a debate in this parliament back in 2007, when one member for parliament, the member for Bowman, was the subject of very serious allegations. The member for Bowman was the subject of serious allegations, and this is what the then Leader of the Opposition said.
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is treading on thin ice.
Mr SWAN: He said:
The matter is really now before the police and perhaps the Criminal and Misconduct Commission in Queensland, and let's let those authorities make their investigations and come to any conclusion.
He's a backbench member of parliament and I think he's entitled to stay in the parliament until these bodies have come to their conclusions.
That is what he said when we were dealing for the member for Bowman and a couple of others who had very serious charges against them, as well. So the tune has changed somewhat since 2007. What is really different here is that this speaks volumes about the modern Liberal Party.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: the question was about why the member for Dobell is not in the caucus but is in the parliament. The Treasurer is making no attempt to answer that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister has the call and will return to the question.
Mr SWAN: I take these issues very seriously. The government takes these issues very seriously. But at a time when we have economic volatility in Europe and a time when Australia is on the cusp of fantastic opportunities, what are those opposite doing in the parliament? They are getting out the mud bucket! That is what they are doing! They are not in here talking about the big issues that Australians want them to talk about. This Leader of the Opposition has got the mud bucket out, because this Leader of the Opposition is always about confrontation. For him, his leadership is the political equivalent of 'bringing back the biff'. The problem with that is that when you bring back the biff, people get hurt. We understand on this side of the House how important it is to respect the separation of powers, to respect the fact that when people have a charge against them they are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But not in the modern Liberal Party. They have taken the wrecking ball to any convention— (Time expired)
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not abuse points of order.
Budget
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. How is the government helping working people and their families through the budget? Why is it important that all working families benefit from the proceeds of the mining boom?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:46): I thank the member for Parramatta for her question. She, like everyone on this side of the House, is very committed to working Australians and their families. We are committed to it and that is why we have got behind the last budget, because working Australians and their families are big winners out of the last budget.
The best way that they are big winners is that we are bringing the budget into surplus. It is a remarkable accomplishment when you look around the rest of the world to see how well this government and our Treasurer have done in producing a surplus. Furthermore, when we talk about the surplus, that is not the only way that we are helping working Australians and their families deal with the mining boom. There is no question that the mining boom has been very good for some Australians, but not for all Australians. We have seen the pressure on the dollar. We have seen investment going to the mining areas and we have seen other parts of the Australian economy do it harder—manufacturing, domestic tourism and education services. This is a budget which is about helping spread the benefits of the mining boom to all Australians.
There is a long list of how working Australians get helped in this budget. First of all, we have seen this budget build upon previous Labor budgets and, in fact, two weeks ago we saw the ABS employment statistics for April say that 11½ million Australians are working. This is the largest number ever in the history of the Commonwealth. The jobs are being created—87,000 jobs in 2012 alone. We know this year will be hard on employment but, even contrary to some of the expectations, we have been going better than we dared hope.
It is not just about creating jobs in this budget; it is also about the skills. Last financial year 320,000 people entered apprenticeships. If you want to do something for working Australians, give their children and their young ones an opportunity to get a skill and a trade. The list goes on. We have seen in this budget support for older Australians to be able to find work and support for sole parents to be able to find work. We have also seen support for people who receive family tax benefit part A. We have seen support for families to help make ends meet. If they have two children, they get $600—that is real money. If they have one child, they get $300.
This list of the accomplishments of this budget in helping people do not stop there. For example, there is the schoolkids bonus. We hear a lot from the opposition complaining about how some people get attacked by the government—well, let me tell you: I have never seen such a massive smear on parents with school age children who receive family tax benefit part A.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: You might not like hearing it, but you shouldn't have said it! Australian parents can be trusted to spend money on their kids. If you do not know that, then get out and talk to some parents trying to make ends meet. It does not just stop at the school bonus for kids. How about that tax-free threshold—below $18,000, no tax. How about some social justice for people trying to make sure that they get the benefit of this economy as it changes?
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Higgins is warned!
Mr SHORTEN: What about that billion dollars for the National Disability Insurance Scheme? We have shown our bona fides. Where are those of the opposition?
Member for Dobell
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. If the Acting Prime Minister believes in the presumption of innocence, will he explain why the member for Dobell was excluded from the Labor caucus?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Primer Minister has the call. I was weighing up whether the question was in order.
Opposition members: You have given him the call!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister can resume his seat. The very insistent individuals on my left can stop assisting because they are actually doing themselves a great disservice by annoying me beyond belief. The Acting Prime Minister has the call.
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:50): The answer is very simple. The Prime Minister has dealt with this matter at length both in the parliament and out of the parliament, and so has the member for Dobell. This is just part of the continuing smear campaign which is being run by those opposite. The member for Dobell has explained his position and Prime Minister has explained her position. But those opposite want to continue to run this smear campaign. They want to take the mud bucket out.
Ms Julie Bishop: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order of relevance. The question could not have been more straightforward: why was the member for Dobell excluded from Labor's caucus?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Prime Minister will refer to the question before the chair.
Mr SWAN: Well, certainly: the shadow Treasurer also referred to this question in the media I think over the weekend when he said that he would accept the support of Mr Thomson on the floor of the parliament. That says it all!
Budget
Mr LYONS (Bass) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts. How has the budget delivered on the government's commitment to regional Australia and what are the practical outcomes of this budget for communities in regional areas?
Mr CREAN (Hotham—Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and Minister for the Arts) (14:52): I thank the member for Bass for his question. I was with him in Scottsdale not long after the budget talking up another great initiative that will see the diversification of that economy and also taking the opportunity to demonstrate the great commitment that this government has made to regional Australia—a commitment that, I might say, did not get one mention in the Leader of the Opposition's budget speech-in-reply.
This is a government that has made the greatest ever commitment to regional Australia in the history of this country. Last year's budget saw the biggest ever financial commitment to regions—$4.3 billion over the course of the four years—and this budget built on that. What we saw was $475 million allocated to regional hospitals and those announced in the budget and $110 million to ensure that dentists and GPs are encouraged into regional areas. There was also the significant slice of the healthcare budget that will go to regional Australia as well as the significant assistance to families in regional Australia through the schoolkids bonus and the family payments.
I also say that, because we have now passed the minerals resource rent tax, the regions will now be able to experience a further three Regional Development Australia Fund funding rounds. We have announced the first, which was $150 million and which leveraged more than three times that in terms of investment. We are about to announce the second round of $200 million, but the final three rounds would not be there if the minerals resource rent tax had not been passed. Those that sit opposite will abolish that when they come in. In other words, they will cut the very means by which regions in this country will benefit.
We on this side have always understood the importance of regions. Whenever they have come to office, they have either abolished the department of regional development or scrapped the program. They have even gone so far as to say that they have no constitutional role in the Commonwealth for regional development. That is what the opposition stands for—they are anti the regions. Those regions which see the opportunities going forward for economic diversification as well sustainability as well as a fair go for the families out there will only get it from Labor governments. This budget has underpinned those credentials yet again and exposed those who sit opposite as not being supporters of the regions whatsoever.
Member for Dobell
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:55): My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I ask the minister in his capacity as minister responsible for registered organisations, in particular for the operation of the Health Services Union: what steps has the minister taken to ensure that the $457,000 of Health Services Union members' funds found by Fair Work Australia to have been misused on expenses for the Member for Dobell will be repaid to those union members?
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:55): In terms of the Fair Work Australia report I have said on previous occasions, and I am certainly happy to repeat it here, that this investigation will be tested in court. I think this is important. There has much been said about this investigation, and the member for Dobell has given his statement in the last couple of hours about it. I certainly believe that the investigation has taken too long. What I also know is this: the investigation stage is at a conclusion. I believe it is fundamentally important to the members of some of the parts of the HSU that have been affected by this inquiry that they see this matter brought to a close—all of the matters, including the question which the opposition member raised. I also think that these matters have to be brought to a close in the correct way: they have to be tested in court.
I also say this in passing: I think we owe it to the individuals caught up in this controversy and their families to have this matter tested in court. This parliament should not be judge and jury; we owe it to everybody who has been caught up in this disturbing, regrettable and unfortunate issue—the whole issue. If the people opposite are so outraged by what has happened, at least respect the process enough to let the matter be brought to a conclusion in the way it should be as opposed to by any other sort of kangaroo court of political opportunism.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lyons has the call and will be heard in silence.
Budget
Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (14:57): Thank you for the protection!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think you need it. The member for Lyons has the call.
Mr ADAMS: My question is to the Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business. Why is it important, Minister, to make sure that small businesses and their families benefit from the mining boom, and how is the government doing that through its budget?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton—Minister for Housing, Minister for Homelessness and Minister for Small Business) (14:58): I thank the member for Lyons for his very important question, because it goes to how the government can provide support for small business. The fact is that there are more than 2.7 million small businesses in this country and that they employ almost five million Australians. It is therefore very critical that we attend to their needs. As a result, the first important thing that this government did in relation to the budget was to ensure that it returned to surplus, because it creates the environment for monetary policy to work with government fiscal policy to improve the lot of small business. That is the first thing.
The second thing that I would like to say in relation to small business for Lyons and for every electorate around this country and for the small businesses that live within those electorates is that we have dedicated initiatives to ensure we provide support for small businesses. Firstly, there has been the loss carry-back initiative, a fantastic opportunity for those small businesses who seek to invest or innovate to claim losses of up to $1 million on taxes already paid on previous profits. This has been well received by COSBOA, by employer bodies and by small businesses across the country to provide opportunities for them. I also refer to the initiative that has been referred to by the Acting Prime Minister and the Assistant Treasurer insofar as the instant asset tax write-off is concerned. This is also a very important initiative, targeting small businesses who need to deal with cash flow issues. This provides an opportunity for a 100 per cent depreciation after one year on every asset purchased up to $6½ thousand. This is a fantastic initiative, one that has been embraced by small businesses that I have met, whether it has been in Grafton in regional New South Wales or whether it has been in Cairns or in Launceston or in Devonport or in the capital cities, where I have been meeting with small businesses to talk about those issues.
Of course, they have asked me: why is it that the Leader of the Opposition opposed the proposed tax cut for business? I had trouble explaining it because it would be the first time in living memory that a Liberal leader would oppose a company tax cut for businesses. It would be the first time that that had occurred. We said that, as a result of the obstinance by the opposition to prevent small business getting the tax relief, we would find another way to improve consumer and business confidence—and we have done that, dedicating resources to families across this country in order for them to be better off and to cope with cost of living pressures. We will keep dealing with these issues. This is important for small business and— (Time expired)
Member for Dobell
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (15:01): My question is to the Special Minister of State. I ask the minister in his capacity as minister responsible for registered organisations, in particular as minister responsible for the operation of the New South Wales Labor Party: what steps has the minister taken to satisfy himself about all payments to the member for Dobell for his legal expenses and loans and that they have been appropriately declared to the authorities?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The member's question is out of order. It refers to party matters entirely.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Special Minister of State is responsible for registered organisations, including political parties. Their disclosure—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was not what the question went to.
Mr Pyne: It was. Their disclosure of donations, like legal fees and loans is therefore—
Mr Melham interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Banks is warned!
Mr Pyne: very much within the purview of the Special Minister of State. Many questions of this nature have been asked over the years to the Special Minister of State about disclosure of donations, loans and legal fees.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled the question out of order.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:02): I seek leave to move a motion. The motion that I am seeking leave to move is that the House considers the statement made this day by the member for Dobell, especially in light of the clear indication of the House given before question time that the House wishes this matter to be debated.
Mr Albanese: What?
Mr PYNE: I seek leave to move a motion that we consider the member for Dobell's statement, especially in light of the fact that the House gave a clear indication that it wished to debate this matter by twice voting not to gag members of the opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Manager of Opposition Business has sought leave to move a motion. Is leave granted?
Mr Albanese: I am waiting for him to sit down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Albanese: There were a couple of versions of the motion put by the Manager of Opposition Business.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Albanese: If it suits the House, I will just say no.
Leave not granted.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:03): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt moving immediately—That the House considers the statement made this day by the Member for Dobell especially in light of the clear indication of the House given before Question Time that the House wishes this matter to be debated.
Before question time, two votes were taken in this House to gag members of the opposition—the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and me—on a motion to take note of the statement by the member for Dobell. Both of those votes were won by the opposition and, because of the time running out for the suspension of standing orders due to its being counted, the opportunity to debate that motion was not given. Hence, I am moving now—this is just taking up my time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business understands full well that points of order can be taken.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the Manager of Opposition Business makes a statement that is not correct at all. It is the case that we have dealt with this issue.
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will refer to the motion before the chair—and that is for me to determine, not the member for North Sydney.
Mr PYNE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not yet been given the opportunity to speak to the motion. In fact, this matter was not resolved before question time because it was never put to a vote, and that is why it is perfectly in order for it to be put again. If the Leader of the House knew his job, he would know that. The reason why standing orders must be suspended—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is not assisting!
Government members interjecting—
Mr PYNE: This is just taking up my time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr PYNE: What on earth would I be withdrawing, Madam Deputy Speaker—that he does not know how to do his job?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw so we can progress with the debate.
Mr PYNE: I withdraw. The reason why standing orders must be suspended is that the statement by the member for Dobell today is the most important matter before the House. The fact that the government moved before question time to gag debate on the member for Dobell's statement was an extraordinary act in the continuing protection racket that surrounds the member for Dobell coming from the government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will not use that inflammatory language in respect of this issue.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Acting Prime Minister withdrew a statement earlier today in question time after an objection by those opposite. I take offence at that comment, as the Manager of Opposition Business took offence at the previous comment, and I ask that he withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I am not going to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to withdraw but I will ask him to return to the motion before the chair.
Mr PYNE: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has on many occasions dealt with very serious suggestions when a member of parliament has been accused of bringing the parliament into disrepute. We have an 1,100-page report from Fair Work Australia into the member for Dobell.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:07): I move:
That the member be no longer heard
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders seconded?
The House divided. [15:11]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon Anna Burke)
Ms JULIE BISHOP ( Curtin — Deputy Leader of the Opposition ) ( 15:19 ): I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr ALBANESE ( Grayndler — Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport ) ( 15:19 ): Earlier today, the member for Dobell made a statement before this parliament. That was something that members of the opposition had requested him to do. That having been done, what is not appropriate is that this body now become a kangaroo court that debates the merits of that. Therefore, I move:
That the question be put.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr Hockey: Defending him to the last, hey?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney is not assisting, and he should respect the standing orders.
Mr Swan: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided. [15:25]
(The Deputy Speaker—Hon Anna Burke)
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (15:28): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Earlier today the Leader of the House made a number of assertions relating to me and my register of members' interests. His comments to the House were incorrect, and I would like to clarify the inaccuracies in those assertions.
The Leader of the House asserted that I am a solicitor. I am not a solicitor, and I do not have a law degree. I have never held myself out to be a solicitor nor made any representation to that effect to any person. I have not derived any income or personal benefit from any matters relating to this allegation.
The Leader of the House also asserted that I failed to declare my directorship of several companies. I took steps to resign my directorships of all companies named in August 2010. I provided instructions to my accountant to this effect. My accountant today has confirmed that this is correct, but he did not act on my instructions until March 2011 due to ill-health and hospitalisation on his behalf. At the time I completed my register of members' interests I understood the instructions had been implemented, and I believed them to be correct. I regret that the ASIC record did not reflect the circumstances that I believed to be correct at the time.
The Leader of the House also asserted that I am a shadow director of a company, DV Kelly Pty Ltd. There is no substance whatsoever to this allegation. Further, I have not, nor have ever been, a shareholder or a director of this company.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:30): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:
That the House take note of the following documents:
Foreign Investment Review Board—Report for 2010-11.
Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995—Report on the operation of the Act for 2008‑09.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:31): Madam Deputy Speaker, given that the vote on that suspension motion was 70 votes to 68 and therefore it was carried in a moral sense, I now seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House consider the statement made this day by the member for Dobell, especially in light of the clear indications of the House given before question time and during question time that the House wishes this matter to be debated.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The standing orders make it quite clear that an absolute majority was required.
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not got there yet. It has been determined in accordance with the standing orders. If you seek—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar will remove herself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Mackellar then left the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The standing orders required an absolute majority and therefore the motion was not carried.
Mr Albanese: So you can't move it again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: So it cannot be moved again, as it has already been put and the standing orders have not found—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is in accordance with the standing orders. It is not my deliberation and not my determination as the chair. The standing orders have found that the motion cannot be put.
Mr PYNE: With great respect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are correct, of course: the suspension of standing orders was defeated because it did not gain 76 votes but it did gain a majority. Of course, technically that meant the motion was not carried, but I am entitled to seek leave and the Leader of the House, if he wishes to do so, is able to grant leave for me to move that motion with leave.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is seeking leave. Is leave granted?
Mr Albanese: No. This issue has been dealt with. The item which the Manager of Opposition Business is attempting to—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Leave has not been granted.
Mr Abbott interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is reflecting on the chair.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:34): by leave—I move:
That, unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting the following bills stand referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration:
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013;
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013;
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013;
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012; and
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE HOLDERS
Speaker's Panel
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:35): Pursuant to standing order 17, I lay on the table the Speaker's warrant revoking the nomination of the honourable member for O'Connor to be a member of the Speaker’s panel to assist the chair when requested to do so by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
COMMITTEES
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Report
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (15:36): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the following reports of the committee: Inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital and Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, May 2012, together with evidence received by the committee. In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made a parliamentary paper.
Ms O'NEILL: by leave—As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I am pleased to speak to the following reports: Inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital and Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
In relation to the Trio Capital inquiry report the committee has investigated the collapse of Trio Capital, the largest superannuation fraud in Australian history. At the outset, I would like to express my deepest sympathy for the victims of this fraud. I wish to thank those individuals and organisations who provided the written 77 submissions to the inquiry and those who attended the inquiry's public hearings and the community forum in Thirroul. The strength and resolve of those who have suffered at the hands of this fraud shone throughout the committee's hearings and evidence gathering.
It is important that we understand the scale and consequences of the Trio Capital fraud. About $176 million in Australian investors' money is lost or missing from two fraudulently managed investment schemes run by Trio. Nearly 6,090 Australians lost money as a result of the Trio collapse. Of these investors, 5,400 had invested in Trio through APRA regulated superannuation funds. These investors received nearly $55 million in compensation under the provisions of part 23 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS Act). Of the remaining 690 Trio Capital investors, 415 were direct investors and around 285 investors were in self- managed superannuation funds, SMSFs. SMSF investors have not received compensation.
The final inquiry report makes a total of 14 significant recommendations relating to transparency issues within the superannuation investment framework, improved financial literacy and the need for the appropriate authorities to pursue those responsible for the lost Trio funds as a matter of priority. From the outset it was apparent to the committee that there was a fundamental problem in that many SMSF investors had little or no idea that they had no protection from fraud and no protection from theft. This is of course very different from the APRA regulated savings vehicles. The committee found that there needs to be major improvements to financial literacy in this regard. This inquiry was set up to clearly establish the facts of what happened with the Trio Capital collapse and to determine whether improvements can be made to Australia's financial services sector and consumer regulations.
The committee notes the Richard St John report and the shortcomings he identified in a possible statutory compensation scheme. We did, however, recommended that 74 unit holders, who invested in the Professional Pensions Pooled Superannuation Trust, receive assistance. These investors were offered inducements to move their funds to the ARP Growth Fund.
This inquiry has exposed a clear gap in the general understanding of Australia's superannuation system. Many trustees of SMSFs clearly indicated to the inquiry that they had absolutely no idea that their investment had no protection from theft and fraud—that is, no protection at all from the perpetrators of theft and fraud.
The fraud in itself was complex and involved the schemes investing in a number of hedge funds based in the Caribbean. Despite its complexity, the committee believes that there were a number of failures by the gatekeepers of the financial system. The regulators, ASIC and APRA; Trio directors; the auditors who signed off on its accounts without checking the existence of its assets; and the financial planners who inappropriately recommended Trio's risky investment strategy to their clients have all been examined thoroughly in this inquiry.
While it is important that we not only catalogue what happened we should also focus on what can be done to ensure that this sort of fraud does not happen again. The committee's recommendations are therefore seriously focused on prevention. The committee received significant evidence suggesting a number of expectation gaps in the financial system. These gaps were over investors' understanding of the roles and responsibilities of auditors, custodians and research houses. Educating investors alone, however, will not be enough to bridge these gaps.
The committee recommends that standards in these areas also need to be changed and improved. We certainly welcome the work already being indicated by ASIC and APRA and their recent moves in this direction. The committee also welcomes recent government efforts to improve access to information for investors, particularly those in self-managed superannuation funds.
The Future of Financial Advice reforms—the FOFA reforms—will ensure that financial advisers not only act in their clients' best interests but do not recommend inappropriate investments in return for conflicted remuneration and commissions.
The proposed MySuper reforms will also assist superannuation investors by requiring funds to publish details of their investments. Access to investment information forms a key part of the committee's recommendations. The committee's recommendations seek to improve investor understanding, prudential and regulatory standards and transparency in the financial system.
The SMSF sector is becoming an increasingly important part of Australia's superannuation system. SMSFs account for about 30 per cent of Australians' $1.3 trillion invested in superannuation. By improving the quality of financial advice that SMSF investors rely on and the quality of information available to them, the committee hopes that investors will be better equipped to understand the advantages, risks and responsibilities of managing their own SMSFs. It is important that self-managed super fund investors remain vigilant, particularly against the risk of fraud and theft.
The committee also recommends that APRA and ASIC do more in the investigation and prosecution of investment fraud. Specifically, the regulators should be significantly more diligent in their investigation and prosecution of the masterminds of the Trio collapse. While Shawn Richard has been convicted for his role in the fraud, the committee is concerned that not enough has been done to bring other perpetrators to justice.
More generally, the committee strongly recommends that APRA and ASIC should be more active in their particular attempts to detect investment fraud by identifying outlying patterns in investment performance. More active supervision of suspicious and anomalous fund performance would lead to earlier detection of fraudulent activity.
I would like to thank my fellow committee members for their efforts in compiling this report and collecting the evidence. In particular, I would like to thank the former chair of this committee, Mr Bernie Ripoll, for the considerable work that he has done. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Senator Nick Sherry who rejoined the committee recently and who has given over 21 years of service to this particular committee in its various forms. The senator's many years of parliamentary experience in the financial services sector was most valuable in the concluding stages of this inquiry. The committee hopes that our investigations and unanimous report will go some way to ensuring that such a fraud does not happen again.
I refer now to the second tabled report, which is the committee's May 2012 report on the statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. Section 243 of the ASIC Act directs this committee to inquire into and report on ASIC's activities and matters relating to those activities to which the parliament's attention should be directed. In preparing the report, the committee held hearings with officials from ASIC and, for the first time, also heard information from the Takeovers Panel. I would like to thank ASIC for its continuing cooperation and assistance and thank the Takeovers Panel for assisting the committee to understand its role and procedures. The committee looks forward to working with the Takeovers Panel in the future.
Regarding standards for financial advisors, as earlier detailed the committee has recently been involved in examining the collapse of Trio Capital. A number of the recommendations of the report go to ASIC's role in regulating managed investment schemes and the AFS licensing regime. The committee intends to further examine ASIC about these issues in future oversight hearings. Some of the recommendations in the committee's report are also very relevant to ASIC's oversight of the financial advice sector. In part, these have already been picked up by the government's proposed freedom of financial advice—FoFA—reforms. Compliance with these proposed reforms will be voluntary from 1 July 2012 and become compulsory from 1 July 2013.
The committee welcomes ASIC's advice that it will consult with industry in its preparation of regulatory guidance on the effect of the reforms well before compliance becomes compulsory. The committee notes that ASIC anticipates releasing consultation drafts of regulatory guidance about conflicted remuneration, scaled advice, the best interests test and ASIC's changed licensing and banning powers by 1 July 2012. The committee believes these reforms will assist in preventing some of the conduct by financial advisers that, sadly, led to too many people investing their retirement savings in inappropriate investment vehicles, like some of the schemes operated by Trio.
The committee has also spent some time considering the issue of the public's understanding of compensation for theft and fraud in relation to self-managed super funds. The committee welcomes ASIC's advice that it would place an alert on its MoneySmart website notifying potential SMSF investors that no compensation is available if they lose money from theft or fraud. The committee looks forward to working with ASIC and APRA to develop a more robust regulatory and prudential standard for the SMSF sector and financial advisers.
With regard to ASIC's strategic framework, the committee examined ASIC's recent actions to advance its strategic aims. The committee very much welcomes ASIC's efforts to educate investors and financial consumers through its increased focus on social media and other websites. Its launch of a multilingual financial literacy kit for new migrants and its release of a consultation paper on proposed new operating requirements for investment platforms are welcome developments. The committee also welcomes ASIC's release of guidance on financial licences in the carbon markets and its enforcement policy outlining when, how and why it will take action. The release of both documents will assist in making ASIC's processes and decisions more transparent. They will ultimately enhance the understanding of investors and financial consumers.
In conclusion, and on a sad note, the committee extends its sincere sympathies to the family and colleagues of Mr Michael Dwyer, the former ASIC Commissioner, who passed away on 2 March 2012. Mr Dwyer's expertise in insolvency matters, in particular, was of significant benefit to this committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Does the member for Robertson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?
Ms O'NEILL: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Report and Reference to Federation Chamber
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (15:50): by leave—I move:
That the Inquiry into the collapse of Trio Capital report be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill now be read a second time.
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:51): As I was saying earlier today, before the debate was interrupted, the mistrust starts straight upfront with the claim that the government will deliver a surplus next year. The Treasurer says it with a straight face and yet it is so very clear to everyone that the government has cooked the books to engineer a dodgy promise of a surplus. It has been widely accepted that spending has been brought forward out of next year or delayed beyond the forward estimates. I have taken Australians through that in relation to the National Broadband Network and the CEFC, which, at $10 billion, are treated off-budget. There are other initiatives such as special dividends from the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation that are being taken only next year in order to fluff up the promise of a surplus. Of course the government has allocated only minimal funding to the expensive, $8 billion a year, National Disability Insurance Scheme and the $40 billion submarine program. And I totally refute the allegations made by the intemperate Acting Prime Minister today that we do not support the National Disability Insurance Scheme or its funding. The fact is that the government has not properly funded it and is running away from that issue.
There are a number of other broken promises in the budget. It is a budget of new promises made and a budget of broken promises. In fact, 10 major commitments were broken in this budget. First is the government's promise, and the Treasurer's promise, explicitly not to introduce a carbon tax. In fact, from memory he described it as laughable when it came up in the course of a debate with me on the 7.30 Report before the last election.
Second, the government cancelled tax cuts which they said were all part of the redistribution of money from the mining boom to deal with a patchwork economy. What we do know is that it was going to pass the Senate with the support of the Greens in relation to small businesses. But the small business minister here, like the rest of his colleagues in the Labor Party, ran away from that, after having made all those promises, and on so many occasions the Treasurer said he would introduce company tax cuts and then dumped them before it even came to the parliament.
Third, there was the $500 standard deduction on tax returns promised in August 2010 which was due to commence on 1 July this year. This was a move the Labor Party sold as 'tick and flick' tax returns. You have to be very careful with this mob because if they do not repeat something which is meant to be a core promise then you know they are going to dump it, and the $500 standard deduction is one example of that.
Fourth, they had a 50 per cent tax discount on interest earned on bank accounts, bonds, and annuities, announced in May 2010. It was meant to start on 1 July 2011. They dumped that. Then it was meant to start in July 2012 and they dumped that. Then a year later it was meant to start in 2013 and we know they have dumped that. And now they have finally dumped it altogether. They have put it out of its misery.
Fifth, Labor went to the 2007 election with a solemn promise to increase foreign aid to 0.5 per cent of GNE by 2016. Well, they have dumped that promise.
Sixth, it now appears that the government's commitment to saving the environment was not quite as strong as you would have believed. In 2010 they announced the green buildings tax break of 50 per cent on eligible assets or capital works, but that was dumped in this budget.
Seventh, Labor went to the 2010 election trying to be more conservative than us. They said that there was a real commitment for a three per cent increase in average real growth in defence spending right up to 2018. They have dumped that.
Eighth, the government has also promised that defence savings would be reinvested in defence. Well, they have dumped that.
Ninth, the government went to the 2010 election promising to spare the Public Service from budget cuts. They have challenged us up hill and down dale about all those cuts that they claim that we are going to impose on the Public Service—whereas in fact they were redundancies that I had talked about—but lo and behold, in this budget the government itself goes on and announces a number of cuts to public servants.
Tenth, there was the promise to increase the concessional cap on superannuation contributions for Australians over 50. That was promised as part of the mining tax package to start on 1 July 2012. They have now delayed it to 1 July 2014. Therefore, they have broken that promise.
So, given that the Labor Party says that they are now going to get there—they are going to deliver the much-vaunted surplus—a surplus that you would need to repeat over 100 times just pay off their deficits for the last four years—the government expects us to believe that this promise is real. The challenge is that the debt they are leaving us is the great legacy of Labor, as it always is. But what we know is that peak net interest on debt is now $8.2 billion in 2015-16, and the interest bill alone on government net debt would fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme or, alternatively, build eight new teaching hospitals a year.
As I have previously foreshadowed, in the limited time I have available I am moving an amendment to the appropriation bills before the House to allow substantive amendments to these bills and, if successful, we will remove the increased debt limit measure and seek to have a separate debate about that $50 billion increase.
We have sought an urgent commitment from the government that they would not attempt to hide an increase in the debt ceiling in the appropriation bills. On 7 May 2012, I wrote to the Treasurer seeking that commitment. I said: 'I am therefore seeking your urgent commitment that, if the Gillard government intends to increase the existing limit beyond $250 billion, this increase is not contained in the 2012-13 appropriation bills. Instead, if the government seeks to increase Australia's debt ceiling in excess of $250 billion, it must be in separate, stand-alone legislation so that it can be given the proper scrutiny and consideration that such a significant increase in borrowings demands.'
In 2009, the government had no such issue of increasing the debt limit through a standalone piece of legislation, the Inscribed Stock Amendment Act 2009, rather than in the appropriation bills. We do not accept the current proposed justification for an increase in the debt limit, and I reckon in his heart of hearts neither does the Treasurer, with his flimsy response to the question today.
The government must appropriately reflect the significance of increasing the limit on the face value of stock and securities that can be on issue under the Treasurer's standard borrowing authority. The Treasurer must then make the case to the Australian people that Labor deserves the right to increase the credit card limit. The Treasurer must explain why he cannot use the Loan (Temporary Revenue Deficits) Act 1953. I asked him a question in this place. He could not answer it. So, to that effect, and I move the following second reading amendment:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House requests the Government to vary the resolution in relation to the Appropriation bills agreed by the House on 8 May 2012 to permit amendments to be moved and debated to Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-13.”
This is the very least that the public deserves. Australians deserve an opportunity to debate the increase in the government's proposed debt limit. I would suggest that the members for New England and Lyne, who signed an agreement with the government for greater transparency, would have been appalled at today's cover-up, or protection racket—the attempt to try and avoid having a proper debate about the statement by the member for Dobell. They agreed with the coalition that it was inappropriate to close down debate. On the increase of the debt limit of the Commonwealth, I believe that the members for New England and Lyne would have a similar proposal—that you have to have a proper debate about that. They were the ones that argued that we had to have greater transparency, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. On no issue could there be a more substantive case made for having a separate and proper debate than the Labor Party's proposal to increase the debt limit of the Commonwealth government.
This is a very significant issue. The Treasurer received advice from the Australian Office of Financial Management. It is quite revealing about his incompetence, his inability to do his job and his lack of confidence that he did not challenge the Australian Office of Financial Management—'Why do we need to go that far? Are there any alternative routes?' He did not have the knowledge or the wit to ask whether there was any other legislation, such as that that I have outlined, which could be used to address the concerns in relation to refinancing during the course of any one financial year.
The Treasurer is not up to the job. He simply tables advice from an agency and says, 'That's the reason why I take public policy decisions.' Why do we have him in the Treasurer role? Why don't we have the head of AOFM or a senior public servant acting as the Treasurer? You have to have a Treasurer who questions the department, questions agencies and seeks other advice in relation to these matters. Sadly, we have a weak and insipid Treasurer who simply, when he has to come to the parliament and explain himself, refers to a tabled advice from his department, as if that is conclusive.
We will quiz the AOFM and the Department of the Treasury at estimates. We want to get to the bottom of exactly why this sneaky government is trying to avoid proper scrutiny on the debt limit.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Robb: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for North Sydney has moved that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mrs D'ATH (Petrie) (16:02): I should say that it was interesting to listen to the member for North Sydney in the debate in relation to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and the related bills. Once again, we have come to expect just negative commentary from the opposition. The bile that was just spilling out across this chamber a moment ago from the shadow Treasurer in relation to the Treasurer of this government was unbelievable. It once again shows that the opposition, particularly the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, cannot bring themselves to accept the facts before them. The member for North Sydney talked about a surplus and said that the government are misleading the Australian people. The fact is that the budget papers and the information are there to show that we will be back in surplus.
The opposition could not bring themselves to accept the seriousness of the global financial crisis and they would not acknowledge the need for a stimulus to support the economy during that time—nor have they been able to acknowledge the success of that stimulus in supporting jobs and businesses in this country. So, for the last few years, all we have heard is that the financial crisis was just a blip on the radar, that we did not really need to stimulate the economy and that there has not really been support of jobs. They are just sticking their heads in the sand. They refuse to acknowledge the facts.
The facts are that this country's economy is the envy of the developed countries. Earlier today I moved a private member's motion in relation to the economy. We have heard that our unemployment is 4.9 per cent. We have heard our statistics compared to those of other countries, especially those in Europe. We have heard the figures in relation to the debt levels in Australia compared to those of other countries. At some point the opposition have to acknowledge the facts and stop this scare campaign and the rhetoric they keep using with the Australian people.
The member for North Sydney said 'the Australian people deserve'—they do not deserve the rubbish that is coming out from the opposition. What they deserve is an economy that is growing strongly and a government that is supporting jobs and investing in skills and training, investing in health and infrastructure and supporting business. When we talk about business, it is not just about the direct incentives that businesses are being provided; it is also about the flow-on effects of the assistance that this government is giving to households.
Let's look at the schoolkids bonus, for example. The schoolkids bonus is providing many families, over 9,700 families in the electorate of Petrie alone, with financial assistance for students—$410 per primary school student and $820 per secondary school student—to provide them support with their education expenses. The question is: where does the opposition think that parents are going to buy those education resources? They are going to buy them from businesses in our local communities. That money helps stimulate our economies. So, when we talk about business, we talk about the financial assistance that is flowing to households through the schoolkids bonus, the financial assistance that is flowing to families through the family tax benefit A assistance that has been outlined—which is an increase of $600 a year from 1 July next year—and we talk about the assistance to families from the supplementary allowance. The supplementary allowance will benefit 9,497 local young people, single parents and unemployed currently receiving allowances, by providing cash payments to help meet the costs of essential services like electricity, gas and water. They will receive a supplementary allowance of $200 while couples will receive $350. These are benefits that go in the pockets of households across the electorate of Petrie and across this country. That additional income for those families will help our local economies.
Of course, it is not just those initiatives that we are seeing benefits for in relation to this budget. There are many benefits flowing to people across my local community, especially in the area of health. I just want to take some moments to talk about the benefits to health. Firstly, in this budget the government is investing $515.3 million in a dental health package. Much of this will go towards dealing with the long waiting times for public services. It is estimated there are currently 400,000 patients on public dental waiting lists. That is why this funding is so important and why $345.9 million over the next three years will help reduce those public dental waiting lists. That is a huge benefit to people in my local communities and across this country.
But the opposition do not want to acknowledge that. They do not ever talk about dentistry because they are the ones that scrapped the Commonwealth dental scheme. But there are other initiatives flowing in relation to health—and they include the expansion of bowel cancer screening. In this budget the government is providing $49.7 million over four years to fund a phased expansion of the National Bowel Cancer Screening program. Bowel cancer is the second most common cause of cancer related death in Australia. The expansion of this program will significantly reduce illness and death from bowel cancer through early detection and treatment. When the scheme is fully implemented around 12,000 cancers each year will be detected.
In addition, there is progress in relation to the e-health agenda. The government is investing another $233.7 million to deliver its e-health agenda, including $161.6 million to operate the personally controlled electronic health record system. This builds on the $466.7 million in the 2010-11 budget to establish the personally controlled electronic health record system. In my electorate I have medical clinics which are now offering patients the opportunity to register with the health record. That is fantastic. My new Medicare local, the North Brisbane Medicare local, which has just set up a new office at North Lakes in my electorate, has a stand-alone machine. You can walk up to your medical centre that has one of these machines—it looks very much like a stand-alone EFTPOS machine—and you can type in details and register immediately to get that electronic health record. That starts the process rolling, which means that people who do that will have the security of knowing that their health records are shared across key primary healthcare providers. If they end up in hospital—they may be unconscious, for example, or unable to recollect all the medicines they are on or the sorts of conditions and allergies they have—this sort of e-health record can save lives, because the hospital will know what that person can and cannot have and will know the sorts of conditions or illnesses they may already have. That will decide the sorts of health treatments they should get into the future.
In addition, across Queensland the Labor government is delivering on its commitments by spending around $8.9 million in 2012-13 on digital mammography technology to BreastScreen Australia. It is really important to invest in this new technology to more accurately detect breast cancer. All too often I meet people in my electorate who have been diagnosed with breast cancer and who are still battling this terrible disease. So it is great that there will be extra money, through this budget, invested in this important technology.
There is also a huge investment in an area that is very dear to my heart—that is, the disability area. There is much debate about the National Disability Insurance Scheme. There should be no debate on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As far as I am concerned the argument has been had. The case has been made. The Productivity Commission has spoken. We need a National Disability Insurance Scheme in this country.
This budget commits $1 billion over the next four years for the first stage of the NDIS. From July 2013, an NDIS will begin operating in launch locations across Australia. And I am hoping that the Queensland government will sit down around the table with the Commonwealth and agree that one of those launch sites should be Queensland, because all too often I meet families who are caring for someone with a severe disability, who know that the current disability system is not adequate: it is not providing for their needs and they need something else. They know that we need the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This scheme will start by assisting around 10,000 people, and this will be expanded to 20,000 people from mid-2014.
It will provide individualised care and support and an assessment process so that those most in need—people with significant and permanent disability—will have access to an assessment that develops an individual support plan. That is so needed in the community. Those suffering disabilities and their carers have cried out for this individual support plan, with funding allocated for reasonable and necessary supports. There will be case management. Local area coordinators will work with clients providing information needed to make informed decisions in navigating the systems and assisting in planning. There will be increased services. Increased formal care services will include home support and respite care, and early intervention services to improve functioning and delay or lessen a decline in functioning. I do not have time to go through it in detail, but in addition this budget has significant and important investments in aged care—another key area in the electorate of Petrie. It is great to see that a large proportion of the funding that is going forward is related to home care packages, at a cost of $880 million dollars. The fact that we are increasing the number of home care packages by nearly 40,000 over the next five years is critical. People want to be able to stay at home. They want to be able to stay at home longer. Carers want to be able to stay at home with them. We need to provide them with that support, but when they do need to go into a nursing home, we need to make sure that they have the appropriate care.
That is why the other initiatives in relation to aged care are so important. It is important to address the workforce pressures. We have all heard about it: both sides of this parliament have been lobbied hard about the importance of workforce shortages, and not just from the union movement, but also from the workforce and the aged care providers. They all know that there is a workforce shortage that is critical in relation to the aged care sector and they need to be able to do more to attract and hold on to aged care staff. That is why they need to look at improvements in recruitment, training and wages for aged-care staff to enable the sector to meet growing demand and provide quality care for older Australians.
In the last couple of minutes I have left, I want to touch on the fact that, as always, this Labor government's budget has ensured there is ongoing investment in infrastructure. This has been a strong commitment of this government since we were first elected in 2007. We have continued to invest in infrastructure, and what this government has been able to show with this budget is it can bring the budget back to surplus, but it does not have to do it to the detriment of investing in infrastructure, health, education, aged care and disabilities. It can do all of that. It is about responsible fiscal policy.
In my electorate—and I know as a Queenslander you would appreciate this, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—I was very pleased to see an additional $20 million in this budget for the Moreton Bay Rail Link. Last year, $135 million was brought forward out of the commitment of $742 million to deliver a rail line that has been promised for over 100 years. Once again there is funding allocated in this year's budget to continue that work. I spoke with the project team just this week. We are very close to announcing the contractor for the road-over-rail bridge at the Kinsellas Road East, where it will go over one of the stations. It is fantastic that this construction has started and, of course, construction along the rail corridor itself will start from mid-next year and the concept designs for the new stations will be released shortly. We are also investing in the Gateway Motorway-Nudgee Road. This budget does deliver a Labor budget: it provides for the community and for our economy, and it is a strong Labor budget.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:18): This is a budget that makes no secret of its class warfare motivations and the government's shameful desire to pit Australian against Australian and suburb against suburb in order to reverse Labor's lagging fortunes and save the ruinous career of a desperate Prime Minister. Her embrace of envy as a political strategy must be the final action of a Prime Minister with nowhere else to go. The Prime Minister is cornered between the electorate on one side, angry with her because she has broken promises and the fact that she has consistently put her interests above those of the Australian people, and on the other side a Labor caucus that is now readying itself for another political kill. The Prime Minister is torn between buying the votes of the electorate and the votes of her party room colleagues who keep her in power. Rather than lifting the nation up and encouraging the men and women of this country to aspire to their greatest hopes, dreams and ambitions, the Prime Minister has dragged the nation down into a bitter contest of us versus them, fostering the divisive sectionalism of long-past generations. The Prime Minister has singled out some of our highest achievers for public attack, going so far as to name them individually in press conferences and in the parliament—acts that are beneath the office of the Prime Minister. As one media editorial said, what we need from this Prime Minister is 'more class, less warfare'.
This is a budget that seeks to divide rather than unite, and to tear apart rather than create. It is, as the Treasurer has admitted, a typical Labor budget. It is full of the usual tricks and sleights of hand that one has come to expect from this government. It has worked the numbers to create the mirage of a minuscule surplus, pushing expenditure out of 2012-2013 into other financial years. It has forecast a generous increase in tax revenue at a time of mounting concern over Europe's economic future and fears of a slowdown in our major export markets. Given that the government's projected $23 billion deficit in last year's budget blew out to some $44 billion in this year's budget, there is little hope that Labor will deliver on even this small sliver of a surplus. Australians are right to be wary of a government that has delivered an accumulated $174 billion in deficits in just four years, yet claimed year after year that it was committed to budget surpluses. At the same time as it talks up its success in saving Australia from further Labor debt, the government plans to introduce measures to increase the country's borrowing limit by an extra $50 billion to $300 million. No government that truly believes its forecast for a budget surplus should be increasing the debt ceiling—the government's borrowing limit—by another $50 billion. I remind the House that the debt ceiling inherited by this government in 2007 when it came to office was nil. Labor has raised the debt ceiling time and time again to $250 billion dollars, and now to $300 billion.
Having squandered the nation's wealth on pink batts, overpriced school halls and cash giveaways, the government has now chosen to tear up our national defence, destroying years of hard work and patient investment by the Howard government. The Labor government has been so reckless with Australia's finances that it can no longer even fulfil the first and basic responsibility of government—that is, to secure our nation's sovereignty and its interests. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who has witnessed the disinterest and disregard of this Prime Minister in matters of foreign affairs and national security. From sending her bodyguard to cabinet's national security committee meetings to doing away with the National Security Statement to parliament—an event that was apparently meant to be as frequent as the annual budget—the Prime Minister has consistently failed in her duties. Australia is situated on the edge of the most dynamic and rapidly changing region in the world. The economic re-emergence of Asia is driving a shift in global power from Europe and North America to our neighbourhood, the Asia-Pacific/Indian Ocean. There is a growing acceptance that this region is in the middle of an arms build-up the likes of which has not been seen since the Cold War and which is heightened by the level of uncertainty felt between nations. Faced with the option of preparing Australia for this new strategic reality or closing her eyes to the challenges, the Prime Minister has chosen the latter. The Gillard government will slash funding for defence to just 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product, taking the share of Australia's wealth spent in this crucial area back to a dangerously low level not seen since the days before the Second World War.
Australia needs and deserves a government capable of planning for the future, not just for the next leadership ballot. The chasm between reality and Labor's rhetoric is as starkly apparent in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. As it has done with so many of its other promises, the government has trashed the bipartisan commitment to increase Australia's official development assistance to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2013. Labor's promise to reach the target amount in the following year is nothing more than Labor spin designed to minimise the political fallout. Should this government hang on and still be in office next May, there is no doubt that even this deadline will also be pushed back. This government's actions in pushing the aid commitment out beyond the forward estimates has made the task of reaching even this new deadline virtually impossible, and the government knows it. As Professor Stephen Howes, former chief economist at AusAID and panel member on the independent review of aid effectiveness stated:
Even with a year’s delay, it will be a steep climb to get to 0.5, requiring, on average, increases of about $1 billion for each of the next four years from 2013-14 to 2016-17. The aid program has never had an annual increase of anything close to $1 billion. The biggest increase was $626 million in 2008-09, the second biggest $500 million in 2005-06. Even with looser fiscal constraints, it will not be easy to sustain support for a single $1 billion increase, let alone for four such increases consecutively. Yet this is what it will take to get to 0.5% under the new timetable.
In retrospect it appears that the government never intended to meet its 0.5 per cent of gross national income commitment by 2015.
One need only read the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio budget statements from last year to appreciate the extent of the government's failures over the past twelve months. According to its strategic direction statement, the Gillard government would 'intensify its engagement with China'; instead it has stumbled from one mistake to another. Its schizophrenic handling of the relationship has left baffled Chinese officials who want nothing more than the consistency, coherence and respect provided by coalition policies. Far from intensifying our engagement with China, the government has placed the relationship under immeasurable strain. The departure of the former foreign minister earlier this year was reportedly welcomed as a fresh start for both countries. As Linda Jakobson, director of the East Asia program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and respected China expert, has stated, 'The "Rudd factor" has been an underlying tension in China-Australia ties for four years.' The failure of an Australian government representative to attend the Boao Forum for Asia, China's leading platform for discussing the pressing economic issues confronting the region, was a deliberate snub to China. It was only through a last-minute dash by the Australian ambassador in Beijing, as the Australian's Michael Sainsbury wrote at the time, that complete embarrassment was avoided. That Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti could find the opportunity to attend the Boao Forum despite his immense domestic challenges highlights the complete lack of interest and disregard shown by the Australian government.
So much of foreign affairs is about building productive working relationships. For countries that are crucial to our national interest, this exchange must occur at the highest levels. Despite the rhetoric of enhanced engagement, there has only been one prime ministerial visit to China since 2008. As foreign minister, the member for Griffith visited China only twice; neither of these visits was considered official. Former Prime Minister and Labor leader Bob Hawke has joined the criticism of the Gillard government, accusing it of letting the relationship languish. It was recently revealed that Labor's infighting held up the establishment of an annual summit involving key ministers from both countries. According to reports, the Treasurer refused to accept any arrangement that would result in the then foreign minister leading discussions. The Treasurer clearly had no such concern about putting Australia's national interests to the side while the government focused on its leadership tussle. Any positive developments that have occurred in the relationship with China during the past year have been in spite of the approach of this government, not because of it.
According to last year's strategic direction statement, the Gillard government sought to expand cooperation on security, trade and people-to-people links with Indonesia. That policy lasted less than a month before the government took the drastic step of suspending live cattle exports. The decision was made without any warning to or consultation with the Indonesian government. That is no way to treat a friend and strategic partner. The Indonesian government rightly registered its frustration at being kept in the dark. The consequences of the government's action have become clear as Australia suffers reduced access to the Indonesian market. The government is yet to learn from its mistakes. It has pushed ahead with the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 despite the concerns of countries such as Indonesia that the government has failed to adequately consult with them.
Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, does not even rate a mention in the government's list of priorities. Despite being our closest neighbour, it is grouped together with other Pacific island countries. This omission is symbolic of the government's current approach to Papua New Guinea. The foreign minister's cavalier approach has done immense damage to the relationship at a time of sensitive political developments in Port Moresby. In response to suggestions that the election in Papua New Guinea be postponed until later in the year, Senator Carr declared that Australia would have 'no alternative but to organise the world to condemn and isolate Papua New Guinea'. He went on to say, 'We'd be in a position of having to consider sanctions.' Threatening sanctions is a powerful diplomatic tool, not the plaything of Sussex Street strategists. Such a move would have placed Papua New Guinea alongside such countries as Iran, North Korea and Syria as targets of Australia's autonomous sanctions. Senator Carr was rightly derided in Papua New Guinea for his amateurism.
As the recent political crisis in PNG has shown us, it is essential that Australia's political leaders, particularly the foreign minister, maintain the closest working relations with our colleagues in Port Moresby. This can only be achieved through close and consistent contact at the highest level. It was unfortunate that the foreign minister could not attend, nor send any representative of the government to be the keynote speaker, the annual Australia-Papua New Guinea Business Council forum in Brisbane last week. This was attended by former Prime Minister and cabinet minister Sir Mekere Morauta, and I was honoured to step into the vacuum left by the government and deliver the keynote address on behalf of Australia.
Last year's strategic direction statement also highlighted the government's intention to pursue a range of free trade agreements with countries in the region. Yet since the member for Rankin became Minister for Trade Australia has dropped the ball on free trade agreements. The minister is personally disinterested in pursuing them and he has even gone so far as to state that a free trade agreement with China is 'overrated'. If Australia is to benefit from the growth in Asia's middle class and consumer class, strong leadership at a government level is needed.
Given the scandals surrounding the government's handling of the Australia Network tender process, it is little wonder there is no mention of Australia's public diplomacy effort in the strategic direction statement. Nothing better captures the incompetence and base student-politicking this government has brought to the national stage than its involvement in what should have been a fair and transparent tender process. As the Australian National Audit Office stated:
The manner and circumstances in which this high profile tender process was conducted brought into question the Government’s ability to deliver such a sensitive process fairly and effectively.
In response to the ANAO report, the Australia Network Channel took aim at the government, stating:
The Australia Network tenders represent a failure of public administration and highlight the potential risk to a commercial organisation of engaging in business with the Commonwealth, particularly when a government owned entity is the competitor.
The costs involved with taking the tender to market, only to scrap the process when the result could not be changed to suit the government's preference, are considerable.
Given Labor's failings in the Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio in the past 12 months, the Australian people can have no confidence that the coming year will be any different. What Australia needs is a foreign minister capable of working patiently behind the scenes, not a dinner party conversationalist who blunders from one mistake to another. Rather than address Labor's woes, Senator Carr's arrival in Canberra has only added to them.
From his repeated mistakes about troop levels in Afghanistan, to his embrace of the Taliban as part of the Afghani government, to Papua New Guinea and reports of his strange behaviour in Fiji, he has shown himself to be a liability rather than an asset to the government. His return has been compared to a reserve-grade footballer coming out of retirement to play first grade. So far his record contains nothing to disprove this assertion. The time has come to put an end to this charade and give the people of Australia a chance to rid themselves of this chaotic mess of a government.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:33): I rise to voice my support for the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and the related budget bills before the House. Before I do, I might just slip back into my role as an English teacher and correct for the record a comment made by the previous speaker, the member for Curtin. Like many people, she misunderstands the difference between 'uninterested' and 'disinterested'. I think when she used 'disinterested' she actually meant 'uninterested'. Disinterested means impartial, so I think she might have to correct that with Hansard because there is a complete difference—unless she meant that our Minister for Foreign Affairs is impartial, which is a strange assertion.
Back to the budget, which is a testament to the Gillard government's commitment to govern for all Australians and sits on those solid Labor pillars of equality, justice and opportunity—the very things that brought me to the Labor Party in the first place. These are strong times for Australia. Our economy is solid and the resources industry is booming, particularly in Western Australia and Queensland, but, unfortunately, not all Australians have been reaping these benefits. Thanks to our Prime Minister, our Treasurer and the recent battlers budget, more Australians will get to share in our national wealth. Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are delivering much needed financial relief to families and businesses in Moreton who are currently struggling to cope with the rising cost of living. This Labor government understands current pressures and knows that the best way to support Australians is through tax cuts and directed payment increases. These measures are designed to spread the benefits of our national mining boom to help those who need it.
I am still rather surprised that the coalition does not understand the concept of a government helping people in need. The Gillard Labor government is helping 6,800 families in Moreton with kids in school, with $410 a year for each primary school student and $820 a year for each student in high school. Strangely, many in the coalition did not want these much needed payments to happen. I think some of the explanations of that included: 'Because it is just different'—it is different to the baby bonus which was, I think, one of the more detailed explanations I saw. It was certainly small-minded politics at its worst. They were so committed to saying no that they did not actually think about the ramifications or implications.
The Gillard Labor government is also helping more than 9,000 Moreton families with a $600 boost to their family tax benefit part A payments. Some in the coalition also do not want this payment to happen, which is a shame. During question time and earlier today I saw from the opposition the daily jeremiads about the cost-of-living increases but, when it came to voting for something that would benefit families in Moreton, they would not lift a finger. This Gillard Labor government is also helping 9,073 Moreton young people, single parents and the unemployed with a supplementary allowance to help them pay for essential services. Surprise, surprise!—the coalition are also against this vital assistance to help these vulnerable Australians with the cost of electricity, gas, water and those other living expenses.
I am also particularly proud that this Labor budget provides further protection for vulnerable children, with the creation of a national children's commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission. I have had a particular interest in this area for a long time because my partner has worked in this area for about the last 22 or so years. We are taking some great steps in the area of looking after children. Jenny Macklin's National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children and some of the other initiatives we have taken with the states will hopefully mean that fewer children will slip between the cracks.
Unfortunately, we have seen some opposite rail against the budget, which is making sure that vulnerable children are better prepared for school with a $55.7 million boost to the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. And they rage against a budget that is helping to build a National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is something that I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would have been quite supportive of. We have put on the table $1 billion over four years to help Australians with a disability. I see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition sitting opposite. As a Queenslander he would know some of those shameful statistics, which must be sheeted home to Labor governments as well. The sad thing is that if you are a Queenslander with a disability you receive $7 for every $10 that a Victorian receives. That is not a legacy. To take the politics out, it is certainly something I would be urging those opposite to talk to Premier Campbell Newman about as he said there will be no negotiation. But surely there could be a roadmap towards trying to help this very vulnerable group in our community, a group that has been particularly vocal in lobbying me over the last few years.
In other budget initiatives there is a $3.7 billion funding commitment towards aged care reform. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has said 'no' to this measure. Investing in maths and science, increasing the number of students attending university and improving health services are all noble aims in a parliament that on occasion lacks nobility perhaps. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? He said 'no'. It is like one of those episodes of Little Britain on steroids, where the computer says 'no' to everything.
There are over 19,000 small businesses in my electorate which need help, such as through the Gillard Labor government's instant tax write-off for each asset purchased below $6,500 and the same for the first $5,000 spent on a new motor vehicle. Unfortunately, we could not deliver the one per cent cut in company tax. I would have loved to vote for that in this chamber as would most people who understand how important small business is. As I said, I have 19,000 small businesses in my electorate so I understand the issue very well. Unfortunately, those opposite said 'no' again. These businesses need decisive action. Unfortunately, we were not able to provide that but at least the instant tax write-off and the other money will be some compensation. I still ask those opposite to step up and support that in the future. There are some good things in the budget for business. There is the small business advisory service, which I have had a bit to do with in my electorate. We are able to provide another four years of advice, knowledge and experience to help some of some of those fledgling ideas grow into big businesses.
As the Treasurer said, this is a battlers budget. We will give money to Australians who need our help the most. Unfortunately, some of those opposite have said it is the wrong thing to do. You could say that is the fundamental difference between the Australian Labor Party and the coalition: the balancing of the community versus the individual; the greater good versus individual greed; selfless versus selfish. Unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition, in his blind pursuit of power by any means necessary, has shown his true character and also shown that he is truly out of touch with Australians that are struggling at the moment with some of these cost-of-living pressures.
Although Australia does stand out amongst its international peers as a prosperous economy, despite the dark days of the global financial crisis and the current hiccoughs that are being experienced in Greece, Italy, Spain and even in the United Kingdom and United States, there are some tough times ahead for the globe, that is for sure. Obviously many other nations were hit by these tough times, particularly during the GFC, but Australia weathered the storm reasonably well with Wayne Swan at the helm of our finances. We avoided a recession that would have meant horrible job losses. That is something that is glossed over in this chamber. Think of what 200,000 job losses would mean and think of how it would affect kids in school and how it would affect businesses. That would be a horrible thing for our community. So I am glad we were part of an economic stimulus package that steered Australia through that very tough global time.
We have come through that period of global uncertainty in relatively good shape when it comes to government debt, inflation and living standards. Here we are now with our economy expected to outshine almost every other advanced economy over the next two years yet we were still able to return the budget to surplus. This sends a clear message to the rest of the world that Australia's economy has remained strong during this period of global uncertainty. The Acting Prime Minister said during question time that we had the courage to stick to our guns and to stick to our 2007 election commitment that was shared by those opposite of putting a price on harmful pollution. Obviously those opposite are still committed to reining in exactly the same amount of pollution as this government, the same emissions targets. Although how they are going to do it in a one-, two- or three-year turn around with only carrots and no stick is beyond comprehension—as any sensible environmentalist or economist would know. So we will bring in a gentle but necessary change to our economy through this price on harmful pollution and that will set us up well to provide jobs for my grandchildren long into the future as the digital economy becomes passe. Combine that with the NBN and our education reforms and we have structured the economy well for the future. Delivering a surplus or getting back in black—to quote AC/DC—will protect low-and middle-income earners and the most vulnerable people in our nation. It will give us a buffer during these turbulent global times and it will give the Reserve Bank the room it needs to cut interest rates should the international situation deteriorate and send troubling waves towards our shores.
As I said before, these are relatively good times for Australia but I know many people feel like this is somebody else's boom—somebody else is reaping the benefits when our minerals are dug up by mining companies. It is hard to be grateful for a strong economy when you are having difficulty making ends meet. Electricity, rents, mortgages, groceries and petrol are putting considerable pressure on many family budgets throughout Australia. I know in Queensland many residents are still trying to get back on their feet after the devastating floods and cyclones of recent years. What we must do, and what the Gillard Labor government has done in this budget, is support families, students and low-income-earning Australians to help them get ahead, to better share in the prosperity. This is simply the right thing to do, but let us not forget that these measures also support our economy by assisting retail, manufacturing and those other businesses that are struggling because of the high dollar and perhaps because of sales going overseas and because of the uncertainty. These are uncertain times, yet the Australian budget remains in stable hands: help is going to where it is needed and action is being taken to create a fairer Australia.
I mentioned this briefly before, but the National Disability Insurance Scheme is a component of this budget of which I am particularly proud, and I again urge every Queensland MP to contact the Leader of the Opposition about it—and Premier Newman as well. The NDIS, due to begin its rollout in mid-2013, will provide care to around 10,000 people with significant and permanent disabilities. A year later the NDIS will be expanded to help up to 20,000 people. This is a groundbreaking plan, and I thank Minister Shorten for his involvement with this early on, when he was the parliamentary secretary. Why? Because it will provide eligible people with the support they need; it will grant people decision-making powers, including being able to choose their service provider; it will deliver high-quality evidence based services, be user-friendly and link to mainstream and community services; it will acknowledge the invaluable role of families and carers and help them continue their great work, and maybe even beyond that as we move to an ageing group of people with disabilities. It will also assist with community participation, education and employment opportunities and it will be managed, as the name suggests, on an insurance basis. Disability groups in Moreton, and throughout Australia I guess, have welcomed the commitment, but unfortunately many states are dragging their feet.
I want to take this opportunity to again ask Premier Newman to consider what must go on here. And I put out the call to my LNP state MPs around Moreton—Sunnybank MP, Mark Stewart; Stretton MP, Freya Ostapovitch; Yeerongpilly MP, Carl Judge; and cabinet Minister Scott Emerson to join me in asking the Premier to reconsider this stubborn stance of just saying no. The NDIS is great news for local people with disability and their carers, and we need Queensland to sign on to this vital reform. I hope we can work together and ensure Queenslanders with a disability get the care and support they deserve. They have waited long enough for change—and, as I said, I was a bit embarrassed to find that out about the Queensland $7 to $10 ratio.
This is the right budget for the right time for Australia. It delivers a surplus on time, as promised. It delivers financial support to those in need and it delivers a plan for a fairer nation to create a stronger community and a more just society. I wholeheartedly commend the bills to the House.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (16:47): Labor has unquestionably delivered another budget failure. It has a fudged surplus, more broken promises—and there is no plan to drive productivity growth, to repay debt or to secure jobs. It does nothing for aspirational Australians—remember them? These are the people who believe in hard work and that you should be rewarded for your labour, your enterprise and your innovation. These are the people who are the drivers of our nation's economic growth and prosperity. From their efforts, we all benefit. It is not just a case of job creation—though this government could do with a policy on that front as well, remembering no new jobs were created at all in Australia last year, for the first time in decades—but it is also about the prospect of getting a better job, or career development.
This budget talks about 'sharing the benefits of the boom', but most of the sharing of benefits is simply paying more compensation for the carbon tax. The carbon tax is the unmentioned centrepiece of this budget—it begins, after all, in only 40 days. The budget is a precursor to the carbon tax. And that tax itself threatens the very future of the boom that is supposed to be paying for the handouts announced in this budget.
But what is of particular concern under this government is that they have created an economy which has become increasingly internationally uncompetitive. There is low productivity. They are consuming the benefits of the boom with waste and mismanagement. They have seemingly no understanding that even large corporations or large projects need a supportive government if they are to proceed. We cannot afford to continue to impose upon projects, manufacturing industries and small business in this country taxes that no-one else in the world will pay. We cannot have special burdens that make it unattractive to invest in this country. You cannot have an industrial relations climate where people believe they have a right to simply walk away from their jobs, that they actually believe that somehow or another the country is better off when they punish their own employer and make it more difficult for them to pay their wages.
I was appalled when Jacques Nasser reported to a luncheon last week that BHP had 3,200 industrial incidents in its Bowen Basin coalfields last year alone. That is almost 10 industrial incidents a day! Sometimes unions simply notify that they are going to have stop work action, and then they call it off. There were in fact 500 instances where the union announced it was going to have action and called it off at the last minute—designed to inflict the maximum pain and discomfort and reduced productivity to their employer while at the same time collecting all their wages as though nothing had happened.
You cannot have a country that is going to be prosperous and able to provide support for those in need in our community if our industry is not encouraged and rewarded for its effort. Instead of building a boom this budget has come with cheap bribes—the vain hope that people who are going to be slugged week in, week out, year after year by a carbon tax, whose name this government dare not mention, will think Labor is doing them a favour. We should be concentrating not on handing out the benefits of the boom but on nurturing it—making sure it actually happens and making sure it continues to sustain growth and to provide a future for our nation, and not just a future for the Labor government.
This unmentionable tax is now the subject of a $70 million advertising blitz, but neither the words 'carbon' nor 'tax' get used in this advertising campaign. It is simply laughable that such a wilfully deceptive campaign could ever meet the advertising standards required for 'informing the public' on government programs. They are simply taxpayer paid political ads. The government cannot sell its own budget so now it is trying to pay an advertising agency to do the job.
The 'fudge-it budget' has been concocted to provide additional compensation for lower-income people so that they can deal with the carbon tax fallout. But would it not be better to get rid of the tax altogether? Then you would not need to pay the compensation. You would not penalise Australian industry. You would not need to put them in a position where they cannot compete with imported products or cannot, in fact, maintain their own export markets. It makes far more sense to get rid of the tax itself than to use its revenue to pay compensation. This is a tax that is full of flaws and inequities and, frankly, nothing can fix it. The government are imposing a penalty on everything we do in this country, and in so doing they are placing a burden on us that is not matched anywhere else in the world.
As we look at this tax, every day new anomalies come to our attention. I was called only this morning by the operator of a small supermarket, who has been told that the cost of recharging the refrigerators in her supermarket is going to increase from $46 to $167 per refrigerator as a result of the carbon tax. And I heard a similar story—in fact, a worse story—when I visited the trucking convention last week. Truck drivers told me that the carbon tax equivalent on the refrigerant used in refrigerated trucks will not have an increase of $23 per tonne; because the government uses a global-warming potential index to multiply the cost for its calculation of the global-warming impact, the actual tax on the refrigerant used in a truck will be over $70,000 a tonne. Not $23 a tonne, over $70,000 a tonne! There are these kinds of anomalies. I do not know whether the government even knows that it is doing this sort of thing. It certainly has no plan and it has no way of helping these people to cope with that sort of cost.
You heard today in question time about the $2 million cost that the Cassowary Coast Regional Council is going to have to pay to get rid of the rubbish that was created by Cyclone Yasi. These people, who not only have the burden of having to clean up their properties, now are going to have to pay a $2 million carbon tax to get rid of the rubbish. Now, if they left it all to rot out in the field there would be no carbon tax imposed. But if they clean it up and put it in the council tip then the reward for that is a $2 million tax from this government.
And what about the example I heard about when I visited a manufacturing facility just recently? They work their boilers et cetera at night to take advantage of night rate electricity. That is an environmentally friendly and sensible thing to do. But because the carbon tax is a flat rate, they will pay double the electricity prices for their night rate even though the day rate may only go up by 10 or 20 per cent. Did the government intend to do such an illogical thing? Are they crazy? Or do they just not know what they are doing? I fear that it is a little of both.
If you believe that you need to address climate change as a global problem. Even if you believe that Australia can or should take the lead you would not set a price that is five times higher than is being paid anywhere else in the world, or a tax that is so comprehensive across the economy that no other country will collect even a fraction of what this carbon tax will raise. This is a penalty on Australians, and on Australians only, and it will do nothing—nothing whatever—to change the temperature of the globe.
Australians are sick of the mentality which drives a budget which seems to be all about class warfare. They do not want their governments to waste their money, be it on pink batts, or overpriced school halls or on handouts. And they certainly do not want governments that do not tell the truth. When it comes to this budget, the feeble $1.5 billion surplus that is supposed to be the central triumph of this budget fails to inspire or to encourage struggling communities and families right across the nation.
When you bring spending forward and push expenditure backwards into outyears you do not make any more money: you just shuffle it around. This year's surplus is largely there because we are having a bigger debt this year and a bigger debt the following year. It is a slippery surplus. If the government had not brought forward into this financial year $1.1 billion of the money to be paid to local government in 2012-13, the $1.4 billion payment to Queensland for disaster relief, $1.8 billion in infrastructure payments to the states and $1.5 billion in compensation payments to pensioners and welfare beneficiaries for the carbon tax then the budget surplus would be well and truly wiped out. But that is not all: Labor's energy security scheme is a $1 billion-a-year program, except for next financial year when the expenditure will only be $800,000. Labor's coal sector jobs package is a $220 to $250 million program, but next year there is only $10 million.
If we look at Labor's record, this is not the first time they have proposed a budget surplus. That happened in their very first budget, when we were told the budget surplus was $22 billion. Of course, it ended up as a $27 billion deficit. Our Treasurer was out by $49 billion on that occasion, and he has now produced $174 billion worth of budget deficits. The cumulative errors on his estimates for the budget surpluses or deficits amount to over $80 billion. In four budgets he has been out by $80 billion! And this time we are expected to believe that there is going to be a $1.5 billion surplus.
But if we are going to have a surplus and if we are going to run at a profit for the year, why is our net debt forecast to go up by $40 billion? Why are the government bringing in legislation to increase Australia's credit card limit from $250 billion to $300 billion? They say they only need it for temporary purposes, but you do not need legislation to temporarily increase the limit. This, like all the other increases in our national borrowing limit under Labor will unquestionably end up being permanent, and our debt will just grow and grow. Unemployment is predicted to be 5.5 per cent for the year ahead. That is up on the current figure. CPI is also expected to rise. So what hope is there for people in this budget?
It is full also of broken promises. The company tax cut that was supposed to be the compensation for the mining tax has been axed, saving the government $4.7 billion. After deferral after deferral, the proposal for the standard $500 deduction ramping up to $1,000 is gone also, saving $2 billion. The tax concession they promised on 50 per cent of people's interest earnings has been axed. The $500 mature age worker tax offset has been axed, saving another $250 million. The super tax has been doubled to 30 per cent for those people with incomes above $300,000, earning the government another $1 billion. They have deferred the higher contributions cap on superannuation yet again, saving another $1.5 billion.
This is a government that has introduced—again, as usual for a Labor government—stacks of new taxes, perhaps none less heartless than the new tax on the tourism industry, the increase in the passenger movement charge. That passenger movement charge was established to cover the cost of border processing. Now it is just a milking cow for this government. The government expects to raise an extra $610 million from the struggling tourist industry over the next four years from this tax. Of course, the airports are now also going to have to pay for the police who are doing their job on airport property.
The government's budget is a serious disappointment for people in regional Australia in particular. The $941 million for infrastructure works to improve water efficiency in the Murray-Darling Basin has been deferred to 2015-16. That is the very last year of the forward estimates, and it is clear that it is also heading for the axe. This is the lazy way that this government has approached water reform. They are happy to waste money on buyouts, but they will not do the hard work of fixing the system so that there is water available there for our environmental needs without having to take it away from country towns and from irrigators.
Another major disappointment is the $1 billion for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The Productivity Commission had recommended a $3.9 billion outlay over the next four years to set this scheme up, but the government has provided only $1 billion. It is going to cost $7 billion-plus a year to run this scheme. If we as a nation were not paying $8 billion a year on interest on Labor's debt, we could afford the National Disability Insurance Scheme now. Of course, there is $350 million for a dental waiting list program, so long as the states cooperate, but they are abolishing the Medicare dental program and the teen dental program. Sixty-eight million dollars has been cut from rural health workforce programs and $75 million from the Indigenous health infrastructure program. The Gonski review of education will require billions of dollars, but there is only $5.8 million over four years in the budget.
So this has been a budget of great disappointment. It is an endless round of more of the same: debt, spending and broken promises. The budget may spend the boom; it certainly does not nurture it.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:03): It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to talk about all the good, positive and great things about this country and the great things that are being done in ordinary people's homes and for working families, small business and all those people that really work hard to make this country a success—not the negative drivel that we get over on the other side about how it is all doom and gloom and the world is coming to an end. It might be coming to an end in some parts of the world, but not in Australia, because in Australia we have a government that listens to people and delivers the right budgets at the right time, with surpluses when they are needed, not just in the golden years when the rivers of gold used to come into Canberra. The government makes the really important decisions about maintaining sustainability into the future, and that is exactly what this budget does, to a tee, and it gets it right.
In fact, it was just last week that I had the great good fortune of being with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Anthony Albanese, when we opened the Ipswich Motorway, a great Labor commitment—something I had campaigned for since 1998. We might have done a lot of work, and from opposition you do not get too many wins, but I tell you what: that was one of the best wins we ever got for South-East Queensland. Finally, now, in 2012 we can actually open up this road that actually began on the very first day after we were elected in 2007. That is when work began on the Ipswich Motorway. You know what they say: success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. In this case the Liberal Party, the National Party and everybody who opposed it were scrambling to be part of this great success, because they can now see with their own eyes the difference it has made to ordinary people in the south-east in that same spirit of positive thinking, responsible action, good work in terms of budgets, spending on infrastructure, keeping the economy strong and keeping people in jobs even through a global financial crisis.
I can understand if some people do not think the crisis hit Australia, because we actually did something to prevent it hitting here. This government, when we got elected, did something real. We were opposed all the way, kicking and screaming, by this mob over there on the opposition side, who just refused to do anything. If they had had their way—if they had had the numbers on the floor—we would have sat back, watched it all happen and hoped, like Europe or even the United States, that it just would not affect people here and that they would not lose their jobs. That just did not happen in Australia, because we took action. It always takes a government with just a small amount of responsibility and courage to do what is required, and we have done that since 2007—not always the most popular decisions, but always the right decisions and the responsible decisions.
I am very confident that in 20 years time, in the full glare of day, when people review us, they will go back and say, 'I tell you what: they were pretty tough decisions. They were tough times. They were tough days, but that was a government that stood up and was counted, and I'm proud of that.' I can tell you that that is exactly what will happen, just as for the first time in Australian history, as a result of the actions that we have taken as a government, the rest of the world—the global community—has rated the Australian economy one of the best in the world. We are AAA rated across all three credit-rating agencies for the first time in our history. That tells you something: at least they are not biased. At least they are not just opposing for opposition's sake. They are just making a global economic assessment and they say we are doing okay, and you know what? I agree with them. I actually think we are doing okay, and I think that if were a little bit more confidence emanating out of the people's house in parliament then there might be a little bit more confidence among ordinary folk as well.
I can talk about all the positive things, and there are so many that it would take me a lot more than the 15 minutes for which I have been given grace to speak today, but I will talk about some of the good things and why it is so important that we have put a surplus in our budget this time around. One reason is that we promised it. We said we would return the budget to surplus on time, and we have. Returning to a surplus is our best defence. We do not know what is around the corner, but it is our best defence. It arms us against another potential that we have seen in the past and it gives us and certainly the Reserve Bank more flexibility to move in terms of more interest rate cuts, if they are needed, just like occurred recently. An official cash rate of 3.75 per cent is good for some. It is certainly good for mortgage holders and it is really good for our economy. And now we are seeing a turnaround in the Australian dollar. It is easing, which means there is a little less pressure on our manufacturers and exporters. There is a little less pressure on a range of Australian businesses. It shows you that the good work of the government does pay off in the area of jobs where we have a great record.
During the global financial crisis Labor had a great record of keeping people working. Currently we have 5.1 per cent unemployment rate, which is low enough—it will never be completely low enough—compared to the rest of the world, almost at full employment, coming down to 4.9 per cent. Interestingly, that particular set of numbers, that data, are the same figures and the same dataset that have been used for 30 years, along with the same methodology. There is no question about the number—for 30 years we have had the same methodology. So rather than it being anything but positive it is actually a fantastic result. It simply says: while there are jobs being shed in certain parts of the economy, jobs are also being created just down the road. Unfortunately, we have a media in this country who will only report on one side of the ledger. Jobs go, but they never walk two steps down the street to say: 'Job created.' That is the reality: job created. Sure, there is a change in our economy and we are managing through that change because we believe people have a right to a decent opportunity to work to make something for themselves.
If we just look at interest rates and mortgages we see that, on an average mortgage today of $300,000, people are actually saving around $3,000 a year. That is how much they are saving by paying less because we are here in government. This is all in the framework of massive global uncertainty, of government being stripped of $150 billion of revenue. That is when it gets tough. That is when you need a good Treasurer, good government and serious policy. That is when you need to take responsibility, because that is when it makes a difference, not when the rivers of gold used to flow in this place and then Treasurer Costello could not make a prediction on the budget surplus because there was so much money going around that he never knew how much money was going to flood into the place. That was happening all around the world—in Europe, the US and everywhere. We were not immune. But what did we do with that great surplus, those great opportunities? Did we invest in the long-term future? Did we invest in the aftermath of a mining boom? Did we invest in skills and training, in education and in health?
You get criticised by this sloppy opposition, which had 12 years in government, yet it could not even do half—in fact, not even a third—the things we have done in four years. I am confident in saying that, in four years, we have achieved more than three times what you achieved in 12 years. It goes to evidence and proof. Just have a look at the budget. Have a look at the programs that Labor is delivering. Have a look at dental health and at a whole range of other areas. Have a look at how we are helping ordinary families keeping people in jobs and sustaining manufacturing. Have a look at what we have done in terms of solar panels and helping people on pensions. The single biggest increase in the pension rate in this country, in 100 years, came from a Labor government—a Labor government that understood that there was enough talking about people on the age pension being on the poverty edge and that actually made a financial commitment. People here still oppose that rise. They just do not get it. Go and talk to a real pensioner. Go and talk to somebody who appreciates that significant rise that we put in place. It cost the budget $5 billion on the day and $20 billion over the forward estimates. But that is the reality of what we did. We actually did something real and we have done something real for pensioners again in this budget. We have ensured that they are not the forgotten people. Call them whatever you like—battlers, people doing it tough. But I tell you this: you can talk the talk, but you have to walk it as well. Over here, in tough times, we are talking it and we are walking it. We are delivering the programs that make a difference.
Have a look at the average family and their cost-of-living pressures. What is a cost-of-living pressure? Everything costs money. We all get that, but what are we doing about it—schoolkids bonus. Call it whatever you like.
Mr Robb: The carbon tax!
Mr RIPOLL: I am happy to talk about the carbon tax; I am happy to take the interjection. They giggle and laugh, but the reality is they have the same targets, the same policy. Everything is the same except, on the Labor side, the government side, we have a market based solution and we will be taxing 500 big companies, 500 big polluters. On the opposition side, same target, same policy, same outcomes, except they are going to tax ordinary people—households—directly. That is, in your hip pocket, in your home and at the kitchen table. That is who will have to pay under the opposition's policy. The Liberal-National Party have done this greatest turnaround in history. Once were maybe something; today are barely nothing. Because today they want to tax ordinary people and let the big polluters get away with it. You cannot even imagine it—this is the Liberal Party of Menzies over here, because they just want to tax ordinary people on absolutely everything.
Schoolkids bonus is for ordinary families. We put a tax incentive in place and not everyone accessed it, not everyone made use of it, so we have a better plan. And the better plan is to give it to them directly. They are responsible parents out there and, one way or another, they will spend that money on their kids. In whatever form it takes they will spend that money on their kids. It is good for them, it is good for their kids and it is good for the economy. For the life of me, I cannot understand how an opposition could credibly stand up and oppose such a positive change. They talk about the carbon tax. Let me tell you that, when they introduced the GST, there was no compensation. You just had to wear it. That was it; just wear it. The impact of that was 10 times what the impact of the carbon tax will be. But, at least, we have recognised that where we make people pay a little bit extra, indirectly, where there will be a cost, we will be keeping an eye on how those costs work and ensuring that people will be compensated for that. The list is long. We are protecting vulnerable children. There is more money and we are ensuring children get better access to education.
In this budget we have not forgotten disability and ageing. We have put a significant amount, billions of dollars, into the aged-care sector, ensuring that as people age they actually get some dignity, they can stay at home longer and they are not forced into a home and, very importantly, are not forced to sell their home to get into another one. That is something that only a Labor government would do. On this side we do not have discussions about kero baths; we actually have discussions about giving people proper care. That is what we do over on this side and we deliver it through this budget in the toughest of times. Again, I cannot believe that this mob over here would oppose a National Disability Insurance Scheme on the scale of Medicare. It will take some years to put into place, but you have to start somewhere. You have to recognise the need. We have been listening to people across the political spectrum talk about the need for this for 20 years. When is it going to happen? It will happen under a Labor government. We have already put it into place; that is what we are doing right now. There are many other programs: dental programs, making sure people in the workforce have skills, better safety on regional buses, Roads to Recovery—a great program, and we are continuing to fund it for the next five years.
I also want to make particular note today, in the small amount of time I have left, that it is World IBD Day. I mentioned earlier that the government is increasing funding for bowel cancer screening, and it gives me an opportunity to speak about inflammatory bowel disease. World IBD Day was Saturday, 19 May. It was the second World IBD Day. The conditions that make up IBD are Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Both are very debilitating diseases that mostly hit young people and are largely unsupported and unfunded in this country. It is a great tragedy to see what the hardworking young people that are affected by this disease have to do to survive and fund their own way. Even though we have great programs and a first-class Medicare system—the best Medicare and pharmaceutical system in the world—there is still a lot more that we can do.
I am making it a mission of mine to make people aware of this. I helped set up the Crohn's and Colitis Parliamentary Friendship Group with Andrew Laming. I have good support from both sides of this House on what is recognised across the spectrum as a really bad disease that needs more work. The causes of inflammation of the bowel are more prevalent in society than epilepsy, MS, rheumatoid arthritis, eczema or schizophrenia—it is just little understood and little known. It is a responsibility for all of us to make people aware of this, and I have certainly taken that on.
Over 61,000 Australians have IBD and a new study indicates that 18 people per 100,000 have Crohn's disease and 11 people per 100,000 have ulcerative colitis. The peak onset age is between 15 and 40, in a person's prime, and it affects not only the sufferer but also their friends, their families and their ability to work. Often you will find that they are self-employed people who, from an early age, understood that their disease meant they could not hold down a regular job and, therefore, had to create their own job and their own work. I know a number of people who have this very tragic disease and who work very hard not to be a burden on taxpayers or on others, including their family, but to fight this disease as best they can.
It is a chronic condition and sufferers require long periods of expensive medication and face multiple bouts of major surgery—some having surgery 20, 30 or 40 times. If you can imagine what that does to a person's body, you can understand just how chronic this disease is. Apart from the obvious personal cost, there is also a huge economic cost. A 2007 study by Access Economics found that the cost to the community is around $2.7 billion—a $500 million financial cost and a $2.2 billion cost in lost wellbeing and productivity through absenteeism, workplace separation, early retirement and premature death. Keep the 2007 figures in mind because I know today they are much higher.
Last year I started the parliamentary friendship group and I am very thankful for the members of that group. Tonight we have a major function on to mark World IBD Day. I challenge everyone here to pay more attention to this chronic disease and do whatever they can to find out about people in their own electorates who have it. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (17:18): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills. This federal budget has sunk like a stone. The experience in my electorate office and elsewhere, from what I gather in discussions with so many of my colleagues, is that there is virtually no contact—no phone calls, no attempt to get detail. This is most unusual irrespective of how budgets are received or who delivers the budget on either side of the chamber. You would normally expect to get a reasonable number of calls coming to your office either to complain or to congratulate or, at the very least, to seek details of different programs. This year, silence—because this budget has sunk like a stone. People have stopped listening to this government. They have no confidence that anyone is running the show. They have no confidence in this Treasurer and his ability to bring down a budget that is in any way believable or competent.
Australians simply do not find this budget believable. Not more than 18 months ago they heard the first forecast of $12 billion for this budget's deficit. Then, in the budget last year, they heard a forecast of $23 billion. Then, toward the end of last year in November's mid-year economic statement, they heard that the budget deficit would be $37 billion. This time around, when the budget was actually given, they hear that it is $44 billion—at a time when the year still had a couple of months to go. No wonder people do not find this budget believable. No wonder they have taken absolutely no notice of what has been said by the Treasurer and the government. Why would they believe a surplus forecast? Why would they believe in a $26 billion turnaround? They have heard the spin before, again and again, and we have just heard it again from the member for Oxley—apart from the last four minutes on IBD and Crohn's disease.
People have been bludgeoned into reality by the outcomes, not the spin. They have been disheartened. They have been let down so often. They are sick of it—the cute words, the explanations, the endless forecasts which are never delivered. We hear this Treasurer bemoaning the fact that he has had to deal with a $150 billion write-down in the budget, as though someone came along and put an extra burden on him. But they were his forecasts from previous budgets that were overstated—everyone said they were overstated, these pollyanna forecasts from previous budgets. Then he comes in here with shoulders stooped, complaining of the fact that he has got to write down $150 billion. Well, poor Wayne! Poor Treasurer! These are things that he forecast and then, when the forecasts were not realised, he gets it on one side—he helps sell a budget with a shonky forecast—and then he gets it on the other side, by saying that he had to deal with the write-down of $150 billion of moneys that were not realised.
This is just an example of the type of spin that everyone has to put up with. It is the type of spin that has made people so cynical, so distrustful and so confused, and so upset about the way in which this government is running the affairs of state. It is why there is a crisis of confidence in this country. It is why people are saving at a level they have never saved at before—12 per cent for the last 12 months. That is nearly $90 billion not spent that normally would be spent. No wonder retail is on its knees. There is all of the money that is sitting on balance sheets of companies not being invested. Go out and talk to them, and they all say, 'Why would I invest? I've got no idea who's running this show. Is there anyone up there who's got any ideas?'
Mr Sidebottom interjecting—
Mr ROBB: Madam Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this nonsense from the other side here?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The parliamentary secretary!
Mr ROBB: This budget is a discredited budget—totally discredited. I just want to give a couple of quotes. The chief of certified practising accountants, Alex Malley, said that Australia desperately needs a vision and that that was not achieved in the budget. 'Accounting chicanery was the winner tonight,' he said at the end of the budget. On the same evening, respected economic commentator Alan Kohler said:
This is, at its core, a big taxing, big spending budget, including a big increase in welfare.
And he also said:
… it is the budget of an unpopular Government approaching an election, not one that's tightening the belt.
He has nailed it. You would not think so, though, from the verbiage about the budget coming from the other side of the chamber.
This budget is a flight of fancy. You need look no further than the revenue forecast. There was a revenue forecast of 11.8 per cent. The Treasurer is setting himself up again for an opportunity to bemoan the outcome next year by overstating the forecast this year, once again. The revenue forecast is 11.8 per cent. This cannot happen and will not happen. The long-term average through good years is eight per cent.
The Australian dollar, the coal price, resource share prices—they are all forward indicators, and they are all heading south, every one of them. Add to this the new socialist governments in Europe, the recent developments in the last week or two in Spain and Greece and unemployment on the up again in the United States, and we are not going to see a 12 per cent increase in revenue. It simply will not happen. We will be a long way south of that. And this government knows it. It is again an exercise in deception. It is an exercise designed to fool people long enough to get through a budget and to seek to put a gloss on what are, demonstrably, failed results.
The Treasurer keeps talking about Australia being well ahead of the rest of the developed world. Of course, our competitors are, in the main, not in the developed world, but put that aside. The IMF just a couple of weeks ago stated that six developed countries are now back in structural surplus—six developed countries. This is the yardstick that the Treasurer keeps wanting to refer to. And yet they still referred to Australia being in structural deficit. In other words, we are wasting the mining boom. The rivers of gold are being used to fund excessive payments. That is what a structural deficit means. And if the rivers of gold come off 20 or 30 per cent, we are in deep trouble. We are back in deficit without doing anything else. Without doing another thing, we are back in deficit.
This budget is a confused budget. On the one hand, we heard for weeks that it was going to be a really tough budget. My goodness, this was going to be tough. This was going to shake the bones of all those people who like to spend, spend, spend. Yet when we got to the night—actually, when we got to a couple of weeks before, when the Prime Minister came back into the country and thought she was being set up by the Treasurer—we started to hear of endless handouts: a vote-buying exercise. Of course they are all paid for by borrowed funds.
We hear again and again from the other side of the chamber, in defence of the budget, about all the spending initiatives that they have got and who they are helping. People are not deluded by this. They are worried by the fact that you are helping them with more borrowed money. That is not help; that is just deferred pain. That just means that someone further down the track is going to require repayment of that money. It is, again, spin over substance, and we are seeing the outcome of it.
The $800 cheques—that is all borrowed money, every penny of it. One hundred million dollars a day! They say they are helping small business. They are in the market for $100 million each day, forcing small business out of the market. They cannot get money to keep the doors of their businesses open, to refinance their mortgages. Nor can they get loans at any sort of reasonable interest rate, because this government has been borrowing $100 million a day for years now—for three years, $100 million a day. And they say they are interested in and supportive of small business. It is a joke.
Not only have they got a supposedly tough budget that ended up with all these handouts, but also there is a confusion of broken promises. The budget actively discourages investment by Australian based companies and foreign investors. They claim that this shonky surplus is going to give great confidence and comfort to business and will turn the tables on all sorts of problems faced by businesses outside of the mining sector. Yet, in the same breath, they drop a long-standing promise to reduce company tax. And of course there was nothing on deregulation. It is a budget that actively discourages investment. And when you look to foreign investors, one little reported measure in the budget that demonstrates that this government just does not get it which was not lost on the business sector was the doubling of the withholding tax on distributions from managed investment trusts for overseas investors. At a time when we have the biggest carbon tax in the world being introduced and a mining tax which no-one else has—which is becoming a huge sovereign risk issue in other parts of the world for investors—we also have a withholding tax, one of the few things they could claim to have done in a successful and promising way.
Just four years ago the then Assistant Treasurer put out a statement after the budget announcement which said:
As part of its commitment to establish Australia as a regional financial hub, the Rudd Government has acted to dramatically improve the competitiveness of the Australian managed funds industry.
… it will substantially reduce the level of withholding tax from a non-final rate of 30 per cent to a final rate of 7.5 per cent … These arrangements will make Australia's withholding tax rate one of the most competitive in the world, and provide a significant boost to Australia's ability to compete globally.
They were on the money. We supported this initiative. It was a very sensible thing. They got out in front of the world. And it produced results, billions of dollars of results. It went from $1 billion in the MIT to $4 billion.
Then, when it came down to 7½ per cent, it went to $5½ billion; $5½ billion came in here, got invested in infrastructure that we hear being talked about endlessly, but what happens? On budget night they reversed it. It was back up to 15 per cent. Of course there was no consultation, no warning whatsoever. What do you think this does to people in New York and London and other places who are looking to put billions of dollars here? It spells sovereign risk. It spells a government that has the shakes. It spells a government that does not know where it is going. It spells great big question marks over Australia as a destiny for stable and accountable government.
None of this is happening and these are the sorts of signals. It is not only that; it is retrospective, so companies and big funds that have sunk billions into infrastructure projects and done all their numbers on 7½ per cent withholding tax are now going to be slugged 15 per cent. Do you think they are going to come back with money to get a measly $260 million?
For this Treasurer to pull out a shonky surplus, they have probably sacrificed tens of billions of dollars over the next 10 or 20 years by this move. It is such a pathetic thing for this government to do. Then they stand up and say they understand and they have the interests of businesses at heart.
This is a budget with the debt issue, this increase in debt from $250 billion to $300 billion debt ceiling. It is so misleading. That was hidden. It is a budget of deception by omission. It has the biggest carbon tax in the world, with not one word of explanation in those inches and inches of budget papers about how this thing will work. Yet it is going to put such an enormous burden on everybody in the country.
This is a budget which will only compound the crisis of confidence currently running rampant within Australian households and businesses. (Time expired)
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (17:33): I support Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills and their passage through this House. Doesn't the fact that we have targeted and delivered on a budget surplus annoy the hell out of those opposite?
Let's go back a little while. It was not all that long ago that, apart from preaching the need to have a budget in deficit, they started working through the figures—bear in mind they had a bit of a black hole to overcome—and started saying a budget would be an aspirational objective for them.
We have taken on the task of delivering a surplus budget. We have not simply said that we can; we have delivered a surplus budget to secure our economy against the persistent threats of an uncertain global environment. As I often mention here, there has not been one occasion when I have heard those opposite talk about the global financial crisis in this place. It is as if it did not occur.
Let's go back to 2008, with the fall of Lehman Brothers and the consequences around the globe. I recall it very vividly. The opposition—as a matter of fact, the shadow Treasurer—was recommending a path of action to this parliament of sitting, waiting and seeing what happens. If we had sat and waited, we would be in the same financial position as Europe, the United States, Britain and Japan.
We have had a very good result as a result of how we addressed the global financial crisis. We have shown good fiscal and budgetary management. We have kept the pressure on interest rates. What is important about delivering a budget surplus is putting downward pressure on interest rates. I think that would be in the interests of everyone in this chamber who purports to represent families, particularly those families who pay mortgages, which, let's face it, is the bulk of working families. This budget is designed to put downward pressure on interest rates.
We have just heard a lot about the issue of the mining boom. Sure, this is probably a once-in-a-generation mining boom that is occurring. It is right that we spread the benefits of that mining boom to ensure that no section of the Australian economy is left behind. I have seen the effect of the mining boom in my own family. I know the attraction there is for young to go up and work in your state, Madam Deputy Speaker D'Ath, in Queensland or over in Western Australia, where my boy has also worked. It is probably why it is very hard to attract tradesmen to other parts of the economy. Therefore, we need to put pressure on to incentivise areas, particularly in small business, to make sure that they stay competitive.
I spoke this morning on a notice of motion, which you moved, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gave me the opportunity to talk about the strong economic position that Australia is currently enjoying in relation to the rest of the world. When we talk about the global financial crisis, we should remember that our economy has grown by a further seven per cent since the crisis. We have an unemployment rate of 4.9 per cent compared to 8.3 per cent in the United States and an average of 10.7 per cent throughout Europe. Sovereign debt in most of Europe is around 80 per cent and is similar in the United States and Great Britain. Ours will peak as a debt ratio to GDP of 7.5 per cent. I hope those figures indicate we are doing a fair bit right. We are not doing what those opposite recommended: let's sit and wait and see. We decided to take very decisive action early, we decided to move and stimulate growth in our economy.
Investing in education will not only guard against the effect of a downturn in the construction industry but also in the next 10 and or 15 years be a benefit as our kids graduate and learn with modern technologies and go on to be competitive with the rest of the world. To that extent, we have only seen the first phase of the economic benefit of investing in schools. The next will be the productivity benefit as these kids who learn with the advanced technologies enter into our tertiary education system, into our workforce and make a difference for the better in our economy for the future.
That is by no means sitting back and waiting. That is taking a very strident approach, something that was criticised. I have to give credit to the opposition, they have been very consistent in their criticism. They have been consistent in their position of voting no. That is another one they voted no to. I know from my electorate that people do not go out to the schools and say, 'We oppose this.' When we are opening school science blocks or language centres or doing other things in relation to education, everyone wants to get a piece of the local action.
Our responsible management of the economy and the budget has not come at the cost of investment in our productivity. I have just mentioned schools. The government has delivered historic investments into disabilities, aged care, dental health care, education and fundamental investment in building this nation's future, including the National Broadband Network. Despite what has just been said, this budget does have fiscal restraint at its centre in order to deliver that surplus.
Families in need are clearly the beneficiaries from this budget and rightfully so. Many of these families live in my electorate. Apart from being the most multicultural electorate in the whole of Australia, my electorate is the second most disadvantaged in Australia. So extra assistance is certainly welcomed by those families—families in need, such as those who are receiving the $410 for primary kids and $820 for high-school students through the schoolkids bonus. That is something that is very important to me. A third of my electorate is Asian, 22 per cent is Vietnamese. The Vietnamese have only been here for the last 37 years, at tops.
When running my mobile offices, I have been astounded at the number of people who have not claimed education tax refunds for their kids. A lot of people just failed to understand they were entitled to it. Unfortunately, lack of language skills has kept a lot of them out of the workforce. When they have not had a job they have not paid pay tax and thought, therefore, they could not claim the benefits for their children. This will ensure that those families do not miss out. According to our statistics, in my electorate this will mean that 10 per cent of families who have been and always were eligible but did miss out will now receive justly deserved spending for their children's education. They will get paid this schoolkids bonus at the beginning and the middle of each year. That is certainly very welcome.
Similarly, there are 17,000 families in my electorate who will also see the benefit of the extra $600 from the family tax benefit A payment and more than 18,000 individuals on Centrelink allowances will also receive a supplementary payment of $210 to assist with the cost of living. For those who are truly struggling to look after their families, every cent will certainly make a welcome difference in their lives.
This budget also provides $3.7 billion worth of assistance for small business in the form of tax breaks. There are 11,300 small businesses in my electorate of Fowler. The instant asset write-off which will be increased to $6,500 will be well received, whether it be for the motor vehicle, computer equipment, utes cetera. For areas such as mine where there are a lot of trades personnel, this will be very welcome.
There is also the issue of the loss carryback where people can claim losses of up to $1 million against the tax paid on previous profits. I know the Council of Small Business welcome it. Many businesses in my area are trying to regroup and reinvest in their businesses, particularly tradesmen increasing their tools and machinery. This will be the basis upon which they can upgrade. They can actually turn around their businesses and invest in their future and, hopefully in turn, grow their businesses. That means providing greater employment for local people.
Also very important is the $3.7 billion committed to aged-care reform. It will help people stay at home for longer and not be forced to sell their homes to pay the aged-care bond. In addition to the historic and dramatic increase in the pension delivered since 2009—something the other side of politics refused to do in the 12 years they had when they occupied the government benches—more than 27,600 pensioners in my electorate alone will now receive an extra $338 per year for singles and $510 for couples combined. These are good things. They are things that we do need to strive to achieve. On that basis, it will certainly be welcomed by the very significant portion of the elderly that I have as residents in Fowler.
Other issues , such as the dental health scheme and being able to alleviate the public dental health waiting list , are certainly going to be of great benefit to the people I represent , b ut I want to particularly focus my comments on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Disability is something I have a particular interest in. My area, apart from its demographics, is very much overrepresented by people and families who live with disabilities. I can assure you that it is not the air we breathe out the re in south-west Sydney or the water we drink. Having a child with, say, a utism, is very, very expensive and very few families actually survive the challenges associated with that. So people make compromises, and one of the compromises is in land values. So the electorate of Fowler is very much overrepresented by people with disabilities.
A couple of years back I was able to show that within a 25 - kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD resided about 52 per cent of all families in New South Wales that live with autism. Of that number, 82 per cent of those families are single - parent families. As I said, it takes a very, very strong marriage to survive some of those challenges. So it is very important to me to ensure that local families have not only the care they need now but also the lifetime care and support they will need. This is something that will certainly make our mark hopefully as a parliament — stand ing up for people with disabilities. I honestly believe that our generation is going to be judged on a range of different things but specifically on how we deliver for people with disabilities.
While we are talking about autism, I would also like to indicate my support for the Autism Advisory and Support Service in Liverpool, which provides essential support and guidance for parents of children with autism. This organisation exists entirely as a result of the dedication and commitment of its volunteers, who are mainly parents. I would particularly like to recognise its founder, Grace Fav a , and also Fiona Zammit for the good work they do. I know they are holding a fundraising function this weekend, and I wish them all the best with that. They do an extraordinary job for parents in my electorate , who are just coming to terms with the fact that their children have autism.
If I had further time I would like to talk more about unemployment in my area—which is also extremely high. I have an unemployment rate which is twice the national average. One of the things that I would like to see more attention given to is language classes to ensure that a larger number of people are given the potential to enter the workforce and become job ready. That is something that is very significant in Fowler. (Time expired)
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (17:48): This is an unworthy budget from an unworthy government that Australians have stopped listening to. This is a budget that cannot be believed. It is a budget that sets out to pitch Australian against Australian. It is genuinely a Labor budget—a true Labor budget—that is once again more interested in distributing other people's wealth and demonising them in the process than in the creation of that wealth for the betterment of our nation.
This is a budget that has at its heart, just as this government does, a lie—the carbon tax th at dare not speak its name in the budget or in the tens of millions of taxpayer funded advertising this government is insulting Australians with every single night. This is a budget, as the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have well argued, that is based on cooked books, where expenditure is hollowed out from next financial year, such as $1.3 billion in nation-building works , or the $1.1 billion on local government grants, or wiping expenditure from the Clean Energy programs only to see them reappeared the year after, all to inflate the deficit this year—a type of throwing good money after bad approach from this government and how they manage our finances—while pushing important expenditure like more than $5 billion in Defence funding, taking us to the lowest level of Defence expenditure since pre - war times, as well as absolutely welching on their grandstanding foreign aid commitment, leaving all of these things for later governments to pay for.
This is a budget based on rubbery number s . The government expect Australians to believe that, after creating $147 billion in accumulated deficits, they are going to produce a $1.5 billion surplus next year. And they make this claim after blowing the current year's budget by more than $20 billion despite a 10.3 per cent increase in tax receipts and including an almost 20 per cent increase in company tax receipts. If you listen to the Treasurer , you would think that he has been losing money. But the fact is that revenue has been going up. The only thing that it has fallen from is the Treasurer's inflated expectations of revenue to prop up previous budgets.
Research by the Parliamentary Library shows us that the average variation between actual and budgeted expenditure for the budget year over the past 22 years, going back to 1990-91, is equivalent to 0.7 per cent of GDP—or on current figures around $9.2 billion. The actuals are on average 0.7 per cent of GDP, or $9.2 billion worse off than what ultimately appears in the budget, if you go back over the last 22 years.
That takes into account the swings and the roundabouts. Of the swings, when it was worse off in the actuals than what was budgeted for by the government the previous year, on eight occasions they were Labor budgets and on three occasions they were coalition budgets. And of the roundabouts where the actual was better than the budget was predicting the previous year, the majority were coalition budgets and only two were Labor budgets, which included one that was basically neutral. To put this in perspective, the Treasurer is asking us to believe that his budget surplus of $1.5 billion—which is around one-sixth of the average negative variation over the past 20 years—is in the bag. We in this place must tell him that he is absolutely dreaming.
But it gets worse. I will go to the statement by the Treasury secretary, Dr Parkinson. In his recent speech following the budget, he said:
Given the significant structural change in the economy, and the changing relationship between the nominal economy and tax collections, this is a particularly challenging time for revenue forecasting.
So not only do we have a Treasurer who says that he is going to deliver a surplus when he has never delivered one to date—in fact, he has delivered $147 billion in accumulated deficits—and that surplus accounts for a sixth of the average variation over the last 22 years, but also the Treasurer's own secretary of his department has highlighted the volatility of the things that are in front of us.
This is a Treasurer who thinks that he can out-predict and out-budget the best Treasurer we have ever had in this country, Mr Costello, and that he is even better than Paul Keating, from his own side. He thinks that he can effectively be the fiscal equivalent of a crack sniper in a hurricane, and he believes that the Australian people will accept at his word—because there is no track record to go from—that he will land this $1.5 billion surplus next year. Well, the way they speak about it in this place, you would think they had already achieved it. But, as the Australian people have come to learn, this is the government that overpromises and under delivers like none before it.
This is a budget that is betrayed by its own deceit. When we look at their request to lift the debt ceiling, they betray themselves. By asking to increase the debt ceiling by a further $50 billion, there is no greater proof than this that the government do not believe in their own forecast surplus. They are like an addict saying that they want just one more hit. After putting up the ceiling now on numerous occasions they say, 'Just one more time. Believe us; it will be the last time.' The Australian people have given up believing in this government—if they ever did—and they have certainly given up on listening to them.
There is $8 billion in interest for this debt. Eight billion dollars in interest per year is what we will arrive at over the end of the forecast period. In my own electorate, you could build the F6 tunnel under the shire three times over. In my own electorate—and a matter that is very dear to those in my electorate—you could build the second Sydney airport and its associated land transport infrastructure for the cost of one year's debt payments.
The cost blowouts, though, go even further. This is another Labor budget—and it is indeed another blowout on boats. In this budget not one figure that relates to the cost of managing asylum seeker costs has not blown out and will not get worse by the time this budget is finished. The only surplus Labor has delivered has not been for Australia; the only surplus that this government has delivered has been for the people smugglers themselves, who continue to profit year on year as a result of this government's soft policies. More than 18,000 people have now arrived since they decided that it was a good idea to get rid of the solution that had worked. Those more than 18,000 people provide in gross revenue—we estimate, based on the estimates of $10,000 per person coming from the interviews of people getting off those boats and being transferred to Christmas Island—around $170 million so far, and counting.
More than 10½ thousand have arrived since the last election. More than 4,450 have arrived since the community release and bridging visa scheme was announced late last November. Arrivals have increased since then to a rate of almost 750 per month. More than 1,000, for the first time under this government, have arrived this month alone and more than 250 have turned up in the last 24 hours. Today we learnt in Senate estimates that this government is budgeting for next year for 450 people to turn up a month—yet we have had over 1,000 this month and we had almost 1,000 in the month before.
As we have seen blowouts occur in the past, we will see these blowouts occur again. We have seen $4.7 billion worth of blowouts since 2009-10. In the past year, at the portfolio additional estimates, there was a blowout of $866 million. Since those portfolio additional estimates, there has been a further blowout of $840 million. There was a blowout within those figures between November, when they first considered the papers and the publication and the review of those in the additional hearings in the Senate, of over $220 million. So the costs just keep going up and up every time more and more boats arrive.
Rather than trying to address these issues, the government's response is simply to blame others for their own pantheon of failures. And it is a pretty big list: the government's first decision to abolish the solution that worked; then the government's decision to introduce their asylum freeze; then the government's decision to introduce the failed East Timor solution; and then the government's decision to introduce what proved to be the illegal Malaysian people swap, found by none other than the High Court. The government now want to cling to these failures and, if they want to do so, they should go and talk to their partners in the Greens—because, on this side of the chamber, we do not support bad policy. We support proven policy.
We will stand here today and we will say to this government, 'Put back the policies that work.' But for nothing other than their stubborn pride, the members on that side will sit there and cling to failure like a life raft. That is what they will do. They know that they can introduce offshore processing at Nauru today, with no legislation required, and temporary protection visas today, with no legislation required. But they refuse to do so because, if they do, then they have to admit that the 18,000 people who have turned up on their watch and the hundreds of people they know have perished at sea and the thousands of people each year they know are being denied humanitarian visas—
Mr Gray: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the speaker return to the bill. The bill is the appropriation bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): The member for Cook has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I was talking about is the cost of Labor's border failures. Those costs are seen not only in the red ink in the budget but in the costs that individuals are having to wear in terms of their inability to access humanitarian places from offshore—and there are more than 4,000 that will miss out this year because those who have come by boat to Australia have taken their place. That is how our system works, and more than 4,000 people will miss out this year for no other reason than that this stubborn government cannot admit that they got it wrong back in 2008. They should never have removed those policies, and that act has led to the chaos and the carnage that has followed. It continues to this day, and for that government to sit there today and try to shift the blame to an opposition who stand ready, every single day, to support proven policy is a disgrace. It is a lame excuse.
We have a government that has given up on border protection and given in to the Greens, with their community release policies. Next year we will see over 8,000 people in the system as a result of this government's policies. That was confirmed in Senate estimates today. Back in February of this year they said that next year there would be 5,700. Now they are saying there will be over 8,000. The number in community detention and the number of those on bridging visas has doubled in their estimate just in the last few months—and that is before they even admit that arrivals are on the increase, because they are still budgeting on 450 arrivals per month. So what we are going to see next year, on these budget figures, is an increase of $424 million next year. That is $1.1 million extra every single day that taxpayers will have to shell out because this government cannot get over its own stubborn pride when it gets something so catastrophically wrong and continues to cling to failure.
This government needs to reflect on this because these budget figures are going to keep going up. They are going to keep blowing out, and they will continue to be an embarrassment, not only for the minister but also for the Treasurer, who presides over a budget that is sinking—and it is sinking within a fortnight of it being brought into this place. Already, with over 1,000 people turning up in May, the budget figures for the immigration department are in a mess; they are already in tatters. I have no doubt that when we get together again later in the year and we go through these figures again we will be told the same old thing: 'Well, we didn't know that this would continue to go on like this and we didn't think it would cost that much.' Well, if you keep doing the same thing, you cannot expect a different outcome. The outcome we have had from this government on border protection is more boats, more costs, more risks, more expense, more failure, more denial and more lame excuses from a government that has simply given in.
There is nothing wrong—whether it is on our borders or in our great country—that cannot be improved with an election and a change of government. As I move around, that is the message I am getting loud and clear from Australians of all walks of life. Those on the other side know this. They know that they are reaping what they have sown. What they have sown in border protection policy they are now reaping in the blown out budgets, those being denied humanitarian visas because of their own intransigence and incompetence and, of course, the risk of those who continue to get on these dangerous vessels. There is nothing wrong—on our borders or in our country—that a change of government will not improve. (Time expired)
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (18:03): Whilst of course the standing orders allow for a wide-ranging debate on the appropriations bill, because we can speak about any public affair, one would have thought that a shadow minister might think that the appropriation bill debate speech was the time that he could unveil what he would actually do. He treated us as if he had been invited on one of those 24/7 TV shows, where the emotive word 'chaos' has to be used and that the government has to have 'lost the plot' in a piece of policy area. But what did he say that he would do if he became the immigration minister?
He has been told—and we know, because of the High Court case—of the need for new legislation. We have legislation before the parliament. He tends to rattle on about the Greens and say that they in some way have the government hostage, but the Greens do not support this particular piece of legislation. The coalition would require the piece of legislation, and therefore it is up to them to support it. The shadow minister says that we can return to the Nauru 'solution'. He does not consider that we have moved on a little bit. Five years on, we have moved on from there, and certainly the landscape has changed.
The success rates of those that arrived on our shores and got shoved into the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Nauru was pretty high, and I wonder, in the business of trade of humans in our region, whether it is a deterrent at all. To think that you can wind back the clock and suddenly the fear in people who approach people smugglers because they are being sent to Nauru will still be there, when the success rate of those that either came to Australia or got to other first-world countries through Nauru has been established—what a nonsense.
The shadow minister also stood at the dispatch box and said, 'Oh, we don't need legislation.' There was no mention of the briefings that have been made available to him by the government, by those that know, by those that have looked at the legislation. The shadow minister at the table, the member for Dickson, is getting a bit squeamish. We might hear some policy from him one day. He has been in his portfolio area and has had responsibility for a long time, and he has always joined the mealy-mouthed people who speak on behalf of the opposition.
Mr Dutton: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I can understand that the member for Scullin feels bruised and damaged because of the treatment meted out to him by this government but this is not relevant to the bill that is being discussed before the House, surely.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs D'Ath ): The member for Cook discussed this issue at length in the debate on the appropriation bills so I intend to give the same amount of latitude to the member for Scullin.
Mr JENKINS: Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not have to give me latitude. It is about time that members in this place read the standing orders. The member for Dickson, who thinks he could rule the place, should read the standing orders. Mate, read the standing orders—76(c):
... the motion for the second reading of the Main Appropriation Bill, and Appropriation or Supply Bills for the ordinary annual services of government, when public affairs may be debated.
There is no such thing in this debate as having to be relevant to the budget, as you should have known. But, no, you are slothful in your development of policy—we never hear it. You are always critical of all actions that go on. And you have got thin skin. All you can do is get up—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Scullin, can you resume your seat. The member for Dickson.
Mr Dutton: It is great to see him fired up again, Madam Deputy Speaker, but some of the comments were offensive and unparliamentary and I ask you to ask him to withdraw them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask the member to withdraw, for the assistance of the chair.
Mr JENKINS: I withdraw. I am sorry that I am surrounded by precious petals.
Mr Dutton: Madam Deputy Speaker, point of order—
Mr JENKINS: I withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Scullin, you have the call.
Mr JENKINS: I was just waiting to check whether the member for Dickson is okay with me returning to the debate because he seems a bit of a precious petal tonight.
One of the things I do understand is that, yes, perceptions about public policy are as important as the detail about public policy and, yes, at the moment that is something that this government has got to work on. But this government has got nothing to be ashamed of. This government is in fact a very good government. In its policy delivery—
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mr JENKINS: The big man scoffs. The one that loves parliament so much that he would deny himself the ability to stay in the parliament, but goes on the 24/7 talk shows on TV—hear the member for Dickson, the great saviour of the Liberal Party, sorry the LNP, whatever that is—and can only sit there scoffing. He will come up with a policy; we will hear it some day. He will think of something, mealy-mouthed. Have a look at the way in which we address dental policy in a concrete way that will probably be more sustainable than was the case with both the previous governments, of both political persuasions—sometimes we all have to admit that perhaps we got it wrong. But I know there was a fair degree of effort put in place when, during the Hawke-Keating years, a public dental scheme was put in place. One of the things that it requires, and we acknowledge it in the provision of a number of health services, is cooperation between public health and private health. But the member for Dickson was of the ilk that decides that he will put words in our mouths that were anti-private provision.
The Labor Party has moved on. The Labor Party knows that it has to move on with the norms of the society, within the time frames. That does not mean that we move away from traditional Labor values. It just means that we have to adapt to different types of delivery systems. So in this budget, at a time when the economic ministers have decided that they will put in place a budget that conforms to the political aspiration we put to the people about the budget going into surplus, we still were able to do something very concrete with regard to dental health policy.
Another thing that I am not ashamed to comment on is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I know that this is again something that the member for Dickson says, in a mealy-mouthed way, is not enough. Well, we can all say that.
Mr Dutton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sorry I have to rise to make this point but they are offensive comments again. They are untrue. I ask that you ask the member for Scullin to withdraw what are offensive comments yet again. It is unfortunate that in this rant he has to make comments that are baseless.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you have made your point of order.
Mr JENKINS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: this particular member has form. He is just being disruptive.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Dickson has indicated that he takes offence at the references that continue to be made about him. For the benefit and assistance of the chair, I ask that you withdraw.
Mr JENKINS: I withdraw and say it saddens me that in this place, a place where there should be robust debate, we have people displaying a sensitivity that in their behaviour from time to time they do not show.
Mr Dutton: You miss the chair, don't you, Harry? They did you a wrong.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Dickson should be careful.
Mr JENKINS: As I was about to say, hopefully at some stage, because this is about the contest of ideas, we will see shadow ministers actually explain to the Australian people what it is that the coalition are willing to do about the National Disability Insurance Scheme, that they will acknowledge that the efforts in this budget have brought forward the timetable set down by the Productivity Commission and that they will not describe these efforts in this budget as being not of consequence. The federal government has taken on a vexed issue that faces the Federation and that is difficult to solve because it requires the cooperation of state and territory governments. It should be debated in a sensible manner, not in a manner that is simply point-scoring, like the attitude on asylum seeker policy of the previous contributor to this debate. A mother and her two children are taken to the immigration office in Melbourne. They do not know why they are going. They leave the husband, the new stepfather to the children, in the waiting room. They present and then they come back out of the room to tell the husband-stepfather that they are going immediately on a plane to Villawood because the wife has had an adverse ASIO assessment. When the member for Cook is given an opportunity to respond to such a situation, what does he say? 'It's a consequence of people arriving by boat.' There is a bit of a problem on that. For the last three years, or at least the last two years, there has not been a boat out of Sri Lanka because there were other things that happened in asylum seeker policy. Besides the legislation that they should vote upon and support in this place, there is the cooperation with source countries, and one of the successes has been in Sri Lanka strangling the trade in illegal movement of people.
Then again, I should not have been so surprised. The attitude to Indonesia in this regional tackling of asylum seekers is for them to be told, 'Well, we'll tie a rope on the boats and we'll drag 'em back.' There are no visits to Indonesia to discuss this, before they go out using megaphone diplomacy, no recognition that it was the Howard government that commenced a proper dialogue about a regional approach to illegal movement in people—an approach that recognised that you had source countries, countries of transit and target countries. This is just as if, because Australia is a target country, our participation in the development of policy should only be about target countries. I am sorry: that is just not good enough.
This place should be used for, I will admit, robust debate of ideas and policy. But, when I get people that will go upstairs to the gallery, knock on the doors and say: 'Here I am again. I'll be able to make the comment about the chaos and the lost control, but never put a positive idea.' Well, they can continue to do that up in the galleries. I just invite them to use the opportunities that parliament presents to actually be sensible about things, to have the full debates, to decide that they will contribute to the contest of ideas. That is what is important about this House, and that is the way we all should treat it. (Time expired)
Dr STONE (Murray) (18:18): I too will speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills. The elephant in the room on the night that the budget was announced was Labor's, or should I say the Greens', great new carbon tax. This is the tax which Julia Gillard promised would never be introduced on her watch. She knew the damage that it could do. The carbon tax became the price of the keys to the Lodge, but it comes at a terrible cost to the competitiveness of the Australian economy. Nowhere in the long and florid speech made by the Treasurer on budget night was there a reference to the 1 July commencement date, when a hefty carbon tax will be imposed on Australia's energy consumers and emitters. The extra cost will be embedded in all that we do. Food prices will escalate; energy bills will escalate; and our industry, largely grown on the back of cheap fossil-fuel generated energy, will reel, and much of it will buckle.
Just today, the Russian aluminium giant RUSAL condemned the Gillard government for kneecapping the once high-growth alumina industry of Australia. They are quoted as saying:
Australia now faces an almost impossible task of competing with new entrants to the industry.
RUSAL Australia Chairman John Hannagan has said that the design of Gillard's carbon tax would hand future global capacity increases to competitors in Asia, South America and other places where there is no carbon impost. This industry leader referred to the perverse outcome where Labor's carbon tax could actually stimulate even higher global emissions, as new competitors in less regulated markets scramble to take up the opportunities created as Australia's global share of production falls away.
This is particularly depressing when you think that Australia's aluminium industry is amongst the world's best in generating the most efficient and least carbon-dioxide-intensive production. Generations of industry research and investment will now be compromised, or made useless, because the Greens insisted that Australia introduce the world's largest and most all-inclusive carbon tax, even though there is no evidence that the globe's emissions will be reduced or contained as a result. Others less environmentally careful than the Australian industry sectors will simply take the place of the closed-down parts of our economy. Their people will take the jobs in their countries that will be lost from our cities and regions of Australia.
The big dairy companies of Australia are also in the media today begging the government to rethink their destructive carbon tax policy. In my electorate, one of the big 3 to pay the new tax, Murray Goulburn Cooperative, have already announced job losses and a shrinkage of their activity amounting to nearly a third of their workforce in two of my small towns. Murray Goulburn's costs will rise by some $10 million a year, they calculate, and it will be their dairy farmers, their suppliers, who will have to bear the pain, given that Murray Goulburn can rarely negotiate higher prices from their international buyers, who always have the subsidised alternatives, and in the domestic market Coles and Woolworths have over 80 per cent of the retail market sown up between them. That means they can simply squeeze their suppliers as hard as they wish; there are too many alternatives.
Bega Cheese expect to see a 20 per cent impact of this new tax on their costs. Fonterra, a New Zealand owned dairy company, only pays $7 a tonne as a carbon tax in New Zealand, compared with $26 a tonne and going higher to be paid in Australia. New Zealand is the major competitor with Australia for dairy produce in international and Australian domestic markets. So guess which country's market share will shrink in the very near future? There will be less dairy production in Australia; more in our near neighbour.
But it gets worse. We have another tax—the equivalent carbon price—to be applied to synthetic greenhouse gases from 1 July. This element of the new tax will apply to bulk refrigerants and refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, including domestic, commercial and vehicle air-conditioners and domestic and commercial refrigerators and freezers. The new equivalent carbon price is to be based on Labor's new carbon tax plus the global-warming potential of each gas relative to carbon dioxide. In theory, the price per kilogram of these gases, collectively referred to as hydroflourocarbons, will more than quadruple. In reality, price gouging is already taking place, with the importers already hiking the price for the most commonly used HFCs from $25 a kilogram in January to between $50 and $90 a kilogram now. This is despite the fact that the new tax does not start till 1 July. A coolstore operator in my region told me of his shocking experience where he had to replace 1,800 kilograms of a synthetic greenhouse gas early this year at a cost of over $50,000. If he had to do this after 1 July, when the price will be over $100 a kilogram, this replacement would have cost him $180,000.
I have tried to find some assistance for this fruit coolstore operator from this government, which has imposed this new cost upon him. This government boasts that they will help those most cruelly impacted by their new policies. Unfortunately, those who manage coolstores cannot simply refill their equipment with a different gas; a whole new set of equipment is required at a substantial cost. But Labor's Clean Technology Food and Foundries Investment Program only offers some assistance to manufacturers—not to other essential parts of the value chain like coolstores which hold the fruit, cheese or meats on their way to the manufacturer or the retail markets.
This is typical of Labor. Labor fail to understand the interdependencies or complexities of an industry sector. It happens again and again. And by the time they work it out it is too late; too much enterprise has been lost. The business is buried; the jobs are lost; the regional economy shrinks; the manufacturers have had to pick up additional costs to make up for the lost local part of the value chain. And so we further suffer, and our economy, as I said, shrinks—and it is all due to this government's policies.
We all want to see synthetic greenhouse gases substituted for something more environmentally friendly in the future. It has been the object for nearly a decade now. The European Union, however, has taken a very different approach to the Labor Party's punitive price regime. Labor's regime will simply drive businesses to the wall. The EU's regulations aim to improve leak-proof equipment, encourage better labelling of equipment containing hydrofluorocarbon gases, and have better training and certification of personnel and companies handling these types of gases, their containment and recovery. The EU will end up with a reduction in the impact of these synthetic greenhouse gases. We, instead, will simply kill our industries with a sudden impost of punitive prices—prices that cannot be clawed back by higher charges to those downstream. Those are two different approaches based on very different understandings about how industries can best adapt and survive.
But let me turn to another very serious problem now confronting us as we scour the world for skilled tradespeople who will be our next generation of technicians. We are also now seeing an avalanche of parents choosing to take their children out of state owned education systems to put them into private independent schools. And we are now seeing a generation of young people turning their heads away from apprenticeships and away from becoming skilled tradespeople. It is much more attractive to leave school and go and work in a fast-food chain than to be dedicated to years of training to become an electrician or a plumber.
Labor has presided over the biggest collapse in educational standards in this country while it boasts of the biggest investment in buildings. The problem is that bricks and mortar—or, more commonly, cement tilt slabs and composite panelling—do not in themselves address the chronic problems of teacher competency, teacher morale and curriculum deficit. Labor has the Gonski review, which identified the need to invest in individual students according to their needs. But that comes at a significant cost. Sadly, Labor will spend at least $8.7 billion over government earnings next year, and it is so heavily in debt that halting the slide in educational outcomes is simply beyond its reach.
And so we have the obscene NAPLAN, a joke to parents, who see their children coached all year to pass a test that is an instrument which cannot and does not show real changes in children's educational development. All it does is name and shame on a very popular website. Imagine the despair of Indigenous parents in remote and regional Australia whose children are given this NAPLAN test in Standard Australian English when these children do not speak this language at all. I have recently been talking to the teachers and parents in such places, and they are deeply frustrated at the negative labelling and useless statistics generated by this national test. According to the outcomes, all the Indigenous students—all their children—are dumb. Labor places great store in NAPLAN, however, trumpeting it as one of its great educational outcomes.
As for our apprenticeship training, it once produced master tradespeople, who were amongst the most skilled, compared to those anywhere. Our tradespeople could work anywhere internationally. Their qualifications were highly regarded. Our current system, presided over by Labor, means young people or mature-aged candidates must somehow survive on about $6 an hour. They are no longer required to spend some four years or so gaining on-site instruction as well as education—leaving their workplace to attend theoretical and other training in a TAFE. Instead, in the interests of cost savings and expediency an apprentice can be fast-tracked through his or her training, becoming eligible for full qualifications, or at least a bit of paper, in only two years. They achieve this with so-called competency check-offs where a registered training organisation sends someone to, for example the building site, who says: 'I can see a bit of scaffolding up there', 'I can see a bit of plumbing' or 'I can see a bit of frame. Did you do that? Great, let me take a photo. I now can tick a box saying you are competent in that element of your training.'
I have complaints from skilled tradespeople, master tradespeople, as well as the apprentices and their parents, who are now in despair at the decline in the value of their qualifications and in the decline of their real skills development. I have young apprentices who are being used as cheap labour, who are not being released to do training at a TAFE institution at all and who are being ticked off in the competency list. At the end of their two years or so, they are let loose on a workforce where they can very rarely gain any respect or work as a skilled tradesperson. This is a serious problem and I ask this government to look closely at it.
I do not know why it is that we have sacrificed real outcomes in the education sector, whether it is in our primary or secondary education or in our trades training. We have no reason at all to now be falling away in the OECD tables showing the outcomes for our students in maths and science. The results from NAPLAN—that flawed instrument—are even now showing that our literacy and numeracy standards in the years that are tested are falling away. This is a disgrace. It is happening on Labor's watch and I ask them to seriously get back to the knitting.
Stop worrying endlessly about trying to sell a carbon tax, which is indefensible. Like us, why don't you address a very real revolution and abandon the carbon tax right now. I do not understand how a country with the prospects of Australia can beggar itself through bad policy. I do understand that the lure of the Lodge was great. I do understand that we have a minority government and that the Greens made this a condition of them giving their support to the Labor Party.
However, there is a much greater issue at stake, and that is the contraction of an economy. I have job losses now in my electorate that have never been seen before, the like of which have not been known before, even in the days of the Great Depression. There are over 100 shops empty in the city of greater Shepparton, the big city of Shepparton itself, where before there was nothing but a great sense of opportunity and expectation given we are being the greatest irrigation region in Australia. We were proud to call ourselves the food bowl of Australia. Now each day we live in dread of what the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, under the guidance of this government, might do as it seeks to buy even more of our irrigation water out of the hands of drought-stressed irrigators. It wants to put it into the Commonwealth environmental waterholders' bucket, so that again the Greens can be placated, so that the Greens can be told: 'We promised you a very big bucket of gigalitres of irrigators' water. We have delivered.' At the same time they turn their backs on the fact that dairy, fruit and fibre production cannot recover from the drought if the security of the water is no longer there. I beg this government to look harder at what they are doing. Sometimes there are more important things than staying in the Lodge. Sometimes it is more important to go to an election and give the people a chance to reset the clock for Australia.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (18:34): I am very pleased to be speaking on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and cognate appropriation bills tonight and talking about the budget this government has delivered and what a positive impact it will have throughout the country and in my electorate of Richmond, on the North Coast of New South Wales. It is interesting to contrast this with what we hear from the opposition, which is again just more negative comments and more scaremongering; we do not hear anything positive from them when we look at this budget and the positive impacts of this budget, particularly its positive impact on families. It will be very wide ranging and wide reaching in its effects. In fact, we are very proud of this budget. The government is very proud of it and its economic credentials. We made a promise to deliver a surplus and we have done that.
In delivering that surplus we have also been able to deliver quite a lot for families, which is very important, and to deliver for businesses as well right across the country. Tonight I am going to run through some of those achievements in this budget and some of the great improvements that we have made, particularly in areas such as health and education, and particularly in delivering for families. This budget delivers on much needed cost-of-living relief to hundreds of thousands of families right across the country. It is really about making sure that all Australians share in the benefits of the mining boom, whilst at the same time keeping our economy very strong. Of course, we have done that in assisting those families. In my electorate we have that new cash payment to over 9½ thousand local families under the schoolkids bonus. We are increasing family payments: there are more than 12,000 local families in my electorate that will get that increase. It will make a big improvement for them. We are very proud of this budget, and the return to surplus.
We have also found time to deliver reforms that make for a much stronger community and a fairer society—doing things like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, in addition to our big investments in dental health and aged-care reform. I will come to some of those. What we are doing with this budget is spreading the benefits of the boom. It will deliver a $1.8 billion boost to family payments. There is also new tax relief for business and lump-sum allowances for struggling families as well as part of this entire package. We have got a boost in family payments for over 1.5 million families. Families receiving the maximum rate of FTB A with two or more children will receive an extra $600 per year or an extra $300 per year if they have one child. Families receiving the base rate of family tax benefit part A with two or more children will receive an extra $200 a year or an extra $100 a year if they have one child. Also, more than one million Australians will benefit from a new lump-sum supplementary allowance to help the recipients of payments such as a parenting payment and allowances who will receive $210 a year for singles or $350 a year for couples.
Businesses will also benefit from the introduction of a loss carryback scheme, which is very important. Indeed, the benefits of the boom package will be funded by redirecting the minerals resource rent tax revenue intended for the company tax cut—and of course we know this tax cut was repeatedly rejected by the Liberals and by the Greens as well. It is quite astounding that the Liberal and National parties rejected it, but that is the reality of it. They did not want to help business—they kept saying that they were not going to support it at all—but the Gillard Labor government is determined to deliver tax relief through this new loss carry-back initiative for businesses facing some challenges in our economy at the moment. We are making sure that we are keeping the economy strong. We are focusing on that and making sure that we assist business.
As I mentioned, one of the things that we are very proud of in this budget is delivering on the first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The government will deliver $1 billion over four years to start rolling out the first stage of the NDIS. It will begin in mid-2013 and provide care and support to around 10,000 people with significant and permanent disabilities in up to four locations across the country. From mid-2014, the reach of the NDIS will be expanded to bring the total number of eligible people up to 20,000. That is a really strong commitment from this government. Many people have talked about the need for a national disability insurance scheme for many years, and this government has made the commitment and is delivering on the NDIS. We understand how vitally important it is, and we are delivering it a year ahead of the timetable set by the Productivity Commission.
We are very proud to be assisting local families through both the increase in family benefits and the schoolkids bonus. That is going to have a major positive impact for the people in my electorate. Eligible families will receive a total of $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in high school. These schoolkids bonuses, which replace the education tax refund, are available to families receiving family tax benefit A. We wanted to make sure that the people who were not filling out the refund forms and receiving the benefits were getting the assistance they need with all the expenses that parents with kids at school have, whether it is uniforms, textbooks, stationery or school excursions. The schoolkids bonus is there to help families. In my electorate, families of more than 16,500 local kids are going to benefit from it, so it will make a big difference.
In fact, the Labor government has already made a big difference in the lives of many schoolchildren in my electorate of Richmond. We have made a massive commitment to education. We have the Building the Education Revolution, through which more than $115 million has been committed to over 90 schools. It is a wonderful privilege to be continually attending so many BER openings and seeing the real difference that the federal Labor government through our many education commitments is making in the lives of our schoolchildren. All of those schools on the North Coast needed those improvements, and they have made a massive difference. We continue to make a massive difference through so many of our reforms—our education reforms, our investment in training and our investment in skills. We understand how important it is for future generations. We also know it is important to assist families whilst their kids are at school, so we are very proud to have the schoolkids bonus there as well.
In this budget we are delivering on some major health initiatives. We continue to do that. We know how important it is that people can access care when and where they need it, and we have made major investments in some major areas of need—dental health, rural and regional facilities and aged care. The main target of the health initiatives in this year's budget is dental care. Over $515 million has been committed to a dental blitz for those people who are least able to afford dental care. About 400,000 people have been waiting on public dental waiting lists for care, and they will benefit from this blitz. We know what a difference it will make for them and how important dental care is for a person's overall health. We are very proud of making this major investment in dental care.
The budget also focuses on rural and regional Australia: $475 million has been directed to new and upgraded health and hospital infrastructure across 76 projects in country areas. These projects include: hospital redevelopments, community health centres, multipurpose services, dental facilities and training and accommodation facilities. We are very proud to be reforming Australia's aged-care system through a five-year, $3.7 billion package to build a better, fairer and more nationally consistent aged-care system. It will enable older Australians to get the help they deserve so that they can remain living in their own homes for as long as possible. We know how important that is.
We are also very proud to be investing over $49 million in expanding the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Under the expanded National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, screening will be offered to people turning 60 years of age from 2013 and 70 years of age from 2015. We understand how important it is to expand upon that program.
Another investment in the budget is an additional $233 million in the continued rollout of the national electronic health record system, which is so important in reducing errors and duplications in services. The federal Labor government has made such a strong commitment to health reforms across so many areas. One of them is e-health, which will deliver so many practical benefits to Australian families by greatly reducing medication errors. It will allow parents to keep better track of their children's immunisation records; it will also make it a lot easier for older Australians who may have complex and chronic health conditions to ensure that their health practitioners can access a lot easier their medical history, therefore helping them to make diagnoses quicker and a lot more accurately. So we have this ongoing commitment to the e-health, and I think we are all very much looking forward to it rolling out across the country and making a real difference in the lives of so many people.
Within my electorate there is a lot of very positive feedback all the time on our health initiatives—particularly on e-health, because there is a large number of senior Australians living in my electorate. Indeed, we have had very positive responses to many of our health commitments. Prior to the last election we made a commitment of $7 million to build a GP superclinic. The development consent has recently been approved by our local council, and we expect construction to be underway soon. It is being delivered by a wonderful consortium of local GPs who have decades of experience around the Tweed Heads area. They are going to be providing a whole series of different allied health initiatives at the GP superclinic at South Tweed Heads. They are very keen to have it built and up and running. I am very proud as a local member to have delivered the $7 million to get it up and running. Indeed, I am very proud of all our health initiatives. They will make a major difference to many people living on the North Coast. We have made some major commitments to roads funding in this budget, particularly the Pacific Highway funding, which is an area where the federal Labor government has really stepped up when previous governments have not committed funding. This budget injects an extra $3.56 billion into federal Labor's Nation Building Program funding, which if matched by the New South Wales government could be used to complete the full duplication of the Pacific Highway by the end of 2016. Of course, we are still calling on the New South Wales state government to honour their election commitment to match that funding, and it is very disappointing to see them now stepping away from that commitment. We need the Pacific Highway duplication completed in New South Wales, and I again call upon the New South Wales government to honour their commitment to make sure it is built. In my electorate, I can tell you what a difference the Pacific Highway upgrade has made.
In previous budgets we committed substantial funds of about $900 million for the Pacific Highway upgrade in my electorate. We have $357 million for the Pacific Highway upgrade at Sextons Hill at Banora Point and $554 million for the Pacific Highway upgrade between Tintenbar to Ewingsdale. Of course, construction of the Tintenbar to Ewingsdale upgrade is starting now, which is fantastic. We are very excited about that. We have only recently opened the northbound lanes for the Pacific Highway upgrade at Sextons Hill. It is a fantastic project that has been strongly needed for many, many years. I was very pleased to have the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport there last Friday, when we inspected the northbound lanes, which opened a couple of days later. This $357 million upgrade is making a huge difference to the people of the North Coast. It is a much safer road now and it cuts travel time, which is vitally important. Essentially, it means that you can now leave the Brisbane CBD and not strike any traffic lights until you get to Coffs Harbour. That is what the federal Labor government has done. We promised that and we delivered it. Those upgrades have made our roads so much safer and make such a huge difference to the people of the North Coast. I congratulate the road traffic authority, which has worked very hard to get those northbound lanes open in time. It is great to see and is certainly something that I am very proud of in our local electorate.
The federal Labor government have delivered so much for our area over so many budgets, and we continue to do that in this year's budget. We are delivering the benefits of the mining boom, particularly to local families and businesses, and continuing our strong investment right across the board to our entire community. It builds upon our already strong record, particularly in community infrastructure. In the past, we have invested $2 million for the community centre at Murwillumbah, $1.8 million for the Jack Evans Boat Harbour redevelopment, $2 million for Australia's first high-performance surfing centre, at Casuarina—we are very proud indeed of that and intend to open it in a couple of weeks—and $9.5 million for a sport and recreation centre in Byron Bay.
The federal Labor government continues to deliver for the people of the North Coast. We have certainly seen that in Richmond and in the neighbouring electorate of Page, with its very good local member. We have been delivering quite a lot for the North Coast. The largest investment that we have seen in the history of the North Coast has come about since federal Labor has been in government. There has been health investment, education investment and community infrastructure, particularly delivering for families. We are very proud to be able to do that in this year's budget, particularly through the increases in family benefits and the schoolkids bonus.
These bills are about delivering the benefits of the boom to all Australians. They are about honouring our commitments, particularly in areas such as health and education, and making a difference in the lives of so many Australians. Whilst we deliver that, we do it in a way that is very economically responsible. We made the promise that we would bring the budget into surplus, and we have completed that great economic achievement. At the same time, we have delivered a fairer society through our commitments to health and education and, very importantly, through our commitment to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The federal Labor government has been able to deliver a very responsible budget but also a fairer society. I commend the bills to the House.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (18:49): In rising to speak in this cognate debate on the appropriations bills, I recognise that this is the one debate where one can range very broadly and widely across many issues in the course of the debate, not having to adhere strictly to the substance of the bills. It is very interesting: sometimes we hear people continue to refer to the bills of supply, which, of course, these bills are not. The bills of supply were a mechanism we used to use when we had budgets in August rather than in May and they were needed to tide over money until the appropriations bills were introduced, debated and passed. So, when I hear Independents say they will not deny the government supply, I wonder sometimes what it is they are promising to do.
The fact of the matter is that this government is held up by three Labor Independents: Mr Thomson, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor. Why do I use the term 'Labor Independents'? It is because of the support that Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor continue to give to the Labor Party. Mr Thomson, who is often referred to as having been expelled from the Labor Party, of course has not; he has merely been suspended. They are the three people who hold this government in office.
I listened intently today to Mr Thomson, in his address to the parliament, and take much succour from the fact that he thought the report from the Australian Electoral Commission had in fact exonerated him of all wrongdoing. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that the Australian Electoral Commission, which I note from the bills is going to get additional funding and, I think, 14 extra people, is being rewarded when in fact it has failed to carry out its task in relation to the matters concerning Mr Thomson.
In Senate estimates again and again, Senator Ronaldson would question particularly Mr Pirani from the Australian Electoral Commission about what action he was taking to investigate whether or not proper disclosure had been made concerning the Health Services Union and credit card usage by Mr Thomson, the member for Dobell, and whether or not the AEC had conducted proper investigations to find that out. Again and again, I can only describe the answers as being of an avoiding nature. At one stage, I think there was an indication given that, 'She'll be right, mate, we're looking at it.' But, of course, the Electoral Commission was well aware that their power to have prosecutions would run out and the date on which it would run out, and if they had not commenced any prosecutions by that stage then under the act they would have no power to investigate at all. So I am rather amazed to hear that Mr Thomson says that this is an investigation and a report from the AEC which exonerates him, because on 23 August 2011 I wrote to the Electoral Commissioner, Mr Killesteyn, asking the AEC to investigate allegations that Mr Thomson had misused his HSU credit card to pay for electrical expenses which were not declared. Two days later Mr Paul Pirani, the chief legal officer of the AEC, said on 25 August 2011 in reply to my letter:
There is no power contained in the Electoral Act that would enable the AEC to investigate the allegations concerning donations and expenditure relating to Mr Thomson that took place in the lead up to the 2007 general election.
Quite clearly the AEC report was not an investigation. It was merely a set of observations about the Fair Work Australia report. The AEC had made it perfectly clear numerous times that they did not seriously investigate matters surrounding Mr Thomson. Indeed at all occasions when I asked them, they explained they had refused to use their powers under section 316 of the Electoral Act and particularly subclause 2A subclause 3 because they did not, they said, have sufficient evidence to exercise those powers. Of course the whole nature of those investigative powers are to enable the AEC to gain evidence to see exactly what the situation is. There was a report from a well-known accounting firm that had been made into the affairs of the HSU and the AEC did not even ask for a copy of the report because Mr Pirani did not think it would be useful.
At all times when I listened to Mr Thomson, he did not address any of the serious allegations about refusing to properly declare expenditure. It does seem—
Mr Melham: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 90 which says:
All imputations with improper motives to a Member and all personal reflections on other Members shall be considered highly disorderly.
The honourable member is more than sailing than close to the wind. In my view, she has crossed the line in the imputations she is making about the member for Dobell. She needs to do it by substantive motion. I am not attacking her criticisms of the AEC. I do not agree with them. They are within order. But for the imputations she has just made in relation to the member for Dobell should be pulled to order and not allowed to continue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): I thank the member for Banks for his point of order. I am listening to the honourable member for Mackellar and I have been listening very intently. I am advising the member for Mackellar that she should not have a personal reflection on a member of this place. She would know, as many of us would know—that standing order 90 covers that issue. I am still listening to the member for Mackellar. I will allow her to continue but I advise, as the member for Banks said, that she would be well aware of standing order 90 and she should not have improper motive to a member of this chamber.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: The reason I was making those points that I made was simply from the point of view that the whole of the Electoral Act can be circumvented by the use of credit cards if these matters are allowed to stand because there is no use of the powers by the AEC in the Electoral Act to uncover whether or not correct disclosures have or have not been made. There are statements in the AEC's report which, in a press release I put out recently, made it quite clear that the report raises more questions than it answers. At the end of the day, it is one we will be looking at when we have our hearing with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and people will be under oath when answering questions. I think the chairman might choose to change the way he conducts that committee and administer the oath to witnesses in this case.
Mr Melham interjecting—
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: That is right. I always administered the oath. I note that when we come to looking at these appropriation bills that we hear from the government members in speaking to this issue that they cry out loud that they have returned the budget to surplus. I think the whole of the Australian people are coming to the realisation that in fact the surplus is a figment of their imagination. I would remind the House that of course the prediction from the last budget was that the deficit for this current year was to be $22 billion. The MYEFO account in fact raised it more to some $37 billion. By the time we got to the delivery of the current budget, the deficit for the current year was $44 billion. So much for the accuracy of prediction. But then, I have to say, Treasury always does get it wrong. In this case, we had the debate as we did on pushing out half a billion dollars in compensation payments—for the damage that the carbon tax is going to do to families—dressed up as an education bonus. Interestingly enough, I have had conversations with people who had abided by the previous scheme and kept their receipts and claimed them. They actually got more money back than they will get out of the cash splash, which the government has dressed up as an education bonus but requires no evidence of being spent on education at all. The important thing was for them to get the money out the door before 30 June so it became part of the $44 billion deficit and not in the next year which would have wiped out half a billion of the so-called $1.5 billion surplus. There are going to be many examples of that in the budget where expenditure has simply been pushed into the current financial year or extended out into the out years past this notional surplus of $1.5 billion. The Australian people are not silly. The Australian people know when they see a contrivance. The Australian people voice every day that they want an election—that is what they want. They did not elect a government at the last occasion. We won the primary vote and Ms Gillard, or the Prime Minister as she is today, stitched up a vote with the Independents in order that she could have power. That is not being elected prime minister. What we need is an election whereby we are not reliant on the vote of the member for Dobell.
I would point out that in question time, the Treasurer failed to answer the question as to why the caucus is allowed to be judge and jury but—and we hear this continually—the House, or the parliament itself, may not express a view, nor, indeed, even debate the statement by Mr Thomson, simply because the government is too embarrassed to stand up and have to defend the action of accepting his vote. So the question remains. Mr Thomson has been suspended from the caucus because he is not worthy of being in the caucus, but somehow he is worthy of his vote being taken in this House, and we are denied the right to debate his statement. I suspect his statement will continue to be debated for many, many days to come.
I would like to mention the way in which the budget has been drawn up and the impact that it will have on senior Australians. The carbon tax is the single most damaging thing that will impact on senior Australians, because it is a tax which will get into every nook and cranny of every aspect of everybody's life. It is a tax on electricity. Quite clearly, Senator Brown, when he was leading the Greens, wanted us all to live in a cave with a candle. But now we have Senator Milne—she would like us to do without the candle! The fact of the matter is that the difference in a civilised country, and in a civilised society, is electricity. We all depend upon it.
It is by placing a tax on coal that we see the tax on electricity, because 80 per cent of all electricity in this country is generated from coal fired power stations—the singularly cheapest way of producing power in the world, bar none. And we have enough in this country, that we know about, for 1,000 years. It gives us the one competitive edge that we can utilise in overseas trade: we have cheap power. To this very day, our single most voluminous elaborately transformed manufactures—ETM—is aluminium ingots, produced because we have cheap power with which to produce them.
What this government is doing is punishing the people, punishing our competitive advantage and punishing the way people live, whether it is every time you turn on a light, the street lighting, refrigeration or trucks. The Prime Minister says, 'You won't have to pay the tax on the family vehicle.' Yes, you will, because electricity is used to pump the petrol from the tank into your car tank and for the cash register to work. In every aspect of life this tax is compounding and cascading. So you pay tax on a tax on a tax.
Seniors are the people who are most likely to be on fixed incomes. They are the ones who are penalised most by this budget and by this carbon tax—the tax that the Labor Party now seems reluctant to refer to as a tax; it wants to use the word 'price'. There is no free coal in this country. It all has a price—a market price. This is a euphemism for the implementation of the tax. I can only say that this budget is one that is causing pain for people. It is dishonest in claiming a surplus and it must not be— (Time expired)
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (19:04): It is interesting that the honourable member for Mackellar, in her speech, did not once mention the GST and its impost on pensioners and on the poor sections of our community. She did not mention the regressive nature of it, or the fact that you get it from the cradle to the grave, so when you have your funeral, your family cop 10 per cent on top of the bill, courtesy of her and John Howard.
In recent months, we have heard a lot from sections of the media, together with those on the other side, criticising the Labor government. What I have just pointed out is one example of the opposition's alternative way of doing business. I think they compensated pensioners in a one-off payment, not a continuous payment like our initiatives. The comments have focused on the level of our commitment to the Labor values that we believe in. Let me say that there is a stark contrast between the values that drew us to the Labor Party, that we continue to espouse, and those of the coalition.
I wish to highlight to the parliament why this budget is very much a Labor budget and one that I am very proud of. The Australian Labor Party had its origins with people who sought that the aspirations of the Australian people for a decent, secure, dignified and constructive way of life be realised. These were people who sought to embody the recognition by the trade union movement of the necessity for a political voice to take forward the struggle of the working class against the excesses, injustices and inequalities of capitalism, and to ensure that the commitment by the Australian people to the creation of an independent, free and enlightened Australia was successful. These were the values of the origins of the Labor Party
At that time and since then, the Labor Party has always acted to ensure a fair and equitable society based on principles of social justice, employment and access to all the benefits of a just society. This budget is a continuation of those core principles. Our policy is to ensure that the government continues to provide the basic infrastructure for the whole community and continues to help those who are in need of extra assistance. As the Prime Minister said in the inaugural Gough Whitlam oration on 31 March 2011:
The historic mission of our political party is to ensure the fair distribution of opportunity. From the moment of our inception our mission has been to enable the son of the labourer, the daughter of the cleaner, to have access to the same opportunities in life as the son of the millionaire, the daughter of the lawyer.
This is who we in the Labor Party are. Before I turn to the implications of the budget for the people of my electorate of Banks, I note that prior to this year's budget this government introduced a series of policy initiatives in the best of the Labor tradition that I am proud of. Some of the highlights of the Labor government's achievements since its election in 2007 include: abolished Work Choices and restored entitlements and a basic safety net for all workers; delivered more than 800,000 jobs and saved 200,000 jobs during the GFC and since; delivered a $2.2 billion comprehensive package focusing on early intervention and coordinated care, the largest investment in mental health; increased hospital funding by $20 billion since 2007, including 1,300 new subacute beds and support for 2,500 new aged-care beds; and invested in 24 regional cancer centres and 44 McGrath Foundation specialist breast cancer nurses.
Other highlights include: invested in the nation through the $37 billion Nation Building Program to improve our roads, rails and ports, together with a $6 billion regional infrastructure fund; decreased taxes as a percentage of GDP—21.2 per cent in 2011-12, down from the 24.2 per cent at which the Howard government peaked in 2004-05, 2005-06; managed underlying inflation at 2.6 per cent in December 2011, down from 3.7 per cent at the end of the Howard government; introduced less income tax of $1,750 for someone on $50,000 and $1,900 less tax for someone on $100,000; boosted retirement savings for 8.4 million workers by increasing the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent to 12 per cent. The achievements include: doubled investment in schools; conducted the first review of school funding in almost 40 years and provided increased transparency to give us the data we need for a proper debate on schools; delivered reforms to pensions since 29 September—pensions have increased an extra $148 a fortnight for singles and around $146 a fortnight for couples and in the electorate of Banks there are 22,800 pensioners benefitting from these historic changes; provided an extra $338 and $510 a year to assist those in need with the introduction of a carbon price; delivered the first ever Paid Parental Leave scheme on 1 January 2011 with 18 weeks of leave paid at the minimum wage—there are 1,075 local families currently benefitting from this initiative in my electorate; and introduced tax breaks for small business, improving their cash flows by allowing them to claim tax deductions sooner. From 1 July 2012, small business will get $6,500 instant asset write-off for each business asset, as well as an instant asset write-off for the first $5,000 of any car purchased.
These are just a few of the reforms introduced by the Labor government, and are in addition to the massive reform in the process of being introduced through the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the reforms to aged care. Who can forget that, for most of our first term from 2007 to 2010, we had an obstructionist Senate. In the first part the majority in the Senate was held by the Liberal-National Party. Then they relied on two independent senators to obstruct. In this term we have a hung parliament. So, all those achievements have been achieved despite the resistance of those opposite, dragged kicking and screaming, which is the conservative way of doing business. They do not mind when it comes to business welfare or welfare for the upper middle classes. That is what they expect. Traditionally, that is the history of the conservatives on the other side of politics. The rest of us subsidise the upper middle class and the business sector.
This government has had the courage to take action on climate change. We are cutting carbon pollution and driving investment in clean energy technologies like solar, gas and wind. We are supporting jobs in existing and renewable industries nationwide. This budget continues to deliver for the Australian community, and I will outline exactly the benefits to people in the electorate of Banks.
The school kids bonus will deliver over $7.5 million dollars to an estimated 7,450 families in Banks and over 1.3 million families nationally. This helps people on Family Tax Benefit A who need assistance in providing the necessities for their kids at school: uniforms; books, stationery and so on. They will also receive an increase of up to $600 in their payments from 1 July 2013, affecting about 10,000 of my constituents. Young people, single parents and the unemployed currently receiving allowances will receive extra payments of $210 for singles and $350 for couples. This will assist those in need to meet the costs of essential services like electricity, gas and water. This payment will impact on 6,954 people in Banks.
Labor has increased the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of parents' out-of-pocket expenses to a maximum of $7,500 per family. This represents 5,575 families in my electorate. More than 22,800 pensioners in Banks will receive an extra $338 a year for singles and $510 for couples to assist with any cost-of-living changes brought on from the introduction of the carbon price. An additional 2,300 local self-funded retirees will also benefit from this initiative. Overall, around 53,000 local taxpayers will receive a tax cut on 1 July and around 42,000 will get a cut of up to $300. There are 17,400 small businesses in Banks that may benefit from the decision to extend the small business advisory service, providing access to knowledge and experience to help maintain and grow their businesses. We on this side look at our responsibilities as legislators through the prism of the Labor values of equity and fairness, and the Labor Party is the only party committed to social justice and equality. This is the 23rd budget that I have seen in this place. In my first speech I stated:
… a Labor government is the only government which governs in the interests of all Australians. They share the same hopes and aspirations as most Australians and look to their elected representatives to fight for an equal and fairer society which offers security for all.
This is as true today as it was in 1990. I continued in that speech to say:
I believe in government regulation and intervention, for without it the inequalities inherent in our society will continue to flourish. Governments are elected to govern, not to sit back and be spectators.
The classic example of that being successful was this government's response to the GFC, which made the rest of the world look up and take notice because we were the best performing economy in the world. Why? Because we did not do as the coalition wanted us to do: act like moo-cows and just watch the passing traffic. We got involved. We protected our society from the GFC. Instead of losing 200,000 people from employment, we have now created over the life of the Labor government 800,000 jobs, protecting families, protecting the workplace and protecting our community, in stark contrast to what the opposition were advocating: do nothing.
The road to reform as we are now experiencing it is not an easy one, nor has it ever been. The reforms of the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments were not easily accepted at the time, yet today they are keystones of our society. Medicare, when it was originally introduced as Medibank, was to be the end of Western civilisation as we know it, as was the Mabo legislation. The superannuation guarantee, when it was introduced, was the beginning of the end for business, yet civilisation is still standing. The mining companies admitted on the Four Corners program the other night that they are doing better than ever in relation to their involvement in the mining sector and their interaction with the Indigenous people of this country.
Today we are looking forward to major initiatives in the form of a National Disability Insurance Scheme and the beginnings of a national dental scheme. Superannuation will be increased so that all Australians can benefit from the mining boom. The direct result of this measure will increase superannuation as the guarantee is lifted from nine per cent to 12 per cent for around 8.4 million working people, increasing retirement savings by $500 billion by 2035, as well as providing 3.6 million low-income earners with concessions worth $800 million a year on employer super contributions. That $500 billion is a good capital pool that can be used to invest within Australia on a range of fronts: creation of jobs and assistance with infrastructure. The Liberal-National coalition have no such vision for the future. Time and again in this place we experience their negativity, their complacency and their inability to identify with the great social and economic changes introduced by Labor governments. Their role is to carp and criticise, to complain, to block and to continually look back. And what is their big reform in the Howard years? A 10 per cent tax, a GST from the cradle to the grave—a regressive tax.
This government and the Labor governments which preceded it can look with pride at their achievements for all in our society. The government will continue to implement policies and programs which will benefit all Australians and will continue to address the needs of the less fortunate in our community by seeking to raise the standard of living for all Australians. So I am proud to be speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills, because I think this is a Labor budget that we on this side can be proud of. I note that the electorate itself has generally accepted the budget because it sees that in the circumstances it is a very good budget. I commend the bills to the House.
Debate interrupted.
PRIVILEGE
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (19:19): I seek leave to clarify my statement to the House earlier today relating to a matter of privilege regarding the member for Hughes.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: In my statement I raised the question of whether the member for Hughes had been practising as a solicitor while at the same time serving as a member of the House. To assist the House, this was based on two judgments of the New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal, one on 6 April 2011 and the other on 2 August 2011. In the 6 April 2011 document, next to 'Solicitors', it lists Mr Phillip Kelly and Mr Craig Kelly as 'agents for applicant'. In the 2 August 2011 judgment of the tribunal, next to 'Solicitors', it lists C Kelly as the agent. I table both judgments. I am advised that at the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales it is possible to represent interested parties as an agent without being a qualified solicitor. I note the member for Hughes's statement that he was not acting as a solicitor during these hearings. The other matters raised remain matters to be considered by the Privileges Committee. I thank the House.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (19:20): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in response to the 2012-13 federal budget—Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills—on behalf of the people of Brisbane. My unwavering motivation and commitment is always to be a voice for my constituents in the parliament of Australia, and it is in this capacity that I speak to these bills today. The 2012 federal budget will be primarily remembered for two things. It will be remembered as a class war budget—a budget that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan tried to use to divide the nation—and it will be remembered as the carbon tax budget—the budget reminding everyone of those infamous words uttered by the Prime Minister before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It will act as a monument to the gross breach of trust with the Australian people.
One of the things that have been refreshingly absent from modern-day politics in recent decades has been this rhetoric of class warfare by our leaders. As the Leader of the Opposition has stated recently, Malcolm Fraser did not engage in it, Bob Hawke did not engage in it, Paul Keating did not engage in it, John Howard certainly did not engage in it and, to his absolute credit, the member for Griffith did not engage in it when he was Prime Minister. But this pattern has now changed.
In recent weeks we have seen the leader of our nation stoop back down into the depths of playing divisive class politics. In an interview Julia Gillard stated:
We're—
that is, Labor—
the Labor Party and we make absolutely no apology for saying we are here to serve low and middle income Australians and Mr Abbott is here to serve the rich.
Again, she described the Leader of the Opposition as 'a cosseted silvertail, who needs to get off Sydney's North Shore and talk to some real families'. We saw the member for Banks just earlier continue on with his class warfare rhetoric. This type of rhetoric serves only one purpose—that is, to divide our nation against one another. It is really offensive to my constituents in Brisbane and it is unbefitting of a Prime Minister of this great country of ours to act in this very undignified manner.
I now want to turn to some of the specific issues that directly affect the constituents of Brisbane. The occasional care funding that this government cut and has not recommitted to is a major concern in my electorate. The coalition have committed to restoring funding, should we return to government. However, occasional child care should not be underestimated. It is an important service to our mums and our communities. This government continues to talk about flexibility in child care, but it has absolutely ruined the day-to-day life of many families in the northern suburbs of Brisbane. It is not full-time childcare but it serves a very useful tool for stay-at-home parents who have to deal with necessary appointments. It is also a very valuable service to mums who work part time and also families who work part time. The cost of this service, for the whole of Australia, is approximately $12 million over four years. In terms of a multibillion-dollar budget that is petty cash to this government. The Kitchener Road childcare centre, which I have spoken about many times in this House, has existed for over 40 years and is in danger of closing all because $40,000 was cut from the occasional day care funding program.
I am really disappointed that, in my electorate, Kingsford Smith Drive continues to be passed over by this government and by Infrastructure Australia. There will be 3.5 million people coming into Brisbane airport by 2025. This is the major arterial road that everyone uses to get to the airport. It is the economic hub of Brisbane.
It is the main connector from the city to the airport and the Bruce Highway. As we know, it is Queensland's most important piece of infrastructure. Brisbane City Council is fully committed to this upgrade and has committed $1.5 million to continue studies for the option 2 upgrade, which is a proposal to upgrade the road to six lanes. However, these works cannot go ahead without contributions from the state and federal governments.
My constituents in suburbs such as Wooloowin, Ascot, Clayfield and Hamilton have to put up with the daily inconvenience of this road being consigned to a car park all hours of the day and all hours of the night. There is no peak hour—it is peak hour all day.
I am pleased to see a number of community grants and sporting grants still continuing and still being funded in my electorate. But I am very disappointed at the recent cut to COASIT in Queensland under the Community Partners Program. This welfare organisation does a wonderful job in helping the Italian community. As we know, many people who speak another language quite often revert to their native tongue, particularly when they are suffering from dementia or age related illnesses.
A key part of our liberal philosophy is that the government must help people who cannot help themselves. This organisation richly deserves the funding that it receives from the government. Dina Ranieri and her team do a wonderful job there at Newmarket. I cannot understand how the government can fund the Greek community—I am not saying that the Greek community does not need funding—but have decided not to fund the Italian community. It just beggars belief. I just do not know how they could do that. It will impact on many families who have elderly parents living with them, requiring in-house carer services, particularly for dementia.
I now wish to turn to the economic message and some of the general aspects of the budget. This budget projects a wafer-thin $1.5 billion surplus for the 2012-13 financial year. However, we all know that this will not be delivered. This government has a very sad track record when it comes to the difference between budget projections and budget outcomes. For example, in the current year the deficit has blown out to $44 billion. That is a doubling—I repeat a doubling—of the deficit that was promised just 12 months ago. And, with the projected surplus so small, it only needs a few tiny things to happen such as the terms of trade changing only slightly and the surplus will be completely wiped out.
But what is more interesting is the way that this surplus has been manufactured. Accounting tricks and manoeuvres have been constantly used in this budget. It would have made Houdini a very proud man. The government has made cuts by deferring spending in defence and deferring the commitment to spend 0.5 per cent of gross national income on foreign aid by 2015. A deferral is not a cut; the spending has got to occur eventually.
This government has also brought forward spending of grants to local governments, to the tune of $1.1 billion, into this financial year; therefore not having to account for it in the 2012-13 budget.
Then we have all those wonderful changes to the 'schoolkids cash splash.' We voted against it in this parliament. So we have increased expenditure this year and artificially reduced expenditure next year. Using the graphs from the budget papers, the member for North Sydney demonstrated in his speech to the National Press Club:
We already know that the Government is taking a novel approach to compensation for injury by paying $1.5 billion to people this year before the carbon tax actually starts on 1 July. Although if you believe their ads it has nothing to do with the carbon tax … they just want to give you money.
And further:
We also know that the Coal Sector Jobs Package seems to save jobs this year, give up on jobs next year but then it has a change of heart and starts saving jobs the year after and in subsequent years.
He went on:
It seems as though nation building also takes a holiday in 2013 as the Government brings forward $1.3 billion of spending a few months so it does not appear in next year’s accounts.
And of course there seems to be just one year, the first surplus year, when we don’t have to spend money on clean energy, but every other year we need to spend over $1 billion.
This is clearly a very dodgy surplus based on very dodgy accounting tricks. If a business used these tricks to try to manufacture a profit or loss outcome they would most likely be prosecuted. We also see the spectacle of the government supposedly delivering a surplus yet increasing the debt ceiling by $50 billion. An appropriate analogy for this would be a private business delivering a profit but increasing its borrowings to fund general expenditure. It is simply not sustainable. I might finish this point by quoting something that Margaret Thatcher once said, and she makes a good point:
The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money to spend.
If you want evidence of this—and the members of the government opposite always talk about Europe—you only have to look at the eurozone. If this government continues going down that track it will find out the hard way.
I would now like to discuss the carbon tax. It has been noted by my colleagues that this is the first budget after that fateful day when the Prime Minister blatantly broke her promise to the Australian people. This decision will have a profound impact on the constituents of Brisbane. A survey by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of 850 businesses in Queensland produced some very telling results: over three-quarters of Queensland businesses believe the implementation of the carbon pricing mechanism will have a negative impact on their business. What is even more concerning is that 21 per cent of businesses indicated that the energy increases arising from the carbon tax will have a critical impact on their overall business viability. The commentary from the business community about this budget has been scathing because they know that business, and particularly small business, is the big loser in this budget. Small business in and around Brisbane is struggling.
I wish to turn to the impact of the carbon tax on council rates in our beautiful city. The Brisbane City Council is the largest council in Australia and has a budget bigger than that of Tasmania. It has also been named by the government as one of the top 250 polluters. Consequently, the carbon tax will cost the Brisbane City Council approximately $65 million over four years. This is despite the fact that Councillor Graham Quirk, the Lord Mayor, and his council currently purchase 100 per cent green power for their buildings, they offset all their carbon emissions from public transport and vehicle fleets, they are planting two million trees, and they have protected more than 500 hectares of bushland from development over the past four years by bringing that land into public ownership. The Lord Mayor recently stated that council will be left with no choice but to pass Labor's carbon tax straight on to ratepayers. He also revealed that, between 1990 and 2010, Brisbane City Council more than halved its annual carbon emissions from 500,000 tonnes to 220,000 tonnes. The members for Lilley, Petrie, Moreton, Oxley and Rankin should hang their heads in shame for voting for the carbon tax, which will cost their constituents dearly each and every year.
I also want to raise the issue of single persons and, in particular, the many young people who live in my electorate. Unless they receive some form of government welfare payment they will receive minimal reward for the contribution they make and particularly for the increasing costs of living they will face under this carbon tax. These are not rich people. These are ambitious young people trying to get ahead and succeed in life and they are being hit by this government at every turn. They have recently been hit by the news that their health insurance costs will go up. These are young people living in New Farm, Teneriffe and Newstead, many of whom are single Australians working hard to get ahead.
The coalition has a strong vision and plan to deliver hope, reward and opportunity for all Australians. As outlined in detail by the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer, our plan is based on improving public finances, lowering and simplifying taxation, boosting productivity and engaging more closely with Asia and our region. As we get closer to the next election our team will further outline our plans to improve the nation. Australians deserve better. They are crying out for competence and leadership from the national government. Only the coalition has the track record and the vision to deliver that.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (19:34): I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and cognate bills, which help create a budget that continues the Australian government's tradition of sound economic management, assisting those who are most in need and supporting those sections of the economy struggling under the pressures of a high exchange rate and a two-speed economy.
This budget has taken the tough decisions needed to balance the books. Its core theme of economic responsibility stands in stark contrast to the shamelessly shallow budget reply delivered by the Leader of the Opposition—an unflattering commentary both on his economic illiteracy and on the quality of modern-day political debate where spin doctors come up with one single proposal designed to occupy the airwaves for 30 seconds and draw attention away from the absence of any serious, detailed, costed budget alternative. On this occasion it was the proposal regarding languages other than English, but frankly it could have been anything. Anything will suffice so long as it distracts attention from the total absence of numbers in the opposition leader's response—a budget reply without numbers or figures. It reminded me of the pub with no beer!
The opposition leader treats the Australian people as fools prepared to trust him as Prime Minister without the faintest idea of which government programs and benefits he would keep and which ones he would axe. The opposition leader's budget reply shows the Liberal Party is still besotted by the free market and globalisation. But, as John Quiggin has identified in his book Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk Among Us, the assumptions behind neoclassical economics have been laid bare by the global financial crisis. The extra investment generated by more favourable tax treatment is supposed to be allocated efficiently so as to produce higher rates of long-term economic growth, but the economic crisis has shown that success was built on sand. Much of the extra investment went into real estate or into speculative ventures that collapsed when the bubble burst. Having cut taxes drastically, governments were left with inadequate financial resources to convince now-cautious investors that their bonds were a safe investment. More generally, the global financial crisis has exposed the view that incomes accruing to different groups in the community are an accurate reflection of their marginal contribution.
The opposition leader talked about deficit and debt. He did not tell us that Howard government policies resulted in the spending of 94 per cent of a $330 billion increase in tax revenue from 2004-05 from the mining boom mark 1. This in turn forced the hand of the Reserve Bank, which pushed interest rates higher to contain inflation.
The opposition leader raised the deficits of the past four years. Again, he conveniently overlooked the global financial crisis, and the effective measures undertaken by the government to protect Australia from that crisis. The OECD has found that Australia's fiscal stimulus measures were amongst the most effective in the OECD in terms of stimulating economic activity and supporting employment. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lauded the Labor government's stimulus spending, saying:
Not only was it the right amount, it was extraordinarily well structured, with careful attention to what would stimulate the economy in the shorter run, the medium term and the long term.
When I look around the world, it was, I think, probably the best-designed stimulus program in the world and you should be happy that in fact it worked in exactly the way it was designed to work.
In fact we are in a better budgetary position today than we would have been had unemployment risen, as it would have done had Joe Hockey been Treasurer. The budget is in better shape than it would have been because the largest item on the revenue side—the pay-as-you-go taxes—has defied the trend of falling revenue. Personal tax collections are, in fact, stronger today than Treasury thought they would be at the depths of the GFC panic in early 2009.
The opposition talks about net public debt. The budget papers outline that net public debt will peak in 2011-12 at 9.6 per cent of gross domestic product. Most countries, and every large Western economy, would love this result. By comparison the average net debt position of the major advanced economies is expected to be around 93 per cent of GDP in 2016 and 2017. Our public debt is trivial compared to the OECD average. Other countries would love to be in our shoes.
The strength of our public finances is a key reason behind Australia receiving a AAA credit rating with a stable outlook from all three major rating agencies for the first time in our history. We are one of only eight countries that currently meet this standard. Returning to surplus sends a strong message of confidence to the rest of the world during a period of heightened global uncertainty.
I want to particularly welcome those initiatives that support manufacturing, invest in the nation's universities and enhance skills training. The pattern of growth in the Australian economy is uneven, with the resources and resource related parts of the economy growing strongly. Business investment as a percentage of GDP is expected to reach a record, with companies planning to invest $120 billion in the resources sector in 2012-13, or around 150 per cent more than two years ago. The resources and resources-related sectors of the economy are likely to average growth of nearly nine per cent per year over the next two years, accounting for 15 to 20 per cent of total GDP. Let me note in passing that this makes a nonsense of those predictions of doom and gloom in the mining and resources sector over the mining tax and the carbon price made by some big mining businesses and their Liberal and National Party puppets.
In stark contrast, the non-mining part of the Australian economy is forecast to expand at an average annual rate of just two per cent over the same period. Manufacturing is facing challenging conditions, which I know of first hand from the recent pressures on components manufacturers in my own seat of Wills. Manufacturing employed 997,000 Australians in November 2010, but this fell to 945,000 by November 2011, a fall of over 50,000 workers or over five per cent of the industry's workforce.
Although the relative decline of Australian manufacturing has been a multidecade trend, its contraction has accelerated in recent years. Eighty-six thousand manufacturing jobs were lost between mid-2001 and mid-2011. It would appear the loss of manufacturing jobs is gathering pace. Total employment in the industry fell below one million in May 2010 for the first time in decades. Of the 86,000 net jobs lost in the industry in the past decade, 69,000 were lost between February and August last year. This is a troubling picture. The decline in manufacturing's share of employment has been more rapid in Australia than in most other developed countries.
The ACTU has concluded that it is conceivable that Australia will soon have fewer workers employed in manufacturing, as a proportion of total employment, than any other developed country. I regard it as incredibly important that we stop this from happening.
There has been plenty of research to show that manufacturing is essential for economies. Manufacturing provides better-paid jobs, on average, than service industries, is a big source of innovation, helps to reduce trade deficits and creates opportunities in the growing 'clean' economy, such as recycling and green energy. These are all good reasons for a country to engage in it.
Technological innovation is important to growth in manufacturing. Advances in computer integrated manufacturing can increase productivity by saving businesses time. Increased efficiency is not the only benefit of computer integrated manufacturing. In addition, Australian innovators can license their technology for local or overseas use. Improvements in CIM can also reduce geographic constraints, allowing Australian companies to operate more effectively through global supply chains. The NBN is an important development for further improvements to computer integrated manufacturing.
In the budget the Australian government has recognised the importance of innovation in manufacturing by investing $30 million over four years to establish a Manufacturing Technology Innovation Centre to bring our brightest researchers and manufacturers together to drive innovation through new and improved industrial products and processes. It will establish sectoral collaboration to support major manufacturers, small and medium enterprises, industry bodies and research agencies to create solutions in their production lines. It will help them realise new market opportunities through harnessing new technologies, business processes and technical knowledge.
The Manufacturing Technology Innovation Centre is consistent with the Prime Minister's Taskforce on Manufacturing, and demonstrates this government's commitment to facilitating the transition of manufacturing to 21st century technologies and processes. This stands in stark contrast to the opposition, who would pull the rug from underneath the manufacturing sector and allow it to wither and die. Manufacturing is important to our economy. Without the initiatives of the Labor government, the high Australian dollar will see manufacturing continue to retreat, and we will end up with a two-state economy. Queensland and Western Australia will benefit from the mining boom, but other states, like my state of Victoria, will not.
The budget's $714 million loss carry-back scheme will help support businesses that are not in the mining fast lane of the economy. In 2012-13, companies will be able to carry back losses incurred in that year of up to $1 million so they get a refund against tax previously paid. From 2013-14, companies will be able to carry back losses for two years. This means a manufacturing, tourism, education, retail and construction business which is currently profitable and paying tax will know that, if it undertakes investments in 2012-13 that initially result in a loss, they will get a tax refund of up to $300,000 when they lodge their 2012-13 tax return. This measure will provide assistance to nearly 110,000 companies.
Higher education teaching and learning will also see an increased funding commitment, of $38.8 billion over four years from 2012-13. Government funding to the university sector in 2011 was around 30 per cent higher than in 2007. Training more students will help Australia meet emerging skills shortages and deliver a highly skilled, productive and innovative workforce.
There is one announcement in the budget which I cannot in all good conscience overlook and with which I strongly disagree. The government has increased the permanent migrant worker program from 125,000 to over 129,000. This is heading in absolutely the wrong direction. We should be cutting the number of migrant workers, returning it to the level it was in the mid-1990s—around 25,000. This is because, firstly, Australia has big cost-of-living and congestion problems arising from our rapid population growth, and increases the number of foreign workers only makes these problems worse.
Secondly, it is not true that we are short of workers. We have 600,000 people out of work, and the budget papers indicate that unemployment will go to 5.5 per cent this year—that is, it will rise. Furthermore, it is government policy—and I totally support it—to lift our workforce participation rate, bringing people who are presently on pensions into the workforce. We are short of jobs rather than short of people. The idea that we are short of workers is wrong.
To give the House an example of what I am on about, there has been a debate between Andrew Forrest and Gina Rinehart about where workers for their mining companies should come from. Gina Rinehart wants to bring them in from overseas. Andrew Forrest wants to find local workers, particularly Aboriginal workers. I think Andrew Forrest is right and Gina Rinehart is wrong. But, for as long as we continue to run a massive program of migrant workers—permanent migrant worker numbers are up from 24,000 in 1996 to over 129,000 now, and temporary migrant worker numbers are up from less than 40,000 a decade ago to more than 90,000 last year—Gina Rinehart's view will prevail, and the mines will employ foreign workers, not local ones.
In conclusion, the 2012-13 budget spreads the benefits of the mining boom to help families on low and middle incomes with the cost of living and provide much needed help to small business while still balancing the books as we need to do. This budget also supports businesses in meeting the challenges and opportunities of the mining boom through a loss carry-back reform, while support for skills training and our universities will help us adapt to the structural changes in our economy and facilitate innovation. It continues the foundation for lower inflation and lower interest rates than we had under the opposition, and lower unemployment than we would have if they were to be returned to government. I commend the bills to the House.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Opposition Whip) (19:49): In my speech on the appropriation bills at this time last year, I said that the Labor government has a tradition of big deficits, borrowing, debt and more taxes. Nothing has changed. This year Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills bring no improvement—simply the addition of fake surpluses. This would have to be the most misrepresentative budget in living memory. The proposed surplus next year is a fraud perpetrated on the people through sleight-of-hand accounting. The shuffling of expenditure between financial years has allowed the Treasurer to shift his actual budget deficit next year into this financial year's $44 billion deficit, simply to hide it. It is deceitful accounting meant to present a misleading outcome to the Australian community.
In addition, the projection of surpluses in forward estimate years relies on extremely optimistic projections of world and Australian economic growth. I said a year ago that Australia would have its biggest debt ever, of $107 billion. Well, the government has piled more debt upon more debt, to a peak net debt of $145 billion in 2013-14. The gross debt, as measured by total interest-bearing liabilities, will reach $293 billion in the same year.
This debt binge—that is what it is—has meant that the government has tried for the second year in a row to sneak the lifting of its credit limit past the parliament. There was no mention of this in the Treasurer's budget address, no mention of the $300 billion—a deliberate omission. The rise from $250 billion to $300 billion will be needed to cover Labor's debt debacle, a legacy it is leaving for the next generation to pay off. At this government's current budget surplus projections, Australians will be paying off this debt for nearly a century, on the government's own projections. Effectively, as I see it, the Labor government has just taken out Australia's first national intergenerational loan, with taxpayers paying up to $8 billion a year in interest.
Every Australian should be thinking about what that $8 billion could fund instead of Labor's debt. It could have been invested in future-proofing the Australian economy through strategic infrastructure, but instead it will continue to be spent trying to future-proof Labor's election agenda. Investment in regional infrastructure could have allowed further growth and development in the mining and agricultural sectors—the sectors that underpin the existing and near-future Australian economies. Sadly, regional Australia is not merely the victim of government neglect; it seems to be the victim of an assault: the government's carbon tax—that is what it is—for regional Australia. The carbon tax is the tax that the government cannot even seem to mention any more. It will hit rural and regional Australians—like those in my electorate—the hardest.
This is a tax that will drive investment, industry and jobs offshore. It is meant to make doing business in Australia far less competitive than those we compete with. It is Labor's special tax, coming from every power point. If you are watching, Labor's carbon tax is coming at you, in every home and business in Australia. It is a tax that will see Australia's emissions rise, not fall. It is a tax that will hit struggling regional areas hardest because it will tax transport—rail, air and marine transport immediately, and road transport from 1 July 2014.
In 2014, when road freight operators lose 6.858c a litre from their diesel fuel rebate to pay for the carbon tax, the cost to transport almost everything in rural and regional Australia will go up, and regional people and businesses will carry a disproportionate cost as a result. It is a tax on rural and regional Australia. Have no doubt about it: transport costs equal a tax on rural and regional Australia. That tax is expected to cost the transport industry and its customers $510 million in 2014-15 alone—and that is on top of the recent 2.4c a litre rise in the diesel fuel excise. This just means higher costs and greater impacts in regional areas.
The government must also be held to account over its funding for aged care, specifically in regional and rural areas. It is too little, too late. We know that the government changes will not start until after July 2014. We know that as the baby boomer generation heads into retirement and then into care, the numbers and the sheer level of future need should cause us all concern.
It is a system already under stress. Aged-care providers are struggling to cope. This is evidenced by the thousands of beds made available by the government but not taken up by the industry. This is happening at a time when the demand for those beds has never been higher. But many providers would lose money on each and every bed, so they are not being taken up and are not being provided to the community. This was recognised in the Productivity Commission's report on aged care. The government response to this, in spite of its election promises, has been manifestly inadequate. The government is paying $8 billion a year in interest on debt rather than supporting aged care and the disability sector. Despite the glossy brochures and glib rhetoric, it is not a plan to manage the future aged-care demands in Australia. It is only a poorly crafted, stop-gap measure that alone will do little to fix the problem or address future needs.
The policy of keeping people in their own homes as long as possible is one that has been supported by the Liberal Party for decades, and was driven and delivered for us in government by, among others, the member for Mackellar. Despite the government grabbing hold of this and promoting a good Liberal policy, this alone is not enough. Many of those older Australians who remain in their homes with support services will eventually still need residential care. In many cases it becomes an issue of safety and security, with much greater monitoring required in order to ensure their welfare.
Under the current plan we will see older Australians entering into residential aged care, much frailer and requiring much higher levels of care. Clearly, the government has no real plan in place to manage the projected influx of more high-care patients. The Gillard government is simply doing what it has done in so many other areas; it has taken the easy option now and will leave future governments and future generations of Australians to deal with a problem they have created. This is the way of Labor. Aged-care providers and community members have not been fooled by the government's aged-care announcements.
As is also the way of Labor, those who have struggled to save and who have built assets to cover their own aged-care costs—self-funded retirees—have been the target of the government. Everyone except full-pay pensioners will now pay more for aged care. Once again, the Labor government will use means testing to punish those who have worked hard, taken personal responsibility and saved—in this case, for their own retirement.
The government has used a sleight of hand, announcing a $3.7 billion aged-care package, but hiding the truth that only 15 per cent of that is actually new funding. This is not a genuine aged-care plan for the future and certainly not what Labor promised at the election.
Another major failing of this budget is its abject failure to do anything to improve the nation's productivity. It is a budget focused on economic redistribution but not economic growth. Given the uncertainty in Europe, many of the world's economies are coming to a crossroads—some because of decisions to redistribute economic wealth instead of growing economic wealth. In Australia we must build our national economy instead of simply building Labor's national debt. This can only be achieved by improving our productivity, which has been undermined during the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments.
This government's failure to manage the economy is most damaging to the small business sector. The people who are struggling to get ahead are carrying a deadweight government. Small business in Australia is simply asking for the opportunity to succeed, free from excessive government red tape, burden and interference. Every small business will be hit by the carbon tax in one form or another. Some may be able to pass on this cost, but hundreds of businesses will not be able to pass on these costs. So this is a really serious issue in my electorate.
I noticed, in the government's liable entities list last week, that many of those who will pay the carbon tax are from my electorate—businesses such as the Water Corporation; the Griffin Coal Mining Company; Simcoa Operations; Millennium Inorganic Chemicals; Iluka; Synergy; Verve Energy; Yancoal, the new owners of Premier Coal; Dampier Bunbury Pipeline, Worsley Alumina, Alinta Energy; and, further in the south-west, Alcoa Australia. These are the companies that will have to pay the carbon tax directly, but every small business will pay it in one form or another. In talking about this, I would like to warn companies in my electorate—and I have done this previously—that the government is not going to advise you if you are liable to pay the carbon tax. The government has placed this responsibility and liability firmly on industry. So there are other businesses around the south-west—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member for Forrest will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2]
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Let me begin by placing the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2] in context. There was the Home Insulation Program with $2 billion expended, with over 70,000 defects found from the 200,000-odd homes inspected, at a failure rate therefore of close to 35 per cent, with 200 house fires and with four lives tragically lost associated with the program. There was the Green Loans Program, which wasted $100 million. There was the Green Start program, which we said from the outset was doomed to failure, and which was terminated by the government before it ever really got underway. There was the solar panel shock, which stopped retailers in their tracks, and caused chaos in the industry with the overnight decision. There was the cash-for-clunkers scheme, which we identified as being so bad and so irresponsible that no government could proceed; fortunately, those warnings were heeded. The announcement at the last election terminated it before the program could ever begin. There was the Citizens' Assembly, which effectively abrogated responsibility for the deep policy positions to 150 people randomly selected from the telephone book. Again, it was so bad that not even the government could proceed with it. Then, of course, there was the policy that the government denied before the election, when the Prime Minister said on the Monday before the election that, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead', which has become the carbon tax under a government she leads. All of these represent the background to this bill. All of these represent the form, the history and the record of the government's recent attempts at environment policy. Each represents a failure or a deception on a significant scale.
I want to proceed now in four steps: the breach at the heart of this bill, the essence of the bill itself in terms of its response, the damage which has been done in this sector and the deception which remains to this day. Let me take the House back to 28 February of this year. On that day, barely a minute to 5 pm, the government scrapped its $1,000 solar hot water rebate. Businesses were closing their doors for the day. Let me quote the press release from the next day from one of Australia's most significant hot water manufacturers, Dux. On 29 February 2012, the release said:
Dux General Manager, Simon Terry, said, 'We received the announcement just before 5pm, as many of our plumbers and solar dealers were closing their small businesses for the day. This was completely out of the blue …
Simon Terry went on to say:
Many of the dealers expressed pure disbelief on receipt of my call.
This is the response from a conservative firm, from a firm which does not seek publicity, which does not seek to be publicly engaged in the political process. It just wants to get on with the process of making things in Australia, in particular of making solar hot water heaters and heat pumps and of doing things to advance the cause of Australian manufacturing and to advance the cause of emissions reduction. Similarly, the Australian Solar Energy Society put out a release on the same day, under the by-line of John Grimes, the head of the Solar Energy Society, an organisation which is anything but political in nature. The release said:
The Australian Solar Energy Society (AuSES) has called on the Australian Government to reinstate the $1000 solar hot water rebate for households, which was axed suddenly yesterday via press release at 5.10pm.
They got the press release even later than others. It continues:
'The disastrous solar policy rollercoaster continues.' said Grimes. 'Another solar scheme shut down without notice, more solar jobs lost. That’s bad policy and bad process.'
It is hard to imagine more damning words from a conservative industry organisation, but the release went on:
'The axing leaves householders and solar companies in the lurch putting at risk more than 1,000 jobs at companies that had planned for ongoing demand.'
And there is more:
'The leading solar hot water company Rheem has suggested the industry could halve overnight, leaving tens of millions of dollars worth of stock stuck in warehouses and puncturing a giant hole in our clean energy present.'
And to conclude, the Australian Solar Energy Society said very simply:
'The Australian Government should be making it easier, not harder, for Australians to cut their power bills and tackle climate change. This very successful rebate program should have been extended, not axed suddenly.'
So they are the facts. That is what the industry said. That was the shock, the surprise, the response from industry itself.
The Clean Energy Council were equally brutal in their comments. They believed that the 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs were at significant risk from within the sector. It is part of a pattern of closure, sudden knee-jerk decisions and an inability to understand the moral duty to businesses that are relying upon you by acting to their detriment on your promise. Governments have to be consistent and reliable, trustworthy and predictable. The reason is simple: businesses invest their money, people invest their time and the public invest their commitment on the basis of pledges and promises and allocations by government—all of which failed in this case.
The Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 seeks to ensure certainty in the industry by requiring the government to spend the entire amount budgeted for the solar hot water rebate in this calendar year, because that is what is constitutionally possible. That would ensure that businesses continued to operate as planned and that homeowners had a fair chance to access the rebate. Business owners need to be able to plan for the future with confidence, and with this bill we are trying to provide a bridge to a future which was promised but has evaporated. I note that the government stood in the way of bringing forward this bill for a vote in March, prior to the 2012 budget.
It is interesting that we have at the table the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Dreyfus. In a letter to Senator Milne signed and hand dated 21 March 2012, the parliamentary secretary said to Senator Milne:
As discussed with you, the Government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to support the transition to a clean energy future, which includes the solar hot water industry.
The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.
The intention of the statement—its implication—is absolutely clear: 'We're not going to reduce the amount of money allocated. The money's in the forward estimates; it's not going to be cut. It's all going to be expended on solar hot water.'
I turn now to what actually happened in the budget. Last year's budget paper was express: in the year 2011-12, $63.5 million was allocated for the solar hot water rebate; in the year 2012-13, in the May 2011 budget, $24.5 million was allocated. That is a total budgetary allocation of $88 million. If the parliamentary secretary's words are to be taken as they were intended to be taken, $88 million should have been expended over the course of this year. The actual spend, as allocated in this May's budget only two weeks ago, was: for 2011-12, $42.8 million, with a carryover to next year, 2012-13, of $0.5 million—a total spend of $43.3 million.
What is the gap between what the government pledged and committed to in last year's budget papers and what they delivered in this year's budget papers? It is $44.7 million. So what we have here is a $44.7 million deception. Again I point out that, on 21 March this year, the parliamentary secretary said to Senator Milne:
As discussed with you, the Government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to support the transition to a clean energy future, which includes the solar hot water industry.
The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.
No, it does not; those estimates have been revised, and the money which it was said would be there—the $88 million—has miraculously been reduced by more than half. There was a net saving to budget against last year's May budget papers of $44.7 million. The Greens had the wool pulled over their eyes, the public had the wool pulled over their eyes and, sadly, it is the industry which has actually suffered.
I visited the Rheem plant at Rydalmere, near Parramatta, with the Leader of the Opposition in March. We met with 400 workers on the factory floor of the Rheem plant and saw the sense of disappointment. We heard their views and saw the fact that they felt betrayed. Similarly, I visited Rheem's Perth plant with the member for Swan, Steve Irons. Again, we talked with workers, we met with workers and we addressed the workers. They knew who was standing up for them and who was not. The sense was that they had no stronger advocate than Steve Irons, the member for Swan, and that they faced no greater threat than the government, which had pulled away support without warning.
All of that represents the background to this bill. This bill is all about the breach and the fact that we have a remedy which will ensure that the remaining gap of $20.7 million is expended and so provide a bridge for the solar sector; and then it is about the damage. We already know that Rheem has shed more than 50 jobs in recent weeks; they have quietly had to do that with enormous reluctance. But make no mistake and have no doubt that the government's stop-start-and-stop policies are right at the core of those job losses.
I challenge the Prime Minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the parliamentary secretary to go to the floor of Rheem in Rydalmere near Parramatta in Sydney and of Rheem in Welshpool in Perth and to explain their actions and why they broke their pledge to allocate $88 million over this financial year and next financial year . I challenge them also to meet with those workers who have lost their jobs—to meet with people such as Len Place from Dux, who has lost his job since the government's decision. I know him well, and his job has gone as a consequence of the cost-cutting associated with this government's decision. How do I know this? I met with him, I talked with him and we looked at options to try to take him forward. That is the damage.
Finally, I go to the future. We are trying this day to restore the damage, to keep the government's pledge, to hold it to account and to do the right thing by an industry which is in deep trouble. There should be no reason for the government to not support its own words and its own budget paper. We will also, if we are fortunate to win government, put in place a one million roofs solar policy over 10 years, with 100,000 roofs of solar panels a year, with a particular focus on solar hot water—but on a long-term, modest, sustainable basis. The key to policy which can endure is long-term, modest and sustainable measures. That is what the industry seeks. So today is a chance for the government to right that which it has done wrong and to repair that which it has broken. For those reasons, I commend the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2] to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms O'Neill ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Irons: I second the motion.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) (20:15): Yet again we are seeing another attempt to get some relevance for the opposition on the issue of climate change. Like so much else of what the opposition have done in this policy area, it rests on deceiving industry and deceiving the Australian people about policy, manufacturing and the carbon price. It is just more empty grandstanding, more hysteria and, indeed, more of the shameful pretence from the opposition that they actually have a policy that might just possibly reduce the carbon pollution that is the problem we are intending to deal with. They say that we should engage in the reduction of carbon pollution, but, of course, they have no policy—and if I have time I will come back to that.
We have again more crocodile tears from the opposition, who pretend, and only pretend, concern for manufacturing—and this, of course, from the architects of Work Choices. I see that the opposition spokesman is now fleeing from the chamber. He is not prepared to stay here to support the bill that he has introduced, having put forward nothing more than just effectively hysteria—and I will explain why in a minute.
I have some news for the opposition: pretending to care about the renewable energy industry and then opposing a carbon price is not a credible climate change policy. Wearing fluoro vests and visiting factories all over Australia is not a manufacturing policy. Endless opposition and mindless negativity are not in Australia's best interests, but we have just heard again from the member for Flinders a bit more of that. If the Leader of the Opposition is a cheap hypnotist, then the member for Flinders is nothing but a tawdry clown. Who else but a clown would have written their university thesis on 'A tax to make the polluter pay' and then advocate for the biggest policy joke this century, the so-called direct action policy, which is what the opposition is putting forward?
The facts are that the Gillard government has provided more support to renewable energy than any other government in Australian history. I want to outline some facts on the solar hot water scheme. When the carbon price scheme starts on 1 July, the solar hot water industry will be receiving support in four ways. First, the carbon price itself will create a stable, long-term market and will provide incentive right across the economy for the shift to renewable energy. Second, the Low Carbon Communities program, part of the clean energy future plan, will provide $330 million to councils, communities and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Of course, solar hot water is very energy efficient and we expect that, as part of the grants that will be provided under the Low Carbon Communities program, there will be a very great deal of support for solar hot water. The third means of support under the carbon price scheme is the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program, which will give the solar hot water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units. Of course, it is not just the solar hot water industry that will be advantaged by that Clean Technology Investment Program; industry right across Australia will be assisted to improve efficiency and modernise. Last, but not least, is the support for the industry right through to 2020 through the renewable energy target. Essentially, consumers can be offered up to a $1,000 discount in STCs, or small technology certificates, and that will continue. That renewable energy target will continue and the small technology certificates, which are available to solar hot water, will also continue.
Our current policy settings are designed to transition to a clean energy future, and it is a future that includes solar hot water. The member for Flinders has engaged in his usual historical fictions, as he does with all aspects of our policy but particularly the solar hot water rebate. The solar hot water rebate was always going to end on 30 June this year and it is ending on 30 June this year. This was what was planned. I know this will come as a shock to some of those opposite or to any newer members of the opposition, but this was planned when this rebate was established by the last Liberal environment minister, the member for Wentworth, when he announced the solar rebate scheme on 17 July 2007. What the member for Wentworth as the then minister for the environment said was that this was going to be a transition. This was a scheme to provide support for solar hot water as Australia transitioned to an emissions trading scheme, which was, of course, by then the policy of the Howard government. That is why the Howard government established the greenhouse gas reporting arrangements, which we are still using. That is why the Howard government went to the 2007 election supporting an emissions trading scheme. This bit of policy, the solar hot water rebate, was intended to be a transitional policy—and, I might add, the hot water industry has been well aware of this fact. Indeed, websites of solar hot water companies in February this year stated, showing their awareness, that the rebate scheme was going to finish in March. All that has happened here is that the scheme was formally announced as ending on 30 June this year. As at 28 February, under the long established guidelines for this rebate scheme, customers had four months to lodge their rebate applications. Four months from 28 February, as it happens, is 30 June. This scheme is ending on time as it was always destined to. It has not been scrapped. It has not been closed early. It is not being ended. It is a scheme that was introduced by those opposite when they actually understood something about market mechanisms, when they were actually true to their principles of supporting market incentives, market mechanisms, a carbon price and an emissions trading scheme. They announced this program. They established this program as a transitional program intended and announced by them to be a five-year program. We have continued this program for five years. Indeed, we have expanded the program over the course of our government so as to put more money into it than the Liberal Party was intending to when they started this scheme. But its timeframe, its life if you like, is exactly as has always been planned since the inception of the scheme—not scrapped, not being closed early. It is simply being ended in accordance with the guidelines, in accordance with announcements that have been made by successive Australian governments since this scheme was established on 17 July 2007.
I heard the member for Flinders refer to a bridge, and that might perhaps have betrayed some limited understanding, but I do not think he was actually talking about the fact that this was always intended to be and has been a bridging program that was meant to finish upon the introduction of a carbon price. Logically, with the Clean Energy Future plan coming into operation and with the carbon price coming into operation on 1 July, we have this solar hot water service rebate scheme finishing on 30 June. Households and industry will continue to benefit from Gillard government programs in every sense. I have outlined the ways in which the Clean Energy Future plan is going to continue to benefit the solar hot water industry in particular.
What we have got here is a bill, again, true to form for those opposite with all their economic illiteracy we have seen recently, which is a fiscally irresponsible bill that is the sort of stunt one would expect to see from an opposition which has a $70 billion budget black hole that has not been explained to the Australian public. That is not my figure. That is the figure of the opposition spokesman for finance, confirmed by the opposition Treasury spokesman, the member for North Sydney. There is a $70 billion black hole that the opposition has not explained. We will not be reopening the solar hot water rebate scheme. We will not be agreeing to this bill. I need to be clear. We have made it clear at all times when we will close the program and on every day since that we will not be reopening this program.
I need to deal with something else that the member for Flinders has raised. We never intended to make savings from this program. I am very pleased that the member for Flinders has read part of the letter that was tabled in the Senate by the Leader of the Australian Greens party, Senator Milne, in which I confirmed that it was not the government's intention, when we announced that the program was closing with effect from 30 June, to make savings from the program. At the time of the announcement on 28 February, we did not know the full extent of the underspend. We thought that it was possible that there would be some underspend. What was not understood on 28 February, but is understood now, is that there had been a very direct decline—and this is something that many parts of Australian manufacturing have had to deal with—in the uptake of the solar hot water service rebate program as a result of the high dollar making other competing technologies, notably the instantaneous gas hot water technology, which is imported, cheaper. In fact I should mention that some of it is imported by Rheem, one of the manufacturers referred to here, which imports a product that directly competes with the solar hot water services it makes. As a result of quite steeply declining uptake in the program through December, January and February, it is clear that there will now be an underspend. Again, as I have indicated publicly, as Senator Milne understands and as she indicated when she spoke on the equivalent bill put forward by Senator Birmingham in the Senate, any underspend will be used to continue supporting the transition Australia is making to a low-carbon economy and that will include supporting solar hot water.
This government has provided more support for renewable energy, more support for technologies that reduce carbon pollution in the Australian economy than any other Australian government in history. All we have from the member for Flinders today is a pathetic misreading of the budget papers. I suppose that is what one would expect from an opposition that has a $70 billion hole in the savings that it will need to make to meet the kind of commitments that it has already made in its projections and promises. We have an opposition that would wish to engage in a fantasy—that is the right way to describe it—that it too has a plan that will support the transition to a cleaner economy. The so-called direct action plan of the opposition is not a plan at all. It is a plan that would see a cost of some $1,300 per household inflicted on the Australian community where households pay for money in bucketloads to be sent to the heavy polluters. It is, if you like, a weird inversion of the government's policy. Even then, so far as the direct action plan can be understood, it is not one that anybody thinks can achieve the bipartisan target—the one that the opposition says that it is supporting, which is a five per cent cut in 2000 emission levels by 2020.
We have been talking with industry. I have been talking to Rheem. I have been talking to Dux. I have been talking to the whole industry. I have been talking to installers. Of course I have been talking to crossbenchers and I have been talking to state governments about how the underspend, when it is finally determined, can in fact be used to ensure that it is there to continue to support renewable technologies and to continue to support solar hot water. That is what responsible governments do, not put forward—as this opposition has done—an entirely fiscally irresponsible bill which would seek to continue a demand-driven program. Members might like to contemplate what reopening a demand-driven program might do in a budgetary sense. What it would do, very directly, is simply create an enormous spike in demand, with a great threat to the integrity of our budget. That is not an appropriate way in which to manage the finances of the Commonwealth. Demand driven programs—all Treasury guidelines make this clear—need to be very, very carefully handled and that is what has occurred here. We have avoided the demand spike that quite a number of demand driven programs have become known for. This program has been ended in an orderly fashion. We will not be supporting the opposition's Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], which is a stunt that would seek to reopen this program in an entirely fiscally irresponsible way. Indeed, it is a program that we can now say was already in decline. We rely on a comprehensive set of policies that is contained in the Clean Energy Future plan.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (20:30): It is always a pleasure to support a bill such as this one, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], put forward by the member for Flinders, and also to support the workers in my electorate of Swan, where the Rheem factory is. We have just heard the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the member for Isaacs, speaking on the bill. It is encouraging to see someone who talks about raising the standards of parliament spend the first 2½ minutes in invective, diatribe and insults directed at the member for Flinders and also at the opposition! The contradiction I see in his speech is that he says that we have no policy, and that our direct action policy is incorrect, but then goes on to quote the member for Wentworth's policies and laud them. Such a contradiction just amazes me—and I wonder why people refer to him as Rumpole! Now I know why.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr IRONS: Yes, that's all right, keep it coming. I am happy to relay everything you say back to the workers in the Rheem factories, particularly in my electorate. Then we get the member for Isaacs calling this a stunt. Again, I will relay that back to the workers in the factory: that you think this is a stunt and that their jobs are a stunt—that their jobs are worth nothing. He talks about deceiving and manufacturing crocodile tears; he talks about tawdry clowns. As a parliamentary secretary, how can he bring the level of this place down so low with these insults?
I thank the member for Flinders for his contribution. I know that he understands how important this bill is to my electorate. He joined me on a factory floor visit to the Rheem factory in Welshpool in my electorate of Swan on 7 March to meet some of the hundreds of employees whose jobs have been threatened by this government's actions. It was at this visit that we announced that we would be drawing up this bill. We in the coalition had wanted to debate it before the budget, a move which was blocked by this government; however, in standing here and debating this bill today, we are keeping the promise made on 7 March to the workers on the factory floor in Welshpool to bring this bill to the parliament. This stands in contrast to the Labor government, whose broken promise on the solar hot water rebate has led us to this point today. It has led to the coalition introducing a bill that simply requires the government to stick to the promise it made in the 2010-11 budget.
The workers that the member for Flinders and I met in March on the factory floor were scared for their jobs. They were genuinely concerned for their livelihoods—all because of the Gillard government's actions the week before, with its sudden decision to scrap the hot water rebate scheme despite a commitment in the budget of $24.5 million the previous year for the funding of the scheme. Out of the blue, at one minute to five on 28 February, the notification came through that yet another commitment had been broken by this government. It gave businesses and homeowners only a few hours to submit their applications in order to remain eligible for the subsidy that the government had promised them. But there was no time for families and businesses to fulfil their orders after that guillotine came down. According to the Clean Energy Council, 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs were at risk.
My visit with Greg Hunt was my third visit in recent times to the Rheem Welshpool factory. One of those visits was with the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and I must admit that I was encouraged by the amount of cheer and the welcome he got from the workers on the factory floor. The coalition is a friend of the solar hot water industry in my electorate and across Australia. We spend time talking to the workers and understanding their industry and we will stand up for them in parliament.
I have over 25 years experience as a small businessman myself and speak to businesses all over my electorate on a regular basis. I can say that the decisions of the government and the way it handles its brief are creating almost unprecedented uncertainty in the sector. There has been uncertainty created by the mining tax, uncertainty created by the carbon tax, uncertainty created by the one per cent tax cut to business that was promised at one stage but then denied in the budget. And now there is uncertainty created by the government's scheme management—both for businesses and families in the solar hot water sector who, lest we forget, on 1 July are going to be forced to think of ways to reduce their electricity consumption as a result of the carbon tax. The Gillard government has now taken away the option of solar hot water for them to reduce their emissions and to pay for the carbon tax that they did not vote for.
Without certainty, there can be no confidence. Businesses and families cannot plan with confidence for the future. One of the points that Rheem Welshpool consistently makes to me is how difficult it is to plan effectively when solar policy and government decisions lurch from one extreme to the other. The solar industry is yet another group that has found out the hard way that you cannot take this government at its word, and that even schemes that go into the budget papers in black and white cannot be believed.
During the visit to the factory we joined with the management and the workers to discuss the issues that they faced. Most of them were concerned about their jobs and felt that they and their families had an uncertain future. They were hopeful that with us introducing this bill into parliament they would be back on track and at least know in what direction they were heading. I have been talking to businesses around the electorate and around Australia, because I have contacts in many of those businesses. They feel that currently the government is a train wreck waiting to happen. There is no driver, they do not know which stations it is going to stop at and so they are just waiting to hit that brick wall.
On the other side of the House, you will hear them talk about their closeness to business. Well, I am hearing the opposite from businesses. I am happy to take any of the government members to any of these businesses to have it explained to them—whether they have to wear a bright orange vest or a hard hat, I am happy to take them out to those places and let them hear what the workers have to say. This bill, in essence, simply requires the government to keep the commitment it made in the 2010-11 budget and spend the entire amount which it had budgeted for under the solar hot water rebate. In practical terms, this bill would ensure that businesses could continue to operate as planned and that home owners had fairer access to the rebate. Business owners need to be able to plan for the future with confidence, and the private member's bill seeks to provide them with this certainty in this respect.
The 2012-13 budget papers clearly show that the money which should have been taken from the forward estimates in the 2011 budget is missing in the 2012 budget. In 2011-12 a total of $88 million was promised, with the total spend in the 2012 budget of $43 million indicating a $44.7 million cut. The government had always claimed that their reason for terminating the solar hot water rebate early was because the program was oversubscribed and that they anticipated the funding would be fully expended before its scheduled conclusion. It was amazing to hear the parliamentary secretary saying that the take-up had actually reduced. If the take-up was reducing, their excuse of being oversubscribed just does not gel. The government then promised that the full funding originally allocated for the solar hot water rebate would be retained. However, these figures would suggest otherwise. It would seem from the figures that the government are sacrificing solar jobs for a paper surplus that most commentators doubt will ever be delivered.
As I have mentioned earlier this also meets a commitment that Greg Hunt and I made to the workers on the factory floor at Rheem Welshpool on 7 March, that we would introduce a bill in parliament to force the government to meet their commitments to the people of Welshpool and the people of Australia. We in the coalition attempted to have this bill voted on before the budget, to try to remedy this situation in the fastest possible way and to save as many jobs as possible. However, the government would not have it debated—and shame on them for that. But now, as the parliamentary secretary said he is not going to reinstate the scheme I will take that back to the people and the workers at the Rheem factory in Welshpool in my electorate.
We have, though, persevered and brought this bill to the parliament today. I thank the member for Flinders and other members of the coalition for the support of the workers in my electorate of Swan. I also acknowledge that the success of this bill would have been dependent upon the Independents. I hoped that they could have seen the damage to the industry and to the families caused by the government's decision, and the need to set this right.
More broadly speaking, this episode fits into a pattern of behaviour for the Gillard-Rudd Labor era; a pattern of complete mismanagement of simple schemes that ultimately end in wasted money or diminished confidence. In this case the outcome is at the most serious end of the scale—Australian jobs have been threatened. Again, we heard the parliamentary secretary talk about demand-driven programs. I guess that the pink batts were not demand driven.
There is a certain deja vu as we consider this today as the axing of this rebate is a repeat performance of the sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 by then Minister Garrett, who also presided over the pink batts debacle and who was later removed from his post. This joins a list of Labor disasters such as the Home Insulation Program, cash for clunkers and Green Loans. In Swan we also remember the Solar Flagships scheme in 2010, when none of the WA projects even made the government's short list, despite eight proposals receiving WA government backing. But the five projects that did get up were from Queensland, and have progressed. The Independents had a choice here to right a wrong and, as the minister said, he will not reinstate the scheme.
As the member for Swan I will continue to support the workers in the factory of Rheem in Welshpool. I am sure that the member for Parramatta, who is just about to speak, takes an interest in the workers in the Rheem factory in Rydalmere as well. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:40): The previous speaker is right: there is a Rheem factory in my electorate in Rydalmere. I have been down there any number of times. I have been down there when the program was running fully—when they were expanding and retooling and employing more—and I have been down more recently, before this decision was announced, when sales were down and they were struggling with the declining demand. And I have been down a since this decision was made.
I know from talking to them over quite a number of months that the sales of solar hot water systems have been in decline for some time, and that the issues they face include issues like the changing costs of their competing products, including the gas hot water systems which, as the member for Isaacs said, they also import. They actually import their own competition at Rheem. And I know they have concern about government policy in other areas, which they believe make it more difficult for solar to compete. But the idea that extending a program for four months and then shutting it down again would solve the ongoing pattern in the solar hot water system industry is folly. To tell workers that reinstating a program in a declining sector by four months would actually save their jobs in the long term is just misleading them in the most appalling way.
The previous speaker said that we should let business get on and operate as they planned. That is true. This program was known and planned way back in 2007—in fact it was 17 July 2007—by the Howard government. It was put together as a bridging program to take the then government up to 30 June 2012, when they intended to introduce their emissions trading scheme. So for the Howard government it was a bridging program which went from July 2007 up to the start of their emissions trading scheme: a bridging program. There is actually another bridging program that comes on the end of that, which is the renewable energy target—also a bridging program, which goes up until 2020. So it is also designed to provide some incentives in renewable energy while the price on carbon is starting to work fully through the economy. It is the second part of the bridging program, and it also provides support to the solar hot water industry.
Right from the beginning this program was a bridging program designed to close on 30 June 2012. It never applied to new properties; it only applied to retrofits and so, again, there is another sector of the industry out there to which this does not apply and which benefits greatly from regulations that gradually phase out electric hot water systems—at a state level in most cases. So manufacturers and installers have known for five years that this program would finish on 30 June 2012.
I want to talk about how this program actually operates, because it explains why the 28 February date for installations is the right one if you are closing the program on 30 June. It is a demand-driven program, and we all know what happens in a demand-driven program when the end becomes near: people come out of the woodwork and you get quite a spike in demand at the end. So it is actually quite a normal practice for a department, when they have these kinds of demand-driven programs, to stop them without warning. When they do not do that, you get an interesting result. For instance, when the solar photovoltaic rebate was closed and one day's notice was given, around $384 million in applications were received on or immediately after the closing date. So that announcement with a day's notice led to a spike of $384 million.
This solar hot water rebate scheme works in this way: you install it and then you have four months to apply for a rebate. So, if you installed before 28 February, you have until 30 June to apply for a rebate. One of the reasons the government did not know at the time that it announced the closure of the program what the overspend or underspend would be—it suspected it would be an underspend because sales had been in decline—is that you actually do not know at that point, because you have not received the applications for the rebate, how many of them there are out there. So it is normal practice to do exactly what the department did: to stop the program and allow that four months for the applications to flow through, closing on 30 June. That was always the intention, that is what was announced in July 2007 and that is exactly what happened.
It would be fiscally irresponsible to reopen the program. Can you imagine what would happen if tomorrow the government announced that the program was reopening and it was closing on 30 June? The government would not know, right up until 30 June, what its liability was going to be. It just would now know. It would not have any idea. You can bet it would be well and truly over the budget, by a large factor. It would be fiscally irresponsible to open the program, and the government has made it really clear that we will not. It would confuse households, it would increase uncertainty for business and it would expose the department to extraordinary budget risk.
Again, departments manage these demand-driven programs by slightly overestimating the demand so that shortfall can be met within the department's budget, but they also do exactly what they have done in this case, which is close the program on a day and announce it that day. To do otherwise—to give a day's notice—can result, as the photovoltaic rebate showed, in an overrun by $384 million in one day. That is a lot of dollars in one day. For an opposition that has a $70 billion black hole, I suspect it would be $71 billion very quickly if you gave people four weeks.
If you think about the ramifications of actually doing this, you would not suggest it, ever. This is a very silly thing to do. If the opposition have a real concern about the solar hot water industry—I am sceptical that they do given that this kind of motion comes forward and this is the best they can do—I do think there are a number of other areas that they could be discussing. I think that, if they go back to some of the manufacturers, they will find that they have things that they want to discuss. It is a real shame that in this parliament we do not get the real discussion; we do not get any really thought-through, constructive debate about what are incredibly complex issues for an Australian manufacturer. It is just a shame. I am going to call this a stunt as well, I am afraid, and I am sure someone will go back and tell the workers at Rheem. You simply cannot do this if you are fiscally responsible in any way.
We are also not leaving the solar industry out in the cold. There is a significant amount of support still available for people seeking to install solar hot water systems in their homes and their businesses. This government has provided more support to renewables than any government in Australian history, and we continue to do that. When the carbon price scheme starts on 1 July, the solar hot water industry will be receiving support in four ways. For a start, the carbon price itself will create a stable, long-term market. The Low Carbon Communities program will provide $330 million to councils, communities and low-income families to improve energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Solar hot water is very energy efficient, and I have spoken to Rheem about whether or not they could work with local organisations to be part of that program. The $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program will give the solar hot water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of these units. Last but not least is the support for the industry to 2020 through the renewable energy target, which offers a $1,000 discount in small-scale technology certificates to consumers installing solar hot water systems in their homes. That is a $1,000 discount which will still be there for people seeking to put a solar hot water system on their home. We will not be supporting this bill. (Time expired)
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (20:50): I rise to support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2]. The government's decision to rip the funding out of the hot water rebate scheme is appalling, dishonest and hypocritical. No credibility for this government when they keep changing their minds and decisions equates to no confidence for small business. Businesses do not do their planning on a day-to-day basis. They plan six months, 12 months or five years ahead—sometimes 10 years. In the case of big industry it is 20 years planning. You cannot change stream from doing a backstroke to a breaststroke halfway down the pool, but this is what this government expects industry to do. If you want some more examples, the superannuation fund is being tinkered with again, eroding people's confidence in the superannuation fund. The pink batts scheme was another example. The government brought that situation on overnight. All hardware stores in Australia did not have the number of pink batts they required to do the jobs, so it was all put on hold until the pink batts were imported from China into Australia. No locally made batts went into that program.
With respect to Building the Education Revolution, Reed Constructions, a big company in New South Wales, was given a lot of these projects. The projects were way overpriced—$4,300 per square metre, when the job could have been done for $1,500 per square metre. These are the sorts of things that happen with these rush decisions and stop-go policies of the government. Sadly, Reed Constructions is now in administration and $100 million is owed to contractors and subcontractors.
That is what happens when you do not have continuing and reliable policies and when you have changes to the system all the time. The people in my electorate of Flynn are fed up with seeing promise after promise being broken by Labor. This is why there is no confidence out there. I do not care what electorate you come from: there is no confidence in small business or in the mums and dads of this world, because they do not know what move the government will make next. The solar hot water industry is a vital part of our economy and it could be a positive contributor to real efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions. I believe this bill must be supported to ensure the security of jobs in the industry and to allow people the opportunity to access solar hot water systems that are affordable and that are good for the environment.
There is no mention in this budget of the underspend of $44.7 million from the program, which was left over in surplus. So the solar hot water system policy has just died on the vine. If the government were fair dinkum they would have put $44.7 million into the budget to be spent on future solar programs. Families are being starved of opportunities for real moves towards reducing their greenhouse emissions. This was a way out for them. They felt happy about it. They thought: 'We're not going to have solar energy run our power stations, run our electricity business or run the aluminium industry or the cement industry in Gladstone, but it would help run our homes.' It would be a part they could play in conserving energy and reducing emissions. But now that opportunity has been chopped off. Not only does it remove practical means for families to become greener but it also costs jobs.
The member for Swan said that it will affect jobs in his electorate. No wonder he is very concerned. The Clean Energy Council claims that 1,200 manufacturing jobs are at risk and 6,000 installations, sales and administration jobs are also under threat. That is why he is concerned and he has good reasons to be concerned as he cannot justify giving people who lose their jobs some sort of credit or some sort of job on windmills or in other energy programs.
The government promised $63.5 million for the program in 2011 and $24.5 million in 2012. The government actually spent $42.8 million in 2011 and just half a million dollars in 2012. (Time expired)
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (20:56): It is always a privilege to speak in this place on matters of significance, especially when those matters relate to legislation because of course the laws we make here form part of the great black-and-white matrix that constitutes the formal operating code of how Australia works.
Unfortunately, there are times when the occasion to speak arises not through some matter of any real significance but rather as part of some kind of political game—and that is the case tonight.
Any argument that the member for Flinders purports to make for the importance of supporting renewable energy is a ringing endorsement of this government's reform program and puts a question mark over his own conduct and the conduct of the coalition on this issue.
The member for Flinders is of course the same person who formerly believed in and argued strongly for the importance of addressing climate change through an emissions trading scheme. This is the same person, who, along with his coalition colleagues, negotiated and agreed to the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, before they broke their word and pursued a path of negativity, pseudoscience and scaremongering ever since.
As the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has rightly pointed out, the closing of the solar hot water scheme, by 30 June this year, has been contemplated and forecast for a number of years and it makes perfect sense for this to occur at the point at which the Labor government's Renewable Energy Target and Clean Energy Future reforms step in to continue to support the solar hot water industry and the households, community organisations and businesses which seek to pursue energy efficiency in that way.
Anyone who ordered, purchased or installed a solar hot water system on or before 28 February remains able to apply for the rebate until 30 June, in keeping with the four-month claim window that has applied throughout this program. It is a program that has underwritten the installation of 250,000 solar hot water systems.
In the same period, about 4½ years, this government has supported the installation of more than 150,000 household solar PV systems. The Howard government, in 11½ years, supported 12,000. In the same period, this Labor government has created the structures and the funding to stimulate unprecedented investment in large-scale renewable energy projects that will be the basis of Australian economic growth, jobs and emission-free electricity in the decades to come.
This includes the recent announcement that the government will provide $10 million to support the commercial scale implementation of Carnegie Wave Energy's promising wave power technology in the ocean adjacent to my electorate.
The fact is that this government has taken a well-founded approach to providing support for renewable energy and energy efficiency. We have acted to support burgeoning industries, to back innovative technology and to create a level playing field for low-carbon or no-carbon energy and manufacturing processes. We have acted to support households in their clear and strong desire to reduce their carbon emissions and to recalibrate the sources on which they rely for their energy.
In the case of household solar panels, we provided rebates that kick-started a home solar PV revolution, literally transforming our suburbs. But naturally and sensibly those rebates were designed to taper off and they have tapered off as private side demand has grown. The Solar Home and Communities rebate was replaced by the Solar Credits scheme and the credit multiplier within the Solar Credits scheme has, in turn, been eased.
When the industry grew and stabilised and the scale of production and the size and consistency of demand, coupled with lower input costs, meant that per unit costs decreased, the government support was sensibly and gradually wound back. Perhaps the best indication of the equilibrium that the government has managed in this case is the fact that the price point at which a standard 1.5 kilowatt system is available to the consumer has changed very little.
In the case of the solar hot water rebate and other energy-efficiency and renewable-energy programs, this government has designed and delivered policy that sparks innovation to the point where it will be increasingly sustained by private-demand market conditions. This is precisely the approach that has delivered the twin hallmarks of this government—namely, world-leading economic management and, at the same time, forward-looking policy reform.
The proposal from the member for Flinders that the government renege on its planned transition from the solar hot water rebate to the various forms of support within the clean energy future package advocates a dangerous move that would open up a substantial and unquantifiable further liability. I would therefore strongly encourage the member for Flinders to cast his eye across the Nullarbor and see how his Liberal colleagues in WA have presided over a $450 million blow-out in their wildly mismanaged solar tariff scheme. Is that what the member for Flinders is seeking to achieve with this private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2]? The purpose of this private member's bill is wholly and solely to make an issue where no issue exists and it fails to do even that. It cannot be supported.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (21:01): In the south-western corner of my electorate of Bennelong is the suburb of Ermington, a busy neighbourhood of battlers and real families working hard to make ends meet. Many work in industrial companies on the other side of Silverwater Road in the electorate of Parramatta, such as the manufacturing headquarters of Rheem Australia in Rydalmere. Rheem's history of manufacturing electric hot water heaters in Australia dates back to the Second World War. Rheem employs 350 of these battlers in their manufacturing arm alone, producing household brands like Solahart, Vulcan and Aquamax. This is a great Australian company that supports local workers and relies on a stable operating environment. The government's decision to suddenly scrap the $1,000 solar hot water rebate at one minute to five on 28 February was a sly and deceptive measure that has directly hurt many of these hard-working families.
As a result of this decision, Rheem has witnessed a 30 to 40 per cent reduction in sales and has been forced to sack 60 employees. They are fighting to hold on to their team of manufacturing staff. So far, discussions with this government have not given Rheem any security or assurance that the future for these workers and their families will be any better than for the 60 workers already retrenched. This government's decision has put workers out of jobs and businesses at risk of financial ruin. The Clean Energy Council estimates that 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs are at risk as a result of the government's axing of this program—which bears a great resemblance to the sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 and the bungled Home Insulation Program, the Green Loans Program and cash-for-clunkers failures. This government has consistently and repeatedly disregarded the needs of businesses and families in Bennelong, Parramatta and across the nation.
This private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], moved by my colleague the member for Flinders, will ensure that businesses like Rheem can continue to operate as they had planned and that homeowners in Ermington and around the nation are given a fair chance to access the rebate. It is very disappointing that the government voted against this bill being debated prior to the budget so as not to cause any political friction with their alliance colleagues the Greens.
The government knows that their decision is anti-environment and based on a lie. First they claimed the solar hot water rebate was shut down because it was oversubscribed and that all allocated funds would be spent. Yet the recent budget papers tell another story—one that shows more than 50 per cent of the $88 million promised by the government to support this environmental initiative had vanished. In one breath this government claims that the Australian people deserve some financial punishment through the carbon tax because the environment is worth it, and with the next breath they axe their own solar hot water program because they cannot afford it. The key question which remains for this government is whether this farcical situation is a result of incompetence in the management of the program or is just another broken promise. The use of solar hot water is a genuine way for households to reduce their greenhouse emissions and cut their power bills ahead of the carbon tax on 1 July. Perhaps this government does not actually want people to reduce their coal-powered electricity consumption. After all, this would mean less carbon emissions and therefore less money collected in taxes to pay for the cash handouts.
The coalition is committed to the solar industry. The direct action plan has a one million solar roofs policy, which includes rebates for the installation of solar hot water systems. The coalition is committed to a stable and secure future for companies like Rheem Australia that need a certain operating environment so that they can invest in their local communities and create jobs for manufacturing workers. Just like the medicines manufacturers hurt by the deferral of PBS listings in contravention of the memorandum of understanding and the cattle exporters punished by the suspension of trade after a Four Corners episode, the solar hot water industry has learnt the hard way that this government cannot be trusted and only the coalition can provide the hope, reward and opportunity for successful business and job creation. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (21:05): It was no surprise to me, when I had a look at the speaking list for this private member's bill, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], that there was only one speaker from the opposition side on the list from the great state of New South Wales. That is because all of the MPs from the great state of New South Wales are, rightfully, too ashamed to stick their heads up on this matter, in view of what their coalition partners, the O'Farrell government, did with the Solar Bonus Scheme when it closed the scheme on 13 May last year. They know that if they stick their heads up on this matter they leave themselves open to the charge of hypocrisy in championing and advocating in favour of the private member's bill brought to us by the opposition spokesperson today. Clearly, the member for Bennelong is more impervious to those claims than the rest of his parliamentary colleagues. We on this side of the House are committed to increasing the take-up of solar hot water systems and other mechanisms which will enable households to reduce the amount of money they are spending and the amount of energy they are expending on hot water heating and consumption. The reason we are committed to that is that 25 per cent of total household energy consumption goes to making the water hot and keeping it hot. Solar hot water and other similar mechanisms can lead to energy savings to those households of somewhere between 50 and 90 per cent. It is for these reasons that, between 2007 and 2012, through the scheme that the members opposite are trying to reopen, around a quarter of a million households installed solar hot water systems and the like at a cost of around $320 million.
We do have options available to us. One of those is the option that is proposed by the opposition spokesperson. On my rough figures, their one million homes policy, at a cost of around $1,000 per unit, is a billion-dollar program. That adds to the $70 billion in unfunded promises they have already made over the course of the last 18 months, so I guess we are up to $71 billion.
There are two reasons why we should reject this policy proposal. The first is this: it is indiscriminate—it is not means tested. What that means, in effect, is that taxpayers, particularly poor taxpayers, are being asked to subsidise the energy savings and solar hot water systems of more wealthy people. If you want visual proof of this, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, I ask you to get in your car and go for a drive around your electorate or the neighbouring electorates, and just count the number of solar hot water systems that you will find in the housing commission suburbs or the low SES suburbs within your electorate and then see the number of solar hot water systems in the more wealthy parts of your electorate. I know that, in my electorate, there is no comparison. There is a lot of shining glass on the roofs of the wealthier parts of my electorate. Many of those newly installed units were paid for as a result of the subsidised system. That is one reason why you might question the proposition put up by the shadow spokesperson.
The second reason is that it is not necessary. There is a very good reason why it is not necessary. If you wanted to replace electric hot water systems with more efficient energy usage options, there are a number of propositions that you could put into place. The first is: you put in place regulations which phased out the use of electric hot water systems. And, indeed, that is exactly what is happening, because in December 2010 all states and territories, with the exception of the Tasmanian government, signed up to a pact to phase out the use of electric hot water systems over the next 10 years, and that means that what we are effectively doing here is creating a market for alternative products. So, if you are really concerned about replacing electric hot water systems with more energy-favourable options, you would phase them out—and that is exactly what is being done.
The second thing you might do is to keep in place the renewable energy targets, which provide around $1,000 for Small-scale Technology Certificates per unit. That is being continued as well. The third thing you might do is to put in place a clear price signal about the need to shift to a low carbon future, and we are doing that. So this proposition is a one-billion-dollar boondoggle—it is unnecessary. (Time expired)
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (21:11): I also rise to support the Solar Hot Water Rebate Bill 2012 [No. 2], introduced into this House by the honourable member for Flinders. The bill has as its premise the following. On 28 February, as trade was shutting down for the day, the government suddenly scrapped the $1,000 solar hot water rebate. Businesses and homeowners were given no prior notice of the closure of the program and homeowners only had a few short hours to submit their application in order to remain eligible. The result of this rash behaviour was to inject uncertainty into the lives of many workers, contractors and businesses. As my colleagues have mentioned throughout this debate, the Clean Energy Council predicted 1,200 manufacturing jobs and 6,000 installation, sales and administration jobs would be at risk because of the Gillard government's incompetence.
These types of actions by the government, however, seem very familiar, as the axing of this rebate is a repeat of the damaging sudden closure of the Solar Homes and Communities Plan in 2009 by the then minister, Peter Garrett. And we all remember the bungled Home Insulation Program which, unfortunately, led to the compromising of workers' safety, houses being burnt down and the wasting of many, many millions of taxpayers' money to fix the mess. And in my electorate of Brisbane we are still fixing the mess.
This private member's bill by the shadow minister seeks to ensure certainty in the industry by requiring that the government spend the entire amount originally budgeted for the solar hot water rebate. This proactive action seeks to ensure that businesses could continue to operate as they had originally planned and that homeowners have a fairer chance to access the rebate.
This demonstrates a marked contrast between an opposition concerned about the effects of government policy on business and a government which seems to lurch from one crisis to another. True to form, they voted against bringing the private member's bill forward for a vote in March prior to the 2012 budget. The government originally claimed that it had terminated the solar hot water rebate early because the program was oversubscribed—and we have heard a number of their speakers talk about that—and they anticipated that the funding would be fully expended before its scheduled conclusion. The government and their coalition partners the Greens then promised that the full funding originally allocated for the solar hot water rebate would be retained. And, as referred to by my colleagues, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mark Dreyfus, gave a written assurance to the Greens, to Senator Milne, on 21 March 2012, and it states: 'As discussed with you, the government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program and remains committed to supporting the transition to a clean energy future which includes the solar hot water industry. The funding allocated for this program remains in the forward estimates.' Well, that was a good promise! But, as this year's budget papers clearly show, this is simply untrue. It is a broken promise, and these figures directly contradict the government's supposed justification for scrapping the scheme because it had run out of money. Either there has been complete incompetence in the management of the scheme, or the government is not being honest with the Australian people and has been willing to sacrifice the solar hot water industry to prop up its own budget.
The government's own program guidelines did not mention a closure date for the rebate, contrary to the government's claim that it always intended to shut this scheme on 30 June this year. What is even more galling about this decision is that the government is introducing the world's biggest carbon tax on the Australian economy which, as we all know, is going to flow through to and hurt every single Australian. So the government cuts a worthwhile program, at five minutes to midnight, that actually had the effect of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, yet introduces an economy-wide carbon tax that will destroy jobs, will destroy growth and will drive emissions overseas. Nothing better demonstrates this government's delusion and lack of priority than these decisions. This is a very proactive, responsible and considerate bill by the member for Flinders, and it is designed to repair the damage and restore the confidence that this government has shattered. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (21:15): I rise to oppose the member for Flinders private member's bill, which calls on the government to reinstate the solar hot water scheme and appropriate the remaining portion of the 2011-2012 allocation—just another back-to-the-future proposal from a rather sad opposition. It is just a little pathetic to see the member for Flinders put this private member's bill forward, given that we have seen no policies to explain how the opposition intends to reduce emissions or meet the agreed renewable energy target. We have no details, costings or specific policies from the opposition, but apparently the $63.5 million in this bill is going to do a lot of heavy lifting. I do not think so.
I think this is yet another attempt by the opposition to just harp and carp and oppose whatever the government does, without having a framework of policies for members like the member for Flinders to champion or advocate. It is pathetic, and he must find that quite difficult. This bill is put forward by the same person who in 1990 co-authored that award-winning thesis entitled A Tax to Make the Polluter Pay, which stated:
… we have argued that the current regulatory regime for controlling industrial pollution is grievously flawed and should be replaced by a market based waste management system. The key component of this new regime should be the introduction of a pollution tax.
He did say that and, of course, we did do that, because that is exactly what works best. And we agree that we should have a market based scheme that makes the big polluters pay. It is called the clean energy future package, and it is legislated now.
If this bill before the House is some feeble attempt to make the federal Labor government look like it does not support the renewable energy industry then it will not work. We are the party that legislated a price on carbon, delivering a wide range of incentives to renewable industries and households to move towards a cleaner and less emissions-intensive economy. Our package provides the certainty that the renewable energy sector needs to plan their future products, marketing, research and development, and other successful business tools to allow them to get on with building a dynamic and relevant renewable energy industry. The industry knew this scheme was winding up and the opposition knew that this scheme was winding up, but typically they choose to mislead the public rather than tell the truth.
Yes, the program was begun by John Howard in 2007, to be funded until 30 June 2012. On 28 February this year we announced that the solar hot water rebate scheme would end on 30 June 2012. People of course were still eligible to claim that rebate up to the end of that financial year, but you do try to confine expenditure to the budget year, and that is exactly what we did.
The closure of the scheme in any other way would have been irresponsible. It would have encouraged that haste and that last-minute rush that would have certainly put a lot of pressure on that industry as well, and we do not do things that way. Certainly the scheme was successful. It offered rebates of $1,000 for solar hot-water systems and rebates of $600 on heat-pump systems. We did stick to that scheme and we never scrapped any of that policy. It assisted over 250,000 installations, 25,000 more than the coalition government had promised, at a cost of over $320 million. This scheme gave the industry clear support for a designated period—and that is exactly what it was, a designated period—to build the business model and the approach that matched the current technology and demand. But technologies move on, and so this government has moved toward a clean energy future—one that will reduce emissions and will meet our renewable energy targets.
By putting a price on carbon pollution we have created an incentive for households to install more energy-efficient systems and purchase more energy-efficient appliances. We have provided the market mechanisms to make the big polluters make different investment and energy choices—ones that will lead to more efficient use of energy—so they can continue to competitively provide products and services to both the domestic and international markets.
The federal Labor government has provided more support to renewables than any government in Australian history, and we will continue to do so. From July 1, the solar hot-water industry will receive support in four ways: pricing carbon will create a stable, long-term market; the Low Carbon Communities program will provide $330 million to local councils, communities and disadvantaged low-income families to improve their energy efficiency; the $800 million Clean Technology Investment Program will give the solar hot-water industry an incentive to retool and modernise the manufacture of solar units; and towards 2020, through the renewable energy target, consumers can be offered up to $1,000 discount in small technology packages.
At my local level, I am pleased to say that the Hunter Business Chamber was awarded $1.2 million to help small and medium business implement the Energy Hunter—Our Clean Energy Future program. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Stillbirths
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Deputy Speaker) (21:21): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) under current State and Territory legislation, a coroner does not have the statutory and judicial authority to investigate stillbirths, nor does the legislation (except in Queensland) indicate that coronial jurisdiction extends to stillbirths; and
(b) there are discrepancies amongst State and Territory legislation over the definition of 'person' and 'death';
(2) recognises that:
(a) approximately one per cent of babies born every year in Australia are stillborn (cited from a SA stillbirth report); and
(b) for many parents, the need to understand the cause of death and further prevent other incidences occurring in the future is important; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) adopt policies and protocols that are consistent amongst the States and Territories and which specifically outline the circumstances in which a stillbirth should be investigated by a coroner; and
(b) adopt policies which:
(i) provide clear and consistent definitions of 'person', 'death' and 'stillbirth', and extend this to other relevant legislation such as the births, deaths and marriages Acts;
(ii) promote the need and development of perinatal specialists in investigations as has been recommended by independent groups such as the Australian and New Zealand Stillbirth Alliance, Perinatal Mortality Group, and Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand;
(iii) offer parents the opportunity to have a full and timely assessment of the factors relating to their baby's death, whilst still respecting their rights;
(iv) allow for public coronial inquiry to assist in identifying clinically important lessons from the death and contribute to research on the topic of stillbirths and early infant death; and
(v) enhance provisions that provide support and appropriate care for parents.
There is no doubt that the death of a stillborn baby is a tragic event. Recognising this, I believe we must do more to support families confronted by stillbirth, and endeavour to learn more about circumstances where these deaths could be prevented.
As a mother, I have had the privilege of bringing two beautiful children into the world. The birth of each of my children was an incredible experience—holding them for the first time, taking them home, introducing them to families and friends, and making sure that they were going to survive and thrive under my and my husband's guidance. For thousands of Australian parents each year, this experience is completely different. Stillbirths are a tragic reality for parents all around the world. I could not sympathise more with these parents who, instead of celebrating the joyous arrival of a child, are left to mourn them, often without knowing why their babies died.
Approximately one per cent of babies born every year in Australia are stillborn. Tragically, despite improvements in medical practice and technology, the number of stillbirths—more than 2,000—has not changed since the 1980s. Currently, there are discrepancies in state and territory legislation over the definition of 'a person' and 'death' that prevent coroners from investigating any deaths of stillborn babies, but for thousands of families in Australia who go through the ordeal of a stillbirth there is no doubt that the baby was a person whose death mattered.
I have had the privilege of meeting a constituent, Caroline Sugden, who has had this tragic experience, and she shared with me the tragedy of the stillbirth of her daughter. Luckily, Caroline and her partner have gone on to have two healthy children, but that was a big step. Would it happen again? Why did it happen? There were all these unanswered questions. Understandably, the loss of their daughter had a massive impact—not just on their lives but on the lives of their families and friends. This is something that was meant to end in a beautiful outcome, not a tragedy. Their grief was compounded by not knowing why their baby died. Without answers they felt left in the dark, and the advice given to them by medical staff directly after their baby's death undervalued the benefit of an autopsy in providing them with a cause of death. No formal investigation into the death of their baby was made.
Caroline and her family pursued an independent investigation into their baby's death, but by this time the placenta had been left in a bucket in a hospital fridge for nine days, unpreserved, instead of being sent for testing. Sadly, the Sugden experience is not isolated or uncommon. Many parents of stillborn children have experienced such things. There was an inquiry conducted within the SA parliament and many expressed a similar experience—the uncertainty, the unknown, the equivocal medical advice, the tragedy. The simple answer kept being given to them: 'Go away. Forget about it. Move on.' That is not what a lot of parents want. They want some answers if they can find them.
No parent can be fully prepared to deal with a tragedy such as this. We need to ensure that parents are being given full and timely information, that their wishes are respected, and that they are supported in deciding what course of action to pursue in coming to terms with a stillbirth. Adopting clear and consistent definitions of 'birth', 'person', 'death' and 'stillbirth' is needed to ensure that the rights of babies are upheld across the whole of Australia. Ensuring that parents are sufficiently informed of their options and that they are offered the opportunity for a full and timely assessment of the factors relating to their baby's death is an essential part of helping them cope with their loss and may provide answers that avoid a repeated occurrence with future pregnancies.
Allowing for public coronial inquiries into stillbirths would give us the opportunity to identify clinically important lessons from these deaths and would contribute to research on the topic of stillbirth and early infant death, potentially reducing the numbers of stillbirths occurring each year.
There are several individuals and groups from within my electorate that have contacted me concerned with extending jurisdictions for stillbirth and improving support for parents. I wish to thank all those who have been advocating on behalf of these families and on behalf of the children who did not survive.
As a government I believe that we have a responsibility to ensure that inexplicable, unexpected deaths are investigated to determine why they occurred and potentially learn how these deaths can be avoided. As mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and people in the Australian community, we have a responsibility to ensure that families affected by the death of a stillborn baby are offered adequate support to assist them through this difficult time.
Parents of a stillborn baby must remain central in determining how and when autopsies and coronial investigations are undertaken. We need to respect the wishes of families who do not want investigations but we also need to respect the wishes of those who want to be fully informed. The families should be given that choice.
This motion has come out of the dedicated efforts of those advocating on behalf of families who have been through a stillbirth. Many of these have experienced the loss of a stillbirth themselves whilst others have been urged to act after watching family members suffer. It is necessary for our future mothers, who want to know that everything possible has been done to prevent more stillbirths in the future. It will be welcomed by parents who have been telling us how the current system let them down. We need to provide a system which will do more to support parents in this hour of tragedy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): Is the motion seconded?
Mrs GASH (Gilmore) (21:26): I second the motion. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this motion by the member for Chisholm and support the sentiment driving it.
In the week after the budget I had occasion to interview a young mother who came to me with her 14-month-old daughter who was severely afflicted with shaken baby syndrome. The condition was as a result of abuse by the father of the baby, with whom the mother was formerly living in a de facto relationship. Both the mother and the grandmother, who came with her, wanted me to help them get an awareness program running, which I will most certainly assist with. The point I am making is that the anguish in the mothers' eyes and the deep emotion of maternal instincts driving both mothers was unmistaken.
Some years ago, I put a motion to the House seeking the establishment of a national day to commemorate infant loss at birth or stillbirth. That day has been recognised officially by the New South Wales government and other administrations here in Australia and overseas, but not by our federal government, which is a shame. On that occasion, the advocate who approached me, Nicole Ballinger, was ardent in her compassion. I still think 15 October needs to be adopted nationally, and I urge the government to reconsider doing so.
The death of a young child is devastating to the family, especially the mother. Many never get over the event, and many seek meaning as to why their infant child was taken away from them. They want emotional closure and they want to honour the memory of the child.
It is one thing to lose a child through natural means but quite another to lose a child through violence, abuse or neglect. Many parents blame themselves, seeing themselves as failures for not protecting their child. This is quite unjust and can impose severe but unnecessary burdens for them to carry throughout their lives. It is quite understandable that the two mothers I am talking about are driven by the need to see that the despair is not visited on others.
There is no doubt that parents afflicted by the burden of the unexpected death of an infant child undergo a change to their personality. Many never get over it, such is the depth of their grief. And of course there are myriads of parents whose suffering lies somewhere in between.
I know the government has a role to play in assisting parents suffering from this post traumatic stress by introducing policies enunciated in the context of this motion. I applaud the member for Chisholm on her initiative. This is a matter that traverses all politics. It is an issue absolutely out of humanity and compassion, and we elected to this parliament are best placed to make good things happen.
This motion speaks particularly to the issue of 'stillbirths' and the statutory definition of 'person' and 'death', which vary from one jurisdiction to another. Under current laws, state coroners do not have the necessary authority to investigate such deaths. This authority must be given them, from both moral and practical perspectives.
There needs to be a uniformity of approach across the jurisdictional landscape. It is the sensible thing to do and obviously the need to do so has been clearly demonstrated. This motion seeks to adopt such policies. I would much rather approach this from the perspective of developing policies that fit the bill rather than adopting those that now exist unconditionally. After all, each jurisdiction developed a policy in keeping with its own needs and experiences. We need to be certain that whatever policy is adopted has been thoroughly assessed as appropriate to the needs and circumstances, as well as the expectations, of a 21st-century society. A national infant loss remembrance day would be one such policy.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It being 9:30 pm I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Carbon Pricing
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (21:30): A few months back I raised the issue of the impact that the impending carbon tax would have on businesses in terms of the rise in electricity costs. That was pooh-poohed in this House by the government. Last Friday a constituent came in who was a principal of a solar and electrical business, a small business owner, who employed five people up until December of last year. In July-August of last year that business was thriving and then the phones suddenly stopped ringing. He had at that time enough work programmed from June until the end of November to keep himself and his five employees going. Come December, however, he had to lay off the five staff. His business is very diverse and they cater for domestic, rural and industrial needs. He described the general public as frightened and not spending.
This experience is shared by many contractors right across the district with whom he has frequent conversations. There are small jobs that come through, but not much substantial development is being undertaken. People are scared. Once the phones stopped ringing for his own business, and once he had laid off his staff, he went to Orange for work. He worked for four months with a firm called Gozcon Electrical until he was laid off. Gozcon had about 30 staff and had intermittent contracts with Cadia Valley Operations. He also learnt of another contractor with Cadia Valley Operations who had to lay off 400-plus employees.
He is repulsed by this whole business, particularly the implications of him having to lay off five employees in the small community he lives in, which happens to be Cowra. There are further implications for the community once businesses like Sarah Jane Furniture, which I raised a few months ago, have a number of lay-offs. I understand that, if the increase in electricity costs are as great as they anticipate them to be, they will be looking at more lay-offs.
He is happy for me to pass on details to the House. In terms of his finances, last financial year his business's turnover was $2.2 million. The year before that it was $1.6 million. This financial year it will be lucky to have a $500,000 turnover. He tells me that from a family perspective they are getting by, but things are really starting to stretch as the months drag on.
I read an article in the Cowra Guardian on 9 May about how businesses will have to pass on carbon costs. It stated that the director of Cowra Meat Processors said that he:
… will pay up to $120 000 a year more for energy when the carbon tax comes into effect.
That is quite obvious, because they use a lot of power 24/7 running a lot of refrigerators and freezers. He said that there is nothing you can do about the increased costs and said:
We've already spent a lot of money putting [in] more efficient refrigeration to use less power, but that hasn't done us any good because power is going through the roof anyway.
In that same article, the secretary manager of the Cowra Services Club said:
… based on a 17.6 per cent energy price increase the business' electricity bill could grow by $45 000 per year.
It just goes on and on. It is a direct illustration of the point I made when I raised the issue of Sarah Jane Furniture, a manufacturer in Cowra that employs over 130 Australians. That company estimates that there will be an increase in its weekly power bill from $13,000 to $21,000.
When I raised this in a question in the House to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister questioned the veracity of that figure. I instructed my constituent to get in touch with the department to get the department to tell him where his calculations had gone wrong, but the department was unable to do so. The department did not even know its own calculation process for the introduced carbon tax.
I raise these events today to illustrate to the House that this has not stopped. It is only the beginning and it is going to get worse, and there are going to be more people out of work, not only in my electorate but right across the country.
Coral Sea Marine Reserve
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (21:35): I take this opportunity to urge environment minister Burke to include the Osprey Reef and the Shark Reef as protected areas in the proposed Coral Sea marine park. A fortnight ago a number of us in parliament were fortunate enough to hear an inspiring address from the author Tim Winton about the importance of marine parks. It reinforced my view that this is an opportunity for us as a parliament to do great things that future generations will be rightly proud of. I particularly want to make the case for action in the Coral Sea and for protection of the Osprey and Shark reefs.
As the Protect our Coral Sea coalition has pointed out, oceans cover almost three-quarters of the earth's surface and contain most of the planet's biodiversity. But the oceans are in deep trouble. Up to 90 per cent of the largest fish species have been lost over the past 50 years due to overfishing. Roughly two-thirds of the world's coral reefs are damaged or threatened and about one-quarter have been destroyed. Protecting the last remaining special places before it is too late is critical. Marine parks will help ensure ocean health for generations to come. Australia's Coral Sea is one of the last places on earth where ocean giants such as sharks, tuna and marlin still abound, but less than one per cent of the Coral Sea is permanently protected from fishing, oil and gas exploration and seabed mining. Individual reefs of the Coral Sea are exceptionally distinctive. The Coral Sea is like a miniature version of the South Pacific where distances separating reefs make South Pacific reefs individually distinctive. Osprey Reef is a large atoll rising 2,000 to 3,000 metres from the sea floor on its western side. It covers an area of 348,000 square kilometres, including a large central lagoon. Its spectacular large pelagic marine life, massive reef walls and plunging drop-offs are highly prized by recreational divers. I am told that it is the most iconic dive location in the Coral Sea and one of the most spectacular dive sites in the world. Osprey attracts numerous pelagic fish, such as barracudas, giant trevallies, mackerel, rainbow runners and dog-tooth tuna. Large reef fish such as potato cods and the humphead Maori wrasse are also found here; so too is the nautilus, a living fossil thought to be between one million and five million years old.
Osprey Reef also boasts an extraordinary diversity of soft corals and gorgonian sea fans. One scientist has referred to this as soft-coral heaven. Research has uncovered coralline spongers, which are also considered living fossils, in the shallow caves of Osprey Reef. Due to their rarity and cryptic habitat, species of coralline spongers in different regions have become genetically distinct.
Shark Reef covers 92 square kilometres and is located around 15 kilometres from Osprey Reef's southern tip, Rapid Horn. A recent survey of Osprey Reef and Shark Reef has revealed species from both deep and shallow habitats, such as rock sponges, glass sponges, brachiopods and sea lilies, that are new to science. The Coral Sea serves as a system of stepping stones for species to move from the Western Pacific to the Great Barrier Reef. It is an important migratory route for many species, such as sea turtles and oceanic sharks, riding on the great ocean currents from the north-west.
The Coral Sea is a haven for endangered species: 62 threatened and protected species listed under Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and 341 bird and animal species included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species are present. The government's draft plans for the Coral Sea released in November last year proposed many good things to protect the Coral Sea from oil and gas mining and trawling and longline fishing, and I strongly support these proposals. But the number of reefs to be protected from the impact of commercial and recreational fishing by being included in the marine park is small, and I would like to see it bolstered. I am told that there were over 480,000 submissions advocating increased protection for the Coral Sea—an incredible number.
I conclude by paraphrasing Tim Winton, who always says things more eloquently than the rest of us do, as follows. This is a genuine legacy moment. When your grand kids ask you what you did as a member of parliament, tax reform might do it, or that parliamentary committee; but to get that rare moment when a little kid looks up at you with a flicker of interest or even a moment of admiration, my money is on the dolphins and the marine parks.
Hasluck Electorate: Hasluck Leadership Awards
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (21:40): I rise today to talk about the Hasluck Leadership Awards, which are in their second year. The Hasluck Leadership Awards, named in honour of two renowned Western Australians, Sir Paul Hasluck and Dame Alexandra Hasluck, will again be a vehicle for inspiring and developing the leadership potential of young people. The awards are intended to continue into the future irrespective of the political persuasion of the sitting member. The Hasluck Leadership Awards are open to all year 11 high school students in the electorate. The awards provide a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for students who demonstrate exceptional leadership qualities to travel to Canberra, tread the corridors of power and experience life in the heart of Australian politics. To enter, students must intend to complete their year 12 studies in a high school in Hasluck and demonstrate to the panel their high-level involvement in their school through their participation in the school's nonacademic activities. This may be demonstrated through their involvement with school or student councils, sporting groups and clubs or other voluntary activities. The panel also want to see how they perform outside their schools and that through their activities they demonstrate care and respect for others, involvement with voluntary work within the community or active membership of a community group or organisation.
Last year Joanne Pryce and Joshua Bretnall were the recipients of the 2011 Hasluck Leadership Awards, and they travelled to Canberra with me in August. They described the experience of visiting the capital and meeting with our nation's leaders as 'life-changing' and 'a learning experience second to none'. Joanne and Josh have started year 12 and are looking forward to actively becoming involved in their local school community and with national issues. For the 2012 awards I made a couple of small changes to improve on the process and running of the awards. The first was that each school could nominate two students—one boy and one girl—and, in the case of private schools with all boys or all girls, they could nominate two students as well. This increased the pool of nominees and gave more students the opportunity to take part in the awards.
All the nominees will participate in a workshop on Saturday, 9 June where three independent judges will evaluate their presentations and the nominees will answer a few questions and give a two-minute impromptu speech. The winners, one boy and one girl, will be announced on Friday, 15 June at the Agonis centre in Gosnells at 5 pm.
The finalists in the 2012 Hasluck Leadership Awards are: from Governor Stirling Senior High School, Nicholas Williams; from Guildford Grammar School, Mitchell Papas; from Guildford Grammar School, Jackson Passeri; from Kalamunda Senior High School, Bill Todd; from La Salle College, David Vella; from Lesmurdie Senior High School, Jordan Fraser; from Lumen Christi College, Luke Hale; from Southern River College, Matthew Capper; from Thornlie Senior High School, Lachlan McDonald; from Kalamunda Senior High School, Sarah Hopkins; from La Salle College, Chloe Placzek, from Senior High School, Rachael Honey; from Lumen Christi College, Kaylish Menzie; from Southern River College, Shani Preedy; from St Brigid's College, Amy Thomasson; and, from St Brigid's College, Caitlin Grehan. These young people, irrespective of whether they win an award or not, are the bright future of this country. Too often we only hear the negative stories about youth and do not get to listen to the positive voices that are drowned out amongst the negative news reports featuring young Australians.
It would not be possible to achieve the aims of any program such as this without corporate sponsorship. I acknowledge the companies who acted as sponsors, as they allow me to realise the goal of recognising our next generation of leaders in the community. Once again I am pleased to announce that Qantas is a major sponsor along with David Goode from Westate Finance, the Pilbara Access Group, the Damien Cole Group, BGC Australia, the Swan Chamber of Commerce, Westrac and the Echo newspaper. Sponsorship is critical if we are to deliver programs such as this to the community, and I thank each organisation for taking the time and effort to participate in the Hasluck Leadership Awards in 2012. I look forward to updating the House in the near future about the results of the awards evening and recognising the year 11 boy and girl who have won the 2012 Hasluck Leadership Awards. It provides an incredible opportunity to acknowledge and encourage young people to look at the contribution that they can make to both their school and the community in which they live and play. In that sense, regardless of who is the occupant of the seat of Hasluck, I hope in the future to see that the sponsors will take on the role along with other designated groups to foster the qualities that are evident in young people. This will give them that encouragement. (Time expired)
Fraser Electorate: Volunteering
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (21:45): Over recent decades, Australians have lost social capital. We are less likely to be civically engaged in our communities; we are more disconnected than we once were. But this does not change the fact that there are many great volunteers in Australia, and no part of the country is more likely to volunteer than here in the ACT. Tonight I want to share with the House three stories of volunteering in the ACT worth celebrating.
Last week I attended the 2012 ACT Volunteer of the Year Awards. Across a wide range of awards the contribution that volunteers make to our community and our economy was recognised. The 2012 ACT Volunteer of the Year was Dr Mary Webb. Nominated by Multiple Sclerosis Ltd, Mary has provided volunteer service to those people in the Canberra community with MS. Over the years, she has also made a valuable contribution through her service to various advisory bodies.
This year Volunteering ACT introduced new awards for Volunteer Teams of the Year across the various categories. This year's ACT Volunteer Team of the Year was the Adult Migrant English Program Home Tutor Scheme. The team has up to 150 volunteers to assist people from different cultures and widely different levels of English literacy skills.
Other individual award recipients included David Hutchinson, Max Kimber, Hazel Giesecke, David Williams, Gordon McLoughlin and Frank Brown. Others team awards went to the St Vincent de Paul Night Patrol Team, the Stanford Course Peer Leaders and the YMCA of Canberra Runners Club Committee. In addition to those, several other people and teams were highly commended for their work with the community, including Dot Mills, Neville Tomkins, Geraldine O'Connor, Di Evans, the Talking Newspaper Service Cooma and Narooma, ANU Volunteers and the Pegasus Hippotherapy Team. Finally, I would like to thank Maureen Cane and Rikki Blacka from Volunteering ACT for their efforts in coordinating this important event.
Parkland volunteers are essential in the Bush Capital, and earlier this year I had the pleasure of joining Chris Bourke MLA to launch the Frost Hollow to Forest Walk for the Friends of Aranda Bushland. Taking their modest Caring for our Country grant, the Friends of Aranda Bushland, particularly Peter Ormay and Jean Geue, partnered with Aranda Primary School and ACT parks and conservation to build the project. The many volunteers who make up the Friends of Aranda Bushland deserve thanks for their significant contribution to the project. Thanks to them, Canberra now has a self-guided walk for locals and visitors to enjoy. The walk has preserves and provides access to the unique treeless grasslands and the remnant snow and yellow box-red gum woodlands in the Aranda bushland forest. There are many other parkland volunteers doing terrific work through the Canberra community.
Another area in which volunteers are contributing to the community is in sporting circles. In my time as the member for Fraser I have had the pleasure of being a part of the Local Sporting Champions grants. Local Sporting Champions assists young athletes aged 12 to 18 with the costs of competing at state, national or international competition. Often, huge amounts of volunteer time are involved, from parents and sporting club officials. Local Sporting Champions grants provide a modest amount of assistance to students who are engaged in sporting activities.
Over the past 18 months, assisted by sportspeople like Raider Bronson Harrison, swimmer Sally Foster, soccer player Sally Shipard and Canberra social entrepreneur Michael Pilbrow, I have awarded Local Sporting Champions grants to individuals and sporting clubs in my electorate. Recipients of a Local Sporting Champions grant over the past year include Jack Connell, Melissa Leary, Kenyah Lawler, Renee Polyak, Nicholas Tanner, William Pulley, Maris Colton, Andrew Meyer-Coyte, Jayden Sawyer, Reilly Shaw, Stuart Grey, Danusia Sipa Borgeaud, Anthony Joe, Nathan Cawley, Luke Sarris, Luke Letcher, ACT Badminton and Rowing ACT. Last week I held an afternoon tea in my electorate office for Local Sporting Champions recipients, where the soccer star Grace Gill talked about the joys and challenges of elite sport.
Volunteers are our unsung heroes. They give up their free time to deliver services, to lend a helping hand and to build a stronger community. I want to thank those volunteers I have spoken of tonight and all those across the ACT and Australia for their contribution and their dedication. Our community is richer for it.
State of Origin Rugby League
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (21:50): I rise in this chamber in the most important week we will see here in a long time. It is the week where we will see the first of three State of Origin games, which will surely result in Queensland winning the Harvey Norman trophy for a record seventh time in a row.
I grew up in the small border town of Texas. From year 7 we had the kids from Yetman come from across the border to continue their education. Things would be great except when the annual state rugby league games would be played. I would see great Queensland players such as John Brass, Rod Reddy, Johnny Lang, Rod Morris and Kerry Boustead, to name but a few, line up against the sky blue jumper of the likes of Bruce Astill, Ian Thinee, Norm Carr and Tony Obst each and every year. Brisbane had a great competition, but it was a feeder competition for the Sydney clubs.
Every year we would cop it from the New South Wales kids as we saw more and more Queenslanders play for New South Wales. Come 1980 and that great visionary for Queensland rugby league, Labor senator Ron McAuliffe, finally got the State of Origin going. We won the game with Chris Close scoring two tries and running around Graham Eadie like he was not even there, and Mal Meninga kicking the leather off the ball with a flawless display. It was also Wally Lewis's debut at that level. The great Norm Carr was supposed to play that night, but he played for Wests and Souths in Brisbane. He would have been the starting lock but for injury. Such is life.
But that was not what the game was all about. The game was about the great Arthur Beetson. He was playing reserve grade for Parramatta but led Queensland out that night. It was the great Arthur Beetson who showed what State of Origin was to become when he belted good friend and Parramatta team mate Mick Cronin. Time and again Beetson ripped into the New South Wales pack and showed the way for the young Queenslanders. If not for Arthur Beetson the State of Origin would not have properly succeeded. He had to convince all of us who had copped a lifetime of disappointment what it truly meant to the players to pull on a maroon jersey—to bleed for your state and for your mates. New South Wales will never have what we have as Queenslanders because they have never had to endure the years of being treated as second-rate. That is what State of Origin is all about.
I would also like to have a go at this House on behalf of Arthur Beetson and Rugby League. Arthur Beetson was born in Roma on 22 January 1945 and died on 1 December 2011. He was the first Aboriginal to ever captain any national team when he captained the Australian Rugby League team. He played for Redcliffe in the Brisbane competition, Balmain, Easts and Parramatta in the Sydney competition. He completed the circle when he returned to Queensland as captain and coach of Redcliffe. He revolutionised front row play after moving from the centres.
Every player who has played for Queensland idolised this man. They hung on his every word. He taught them how to switch on and off. He taught them that rugby league is a game first, an opportunity and an honour second, and a war for just 80 minutes. He was a great believer that in what happens on the field stays on the field. He gave as good as he got. Everyone who followed sport loved Big Artie.
Arthur Beetson played for New South Wales, Queensland, and Australia. He coached Queensland and Australia. He has been a talent scout and an advocate for players and their families. But more than that Arthur Beetson was an advocate for Aboriginal people. He stood up and was proud of who and what he was. He never played the race card but he knew what racism was and he fought it in his own way.
That this House did not honour Arthur Beetson's passing is a travesty. That this House did not move a condolence motion in his honour will be forever one of the saddest days in this place. That this House did not do this and yet the British parliament did is even more embarrassing. As a parliament we should all hang our heads in shame.
The thing is that Arthur Beetson would not have wanted it anyway. That is what a champion is all about. This man accomplished everything in the game as a player, coach, selector, scout, mentor and friend. He is one of the game's official immortals. But more than that, he was a great man and human being. When the mighty maroons run out in Melbourne on Wednesday night, they will carry Arthur Beetson with them. He is our heritage. He is Queensland. He is rugby league north, south, east, and west of the border. If Arthur Beetson was head of government business in this place, we would not be sitting during the weeks of State of Origin. Last year we sat during all three State of Origin weeks and during the Melbourne Cup. If Arthur Beetson were here, he would be wondering whether we would be coming back to sit in a special session on Boxing Day. It is unAustralian and Arthur Beetson would not have it. Vale Arthur Beetson—and go the Maroons.
La Trobe Electorate: Education Week
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (21:55): How to follow that? I am pleased this evening to mention to the House that it is Education Week in Victoria this week. It was great to be out at St Mark's in Emerald on the weekend with a group of people who were there substantially for the purposes of commending local teachers and reflecting on the work that they do, so I was very pleased to go along to that. I am less pleased to update the House that the fact that it is Education Week in Victoria seems to have escaped a notable part of the Victorian community, namely the Victorian government. Apparently Ted Baillieu missed that memo.
Despite the fact that it is Education Week, we find that one of the largest providers of education, particularly to people from lower socioeconomic and disadvantaged backgrounds in the south-eastern region, is going to face very significant budget cuts as a result of the Victorian government's decision to slash funding for TAFE. Indeed, the outlook for Chisholm TAFE, which has a campus in my electorate in Berwick, is looking very grim indeed. Earlier last week, the CEO advised a range of us who were there for a community cabinet in my seat of La Trobe that they were expecting losses of between $20 million and $30 million. They have estimated that around $25.5 million, nearly a third of its government funding, will be lost on top of $4 million in funding already lost as a result of decisions of the state government last October. So this is fairly troubling news, particularly in Education Week when we are supposed to be reflecting on ways in which education can transform not only individuals but whole societies and certainly our society.
At the same time, I am pleased to advise the House about some of the more positive aspects of education, particularly in my electorate. I mentioned that I was at a community cabinet last week, and I would like to pay tribute to the staff, students and parents at Timbarra College, with particular thanks to principal Jan Adamson. I know they took great pride in hosting the event last week. They not only hosted it but their students provided entertainment and hospitality. They certainly looked after us and were very much involved in the evening. It is a credit to them that they did that in what was a busy week, for a variety of reasons, for them.
I was also very pleased to go out to the Basin Primary School last week for the opening of their new multipurpose building. It is a school that is 132 years old this year. It was established in 1880 and I was very pleased to be there with staff, students, principal Graham Russell and the school council president Graham McLauchlan to open officially the new building, which is a $2 million new classroom and multipurpose centre, and also to recognise the $125,000 commitment for refurbishment of existing buildings at what is one of the most long-standing schools in my electorate.
I was also very pleased to head out to Beaconhills College on Thursday to open a new technology centre at the Berwick campus. The federal government committed around $750,000 to that. It will enable the college to deliver subjects in product design, systems engineering and fashion and textiles. The centre will enable students to produce materials of an industrial standard, so it really is a centre of excellence. My congratulations go to them, particularly to those who had the vision and foresight to develop not only a plan for the technology centre but a master plan for the campus. Congratulations to principal Tony Sheumack.
I was also out at another of their campuses earlier in the year where the federal government also made a substantial commitment to a new building under its capital grants program. The building is effectively a new wing for the junior school. It is a credit to them that they have managed all of that work in tandem with the very busy schedule that schools inevitably have.
In the short time available to me I would like to congratulate Macclesfield Primary School, which I visited during last week, and principal John Chiswell, who has presided over a very significant new building development at a school in one of the more remote bits of my electorate. I am pleased that the federal government could support this school with a building of around $2 million. It is a credit to the school that it has managed that building project so successfully.
There are great things going on in education, supported by this federal government but unfortunately not matched by our Victorian counterparts.
Child Care
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (22:00): It was a delight to be in the chamber to hear of the member for La Trobe's great interest in education issues. As a former resident of La Trobe, in the town of Emerald, I would commend to her the importance of contacting the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to ask him to guarantee funding for independent schools, because so far there is no guarantee of the indexation of that funding and so many schools are facing an uncertain future.
Tonight I am here to talk about child care. I have stood in this place before and highlighted the fact that the government-mandated changes to child care as part of the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care is an exercise in increased regulation, increased cost and ultimately diminished choice for parents. The new national quality framework commenced as of 1 January this year and applies to long day care, family day care, kindergartens and after-school care. In the time available tonight, I will focus on child care in particular.
At the time that the government decided to further regulate the childcare industry, the Minister for Early Childhood and Child Care, the member for Adelaide, Kate Ellis, told Ian Henschke on ABC Radio:
This decision wasn't taken lightly and we undertook extensive independent modelling as to the cost and we've been upfront about that.
She went on to say:
… there would be an increase as a result of these measures but we think that that increase is affordable… What we've seen is that the average increase will be some 57 cents per week this year (2011) and that will rise to $8.67 per week in 2014-15.
But, like so much of the talk from this government, it is important to look through the spin and examine the substance.
Even before the changes were brought into effect, the Australian Childcare Alliance modelling found that three-quarters of all childcare centres would be forced to increase their fees as a result of the government's changes. It found that 25 per cent of them would need to increase their fees by between $30 and $50 a week. These findings were supported by a Productivity Commission report that concluded that the framework would increase out-of-pocket fees for long-day-care services by $50 per week.
In my own electorate of Higgins one of my councils, the Glen Eira council, has told me that it has had to increase its fees for its childcare centres from $91 a day to $116 a day. This is significantly higher than the 57c that the minister claimed it would cost parents. The huge discrepancy between the government's projected increase and the actual cost for parents can be put down to one of two things: either (1) the incompetence of the minister or (2) an intentional attempt by the minister to obfuscate the truth and mislead the public—you be the judge. Whatever the reason, what is clear is that parents will pay so much more.
Over the weekend the government finally admitted that childcare costs are escalating and that this increased cost is hitting families. The Minister for Trade and Industry did a rare thing for the Labor side of politics: he told the truth. He said in the Fairfax press today, 'Be assured this government is aware of the cost of child care in contributing to cost-of-living pressures.' In so saying he acknowledged that the government's new scheme has significantly increased the cost of child care and that this is hurting the hip pocket of ordinary Australian families.
So what is the government's response to increased childcare costs—costs that are entirely of their own creation? Is it to reflect on the increased regulation that they are imposing on childcare operators? No. Do they intend to cut red tape and unnecessary regulation and allow childcare operators to become more efficient? No. Do they intend to increase competition to allow market mechanisms to force the price down? No. We read today that the government's response is to intervene even further to regulate the cost of child care. We learn today that they plan to set the minimum and maximum fees that can be charged, to make all childcare centres cost the same, no matter what their offering—a typical Labor one-size-fits-all approach that will do nothing to encourage innovation such as specialist learning programs with specialist teachers in such things as music or language; innovations such as hiring senior and experienced staff; and innovations such as decreasing the staff-to-child ratio even further for those parents who want even more direct contact. We all know what happens when one-size-fits-all approaches are taken, when prices are mandated, when innovation is stifled. That is when services and ultimately choice for parents disappear. But most problematic of all for parents is: how does the government intend to fund this new regulated price? They intend to fund this by taking money out of the pockets of families and giving it directly to childcare centres. It intends to rip money away from parents, which will reduce choice and flexibility.
Conversely, the coalition have solutions. We understand that child care is an economic issue. It goes to the heart of how we can increase productivity and how we can increase participation. We have a plan for government. We will reintroduce the indexation of the childcare rebate, benefiting families with up to $300 per year. We will reinstate occasional care funding to increase flexibility and choice. Most importantly of all, we will commission a Productivity Commission report into how to better provide childcare services.(Time expired)
Human Rights in Vietnam
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (22:05): On 28 April this year I was invited by the Vietnamese community in Australia to speak at the Australian War Memorial on the occasion of the 37th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. It was an occasion to remember the many thousands who died fighting for freedom and liberty in Vietnam, including 521 Australians who gave their lives for this cause. It was also a time to acknowledge the many others who continue to fight long after the war because their fight has not ended. They fight for their fundamental human rights, the freedom to speak their mind and the freedom to practise their religion—rights that we here in Australia take for granted. We are indeed privileged in this country, but we should not forget about the millions of people who live with constant suppression of their human rights. Therefore, we should use our freedom to speak on behalf of those who do not have a voice.
The Vietnamese community in Australia have been speaking on behalf of the people of Vietnam over the past 37 years and I join with them in championing the cause of freedom and liberty for the Vietnamese. Representing an electorate that has the highest proportion of Vietnamese born citizens in Australia, I am painfully aware from my constituents of the persistent humans rights abuses occurring in Vietnam today. I have raised these issues in this chamber on many occasions. I will continue to do so as long as there are individuals such as the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, Patriarch of Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Father Nguyen Van Ly of the Vietnamese Catholic Church, Viet Khang, a rather famous young singer-songwriter, Dr Ngyuen Dan Que and many others who are being denied their freedom simply because they have exercised their basic human right to speak out.
This evening I want to draw the attention of the House to a lone human rights protester, a young and courageous Vietnamese man, Truong Quoc Viet, whose actions are the result of a passion and dedication to raising awareness to the continuous and escalating humans rights violations occurring in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. He sat alone in a little shelter just outside our parliament, our national seat of democracy, and I, together with Melissa Parke and many others who care about human rights, spent time with him.
Truon Quoc Viet is particularly concerned about Australian aid going into the wrong hands—namely, those in the Vietnamese administration—with no apparent benefits for the Vietnamese people. In fact, the people of Vietnam continue to live in ongoing poverty and are faced with constant threats to their freedom and their liberty. The Vietnamese Community in Australia have joined Truong in advocating for greater scrutiny of the Australian overseas development aid program to ensure those who are truly in need are the ones receiving the benefits.
Australia is known across the world as a generous nation, a nation that give selflessly and has regard for the wellbeing of others. However, Australian aid and support should be directly linked to efforts to improve the basic human rights and welfare of the Vietnamese people. I think the message is clear. I challenge the Vietnamese government to look to the value and potential of their own people. I challenge the administration to build relationships with people and unleash the passion and commitment to achieve. Above all, I challenge the Vietnamese government to view people, as we do, as their most valuable and precious resource. Vietnam has a great potential to grow and achieve much in a modern world, but there is only one way that can properly be achieved and that is, first, by respecting the fundamental human rights of its own people.
In the very short time the Vietnamese have been here in Australia, they have achieved much and have given total commitment to their adopted country. Their contributions to Australia have been invaluable. One good Vietnamese friend has reminded me of a saying, and it goes something like this: 'When you eat the fruit remember those who planted the tree.' That is essentially their commitment to this country, as they are benefiting from the labours of many others. That is why they have led the way in raising money for bushfires in Victoria and the floods in Queensland.
In concluding, I thank the Vietnamese community of Australia, the Vietnamese Catholic community, the Vietnamese Student Association, Viet Tan, Vietnamese Sydney Radio and many others who have kept me up to date on human rights development in Vietnam.
Independent Local Butchers
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (22:10): Tonight here in parliament I was proud to host the inaugural Independent Butchers BBQ together with my good friend Senator John Williams. I would like to thank the many members of parliament from both sides of this House, their staff and the members of the Press Gallery that attended to show their support for our independent butchers.Tonight we all enjoyed taste-testing the wide variety of select cuts of premium beef and lamb available from local family butchers, which were all cooked by gourmet chef Brett Eldridge. The overwhelming judgment was: how could you even compare the superior produce and the quality from your family butcher with the mass produced supermarket meat?
Tonight the small business supplying the meat for the inaugural Independent Butcher's BBQ was a local producer called Lost River Produce. Lost River Produce is a small family business run by Phil and Rebecca McCormack from a farm located at Crookwell. Three years ago the McCormack family built their own on-farm processing facility to enable them to bypass the big supermarkets and sell their produce direct to consumers via the internet. In addition to their internet sales, Lost River Produce is proudly in the process of opening a new independent butcher 's shop right here in Canberra, in Ba d ham Street, Dickson, where they will be taking the big supermarkets head on.
The McCormacks are a fifth generation farming family that have been on the land since the 1800s. Phil and Rebecca have two young sons, and I hope through good governance that we can provide them with the market conditions where the i r sons will have every opportunity to be the family's sixth generation of farmer s .
But not all is well for our beef producers. Decades of poor returns have sapped their manpower and energy. The Australian Beef Association estimates that the average age of Australian beef producers today is well over 55 , and it increases every year as few young people today are taking up a career in agriculture. But one of the best ways that we can support our independent beef producers is to support our independent local butchers and to prevent them from becoming a dying breed. About 25 years ago, there were over 8,000 independent butchers around our nation. But despite the growth of our population, those numbers today are down to fewer than 3,500.
I know from my experience growing up in Sydney's south, that we had a friendly local butcher, and he was not only friendly to all his two-legged customers. I can remember a particularly well-fed dog that lived in our road that used to make the daily trip up to our local butchers at Peakhurst South and there he would plant himself outside the front of the butcher shop until the kindly butcher found him an old bone. But, sadly, today our o ld family butcher at Peakhurst South is no longer.
The irs is just one of the 5,000 independent butcher shops that have closed their doors around our nation over the last two decades, as these independent butchers have seen their market share stolen by the supermarket duopoly. The latest ACN i elsen Homescan data released this year shows that the supermarket duopoly's national share of the retail beef market today is over 57 per cent with the independents' share down to just 25.9 per cent.
It may be argued by some that the decline of the independents and the increasing dominance of the supermarket duopoly is the work of 'market forces'. To the contrary, the decline of the independents is a direct result of government interference in the workings of the free market through the protection and privilege granted to the supermarket duopoly, which has distorted the market for retail leases, resulting in independent butchers in shopping centres finding themselves trying to compete but paying 1,000 per cent more per square metre for their rent.
It may also be argued by some that the decline of the independents and the increasing dominance of the supermarket duopoly has been of benefit to the customer. Again to the contrary, for as the independents have disappeared from the market, competition has been reduced, resulting in the consumer paying more and more for lower quality cuts. Therefore I encourage all members of this House and all members of my electorate: if you are not shopping at your local butcher, I strongly recommend that you give them a try. You m ay just be pleasantly surprised.
Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (22:15): This evening I will relate to the House yet another good news story about the Building the Education Revolution, in particular the Primary Schools of the 21st Century, the P21, component. As all members of the House would know, both the Liberal and National parties voted against this once-in-a-generation infrastructure program back in 2009. If left to the Liberal and National opposition not one school in Australia would have benefited from the $16 billion of investment that the Labor government has made in schools right across Australia. Fortunately, however, for all of the schools not only in my electorate of Deakin but also in the other 149 electorates in Australia, the opposition failed in their attempt to block the BER and failed in their attempt to block the federal Labor government's stimulus program that our economy needed so much during the depths of the global financial crisis.
At last count, I still have a dozen full or partial BER openings to attend in the electorate of Deakin. But, in the meantime, I will talk about the great results that were achieved by Mullum Primary School in Ringwood. The six new classrooms, community kitchen and classroom refurbishments in the existing part of the school have made a huge difference to Mullum. As good as it now looks, a project such as this does not just happen overnight and it can often take a lot of time to get things right. Although fully federally funded, this project could not have happened without the persistence of the school principal, Lynne Holland, Julie Denman, Jenny Verhiden and the entire teaching staff. Along with the school council president, Stuart McPhee, and the entire school council, the parents association, the Eastern Metropolitan Team at the state Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, the project managers, contractors and workers on the project and, importantly, the entire school community, there were no end of people who contributed to make the project a success and who are now benefiting from these much-needed modern buildings on site.
For those in this chamber who do not know Mullum primary, it is a great school in Ringwood, which is 50 years old next year—and, until very recently, it certainly looked like it was 50 years. I well remember my first visit to Mullum back in May 2008 to hand out some leadership badges. I have often said that a great school does not have to look good from the outside to be a great school on the inside, but it helps no end to people who do not know what is on the inside. The casual passerby, the prospective parent or visitor always sees what is at the front gate and just beyond it. And, even if it is the best school in the suburb, if the paint is peeling off the building or the window frames are rotting, they may not see any more than that.
It is important that the school community knows that government cares about their school. In this case, Mullum definitely knows that the federal government cares about their school. That is great for our local community and of course great for the kids in the school.
It was back on 23 March 2009 that I visited Mullum Primary School to speak to the school principal, Lynne Holland, about what the BER could mean for a school like Mullum primary. If I remember rightly, we may have started off talking about a full-sized hall with a basketball court. There were quite a few setbacks along the way with that plan and we then discussed a stage in the building where we might have had a cantilever over an eight-metre drop-off, which would have provided fantastic views but would have meant that most of the money went into a concrete slab. There were other plans drawn up to put a large building on the top half of the site, but it actually did not fit and went over the boundary lines. Eventually we got to the point where the project that now stands was put in place. I think everyone involved with the school would say without hesitation that it was the absolute best use of the $2.6 million they got from the P21 program. The brand new classrooms, community kitchen and refurbishments, particularly the refurbishments, have made the school so much better than it was just a couple of years ago. The important part is that it provided local employment in our area when it was needed most, and that is what the federal Labor government achieved in the face of the global financial crisis: local employment for the short term and local infrastructure for the long term. What should never be forgotten by anyone is that, whilst other countries spent public money bailing out banks and in some cases, especially in Europe, still are, Australia invested in our children's and our community's future.
The official opening on Saturday, 17 March 2012 was a great success and a real showcase for the school. I would like to thank school captains Nicholas McKenzie and Lucy Haley for taking me on a tour of their new facilities and showing me the internal refurbishments that were also funded, as I said, through the BER. They showed me how the school had benefitted in so many different ways and I know from listening to the principal, teachers and parents of the school that they will appreciate such an investment for many decades to come. (Time expired)
Australian Natural Disasters
Mrs MIRABELLA (Indi) (22:20): I rise to speak on a very important area of policy—that is, natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements. It should be at times that are outside the urgent time of emergency when disaster is occurring across the nation that we should look at what is flawed in the programs that administer assistance to individuals who have suffered financially from natural disasters, whether they be floods or fires. What have particularly given rise to my address this evening are some anomalies that exist in the natural disaster relief and recovery arrangements as became apparent recently with the floods in my electorate in north-east Victoria. The anomalies are as follows.
In order for certain assistance measures such as clean-up grants to be given to primary producers and small businesses, they need to reside within a shire that is classified as a category C shire under the NDRRA arrangements—that is, if you have sustained the same financial or the same physical damage to your farm and you live across the shire boundary in a shire that has not been so classified as a category C then you are precluded from accessing the assistance. If we accept the basic premise that governments should provide relief and assistance to give those who have suffered nature's wrath a helping hand, if we have decided that is a right and proper thing for government to do, then we need to make sure that we get it right. There is a very real problem here, a problem of equity, where those who have suffered the same damage but live in the wrong shire, the wrong shire being a shire that has not been classified, get nothing. It should be based on actual damage, on facts, not just plain classifications.
To this end, I have written to the Attorney-General and the Premier of Victoria, urging them to review the natural disaster relief recovery arrangements so that we can ensure that victims of flood damage in the future will have equitable access to assistance, regardless of the local government area in which they reside or where their business is. I have received a response. I have also written to the Attorney-General separately with regard to a particular constituent of mine who suffered enormous damage due to floods and is still unable to access any assistance. To this letter I have not yet received a response.
I was heartened by the Attorney-General to the extent that she said, 'I will certainly keep the situation you describe in mind as an area that may warrant review, and I look forward to taking a bipartisan approach and working collaboratively with the states and territories on improving the arrangements.' I would have liked to have seen a more immediate commitment to an actual review. An acknowledgement that there are problems is a good start, but I am disappointed that the Attorney-General has not given an indication that the government will act immediately to fix what is so obviously a flaw. I was also disappointed in another part of her letter, where she effectively says that, even if a business has sustained damage outside a category C area, that does not stop the states from helping them. The disaster relief arrangements have always been a fifty-fifty arrangement between the Commonwealth and the states, and that is not a satisfactory response. On the issue of my individual constituent, I have yet to receive a response. It was Mr Buck who suffered serious damage to his property in South Wangaratta. It was the result of the same floods that occurred in the Indigo, Towong, Shepparton and Moira shires, but because the rural city of Wangaratta was not classified category C, Mr Buck is ineligible to apply for assistance. He has estimated that the damage to his property is approximately $50,000. As you would appreciate, insurance cover does not cover this type of damage. (Time expired)
Neilly, Mrs Lola
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (22:25): George Neilly was born in 1917 in Kurri. He was educated at Maitland Boys High and became a coalminer at the age of 17. He rose through the trade union ranks to become secretary of the northern district of the miners union between 1954 and 1959. George was elected by indirect election, as we knew it in those days, to the New South Wales Legislative Council in 1954 and, on the retirement of John Crook, was elected to the Legislative Assembly in 1959, a position he held until his retirement in 1978. Three years later, the well-known Kurri identity RJ Brown having held the seat for some three years, retired and my good friend Stan Neilly was elected member for Cessnock, a position he held until 1999—although I note with a three-year lay-off following the disastrous 1988 election when Labor in New South Wales was swept from power largely due to a proposal on gun laws. But, thankfully, Stan fought his way back into the seat three years later. The names Stan and George Neilly are synonymous with Cessnock and the broader Hunter Region and, of course, with the Labor movement. But tonight I rise not to speak so much of them but of Lola Neilly, George Neilly's wife and Stan Neilly's mother.
Lola Neilly, very sadly, died on Saturday morning. She was 94 years of age. Lola Neilly, nee Wood, was an amazing woman. She was very much the matriarch of the Neilly family—the power behind the throne, if you like. In the old days, when there was no electorate office or electorate staff, Lola ran George's constituency from the shed in the backyard of their Abermain home. She was as much a politician as George, as much a politician as Stan—and maybe tougher than both of them. She was George's rock, Stan's rock and a rock to daughter Noelene, who herself proved to be an accomplished offspring.
Lola was a politician's wife, a politician's mother, a function partner for both George and Stan and a supporter and worker for a whole range of local community groups. In short, Lola Neilly was a local legend. She was someone I knew well when I was a young party activist and learnt from in many ways in those early years. She made an enormous contribution to both the party and the labour movement and to her local community. She will be sadly missed, but not forgotten.
The Neillys generally have been an outstanding family. Their contribution to the community and to politics more broadly throughout the region has been immeasurable. It is a great privilege for me to have known her, to in a sense have worked with her, although by the time I became active in the party she was a more passive activist but still someone you consulted if, for example, as a young person you were thinking about running for the local council or any other position within the party. I say, with the greatest respect, she was a person to be feared. You did not make a move unless you were confident you had Mrs Neilly's approval. They do not make them like Mrs Neilly anymore, I suspect. Again, it was a privilege to know her. Her passing is a great loss to all of us. It is my great privilege tonight to pay tribute to her contribution and to the contribution of her family.
House adjourned at 22:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Pyne to move:
That this House require the Prime Minister to explain:
(1) why the Member for Dobell has been suspended from the Labor Caucus;
(2) why the Prime Minister is able to accept his vote to support her government including in the passage of the Appropriations bill; and
(3) how she is able to deny him the presumption of innocence with respect to his membership of the Caucus but afford him such a presumption in the House to keep her in power. (Notice given 21 May 2012.)
Mr Pyne to move:
That this House: consider the statement of the Member for Dobell of 21 May 2012 with respect to the findings of Fair Work Australia in relation to his tenure as National Secretary of the Health Services Union and his candidature as Labor candidate for the seat of Dobell. (Notice given 21 May 2012.)
Mr Georganas to move:
That this House:
(1) joins the World Health Organisation in promoting World No Tobacco Day on Thursday 31 May 2012;
(2) notes that:
(a) the theme for this year's World No Tobacco Day is 'tobacco industry interference';
(b) the campaign will focus on the need to expose and counter the tobacco industry's brazen and increasingly aggressive attempts to undermine global tobacco control efforts; and
(c) tobacco use is one of the leading preventable causes of death worldwide killing nearly 6 million people each year, of which more than 600,000 are people exposed to second-hand smoke; and
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) tobacco smoking remains the single largest preventable cause of premature death and disease in Australia;
(b) smoking accounts for approximately 15,500 deaths each year and losses to the Australian economy of $31.5 billion a year;
(c) even though smokers are much better informed today about the health effects of smoking, many continue to ignore the risks with around 2.8 million Australians still smoking daily; and
(d) 1 in 2 smokers will die as a result of smoking.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Queensland Brain Institute
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:30): I was delighted to visit the Queensland Brain Institute at the University of Queensland this month for a guided tour of their state-of-the-art Centre for Ageing Dementia Research. I must thank Professor Perry Bartlett, a very distinguished scientist in the field of cellular and molecular neuroscience, a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and the Director of QBI. I also thank Professor Jurgen Gotz, Director of the institute's Centre for Ageing Dementia Research.
Alzheimer's can have a debilitating effect on sufferers and their families. With Australia's ageing population, deaths attributed to Alzheimer's disease increased by 66 per cent between 2000 and 2008 and the disease is now the third leading cause of death in Australia. Australia faces a very grim future in dealing with the effects of dementia, 70 per cent of which is caused by Alzheimer's disease. There are currently almost 280,000 Australians living with dementia, a figure that increases by almost 1,600 new cases each week. This already frightening statistic is expected to grow to almost 7,400 new cases each week by 2050.
Currently we do not have any cures or significant preventative measures to deal with this disease. According to Access Economics, increasing funding from $23 million to $49 million per year could save Australia more than $4 trillion. Clearly there is a very urgent need for directed research programs aimed at delivering outcomes to treat and prevent dementia. And we must act now. Unfortunately, this Labor government has failed to provide sufficient funding for symptomatic treatment for mental illness and ageing diseases. The government announced $270 million of spending in the so-called reform of the aged-care system, but has not detailed to Australians how important research into dementia and its effects will be funded.
Since QBI was founded in 2003, the researchers have produced leading edge discoveries. Professors Bartlett and Gotz have been published many times in the leading journals Nature, Journal of Neuroscience, Cell and Neuron, with world-first discoveries in neurogenesis and other ways that pathogenic molecules cause disease. This research is opening up important new therapeutic approaches for disease treatment. Professor Bartlett has worked tirelessly to attract philanthropic investment, so much so that for every dollar received from the Queensland government they have attracted $1.76 in additional investment from other sources. The institute itself has also attracted more than $87 million in additional economic investment to Queensland. Their efforts are to be applauded, but the federal government has not acknowledged QBI's amazing success in fund raising and research. It has not directly given a single cent to CADR. The Minister for Health and Ageing has indicated to the centre that it should apply through the NHMRC process. However, this process does not provide the impetus needed to allow the centre to build capacity in the establishment phase.
I will continue to fight for this issue, as it is absolutely fundamental to the future health of Australians that dementia and Alzheimer's research be made one of the top priorities of research funding. The centre at UQ is the only dedicated centre for age and dementia research in Australia. I fear that, come the end of 2012, without federal government support there will not be a single centre dedicated to Alzheimer's research in this country.
ACT Volunteer of the Year Awards
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (10:33): Last week was National Volunteering Week and on Tuesday the ACT Volunteer of the Year Awards were held here in Canberra. These awards, which are organised by Volunteering ACT, are a wonderful chance to recognise the important work that volunteers do in our community. I am pleased to report that the 2012 ACT Volunteer of the Year award went to Dr Mary Webb for her contribution to community service. For over 10 years Dr Webb has provided invaluable volunteer service to those people in the Canberra community with multiple sclerosis. As a person with MS herself, she has brought understanding of chronic conditions and a positive can-do attitude to every service and program with which she has been involved.
The 2012 ACT Volunteer Team of the Year award was awarded to the ACT Adult Migrant English Program home tutor scheme. Up to 150 active volunteer tutors make up the team that works within the home tutor scheme, and often the tutor acts as a conduit between the student and the wider community. With tutor help, participants learn to drive, they learn to look for work, they visit local attractions and perhaps they become volunteers themselves. Other recipients in the individual category included David Hutchison, who was the winner in the arts and heritage category; Dot Mills, highly commended in the care and social support category; Max Kimber, winner in the community care and social support category; Neville Tomkins, highly commended in the community service category; Geraldine O'Connor, highly commended in the education, science and technology category; Hazel Giesecke, winner in the education, science and technology category; David Williams, winner in the health category; Di Evans, highly commended in the sport and recreation category; Gordon McLoughlin, winner in the sport and recreation category; and Frank Brown, winner in the environment category.
The other recipients of the volunteering team awards were the Talking Newspaper service in Cooma and Narooma, a great service that got a highly commended in the community care and social support category; St Vincent de Paul Night Patrol Team, again a great service, winner in the community care and social support category; ANU Volunteers, who got a highly commended in the community service category; Pegasus Hippotherapy Team, who got a highly commended in the health category; the Standford Course Peer Leaders, who were the winners in the health category; and the YMCA of Canberra Runners Club Committee, winner in the sport and recreation category.
I would like to congratulate all the recipients of this year's ACT Volunteer of the Year awards and thank them all for their tireless and selfless contributions to the Canberra community. Thank you very much.
Swan Electorate: Traffic
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:36): Towards the end of last year, I was visited by an action group of the Hubert Street residents concerned about the traffic debacle on their street. The situation has been caused by changes to the speed limit on the Albany Highway, rendering the highway less efficient and resulting in vehicles choosing to bypass the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit in favour of the parallel residential street, Hubert Street. Having had my electorate office at the corner of Hubert and Mint for 4½ years, I can confirm this to be the case, with many cars cutting through to get to Shepparton Road or Oats Street faster and avoid the Albany Highway, which has been substantially slowed down. As you would expect, with the increase in traffic volume with people who are trying to get to their destination faster, residents have been finding cars travelling at high speeds and turning the road into a busy thoroughfare, detracting from what had been a quiet, residential street. Statistics show that since 2005 traffic levels on Hubert have increased by 50 per cent and other comparable streets in the area carry less than half its volume. As one resident, Treena Lewis, said in the local paper:
On Albany Highway, police sit there almost every morning and pick people up, so what people do is they nip down Hubert Street and cut through here, you can do 50 kilometres an hour down here and only 40 on the Albany Highway.
She said 85 per cent of the people are speeding over 50 kilometres per hour. While the 40 kilometre per hour zone enforcement may or may not have its merits, it is clear that the decision has had an unwelcome impact on this residential street and that some modifications to road layout are required to protect the residents.
The residents approached me as they felt that no-one had been listening to their concerns. In the past, the council had been asked by the residents to demonstrate their level of concern in the community via a petition. The residents gathered 66 signatures and felt they were getting somewhere, but things just disappeared into the ether. I was pleased to receive the group in the my electorate office and committed to representing their concerns to the authorities. A day after the meeting, I met with the CEO and the mayor of the council and put their case forward. The CEO made some commitments, one of which was an independent study to monitor the traffic. This independent study has now been completed, but it has been disappointed for the residents. I have written to the CEO with my concerns. The report has one major assumption. The report says on page 4:
It was assumed that all other vehicles travelling along only part of the route were deemed to be locals accessing the road network and not 'Rat Running'.
I think most of the locals in this area would disagree with that assumption, which the report's sole conclusion is based on. The result was a false conclusion in the report that the majority of the traffic using Hubert Street was not through traffic, when, as residents have said, almost all traffic between Miller and Mint streets does not go to or from residential properties but instead travels from end to end. I note that action group coordinator Rob Howard said in the Canning Examiner on 9 November:
We've now got universal support in terms of the residents, which is good and we've demonstrated that for council.
I will continue to support the residents.
Victoria's TAFE Sector
Mr MARLES (Corio—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) (10:44): I would like to talk today about the decision by the Baillieu Liberal government to cut $300 million from Victoria's TAFE sector.
This decision, announced this month in the Victorian state budget, is breathtaking in its stupidity and its short-sightedness. Australia has a shortage of skilled labour; that is without question. Any decision to cut funding from the institutions that teach the very skills we so desperately need really does beggar belief. It shows the Baillieu government as a mean-spirited government which is lacking in vision.
In Geelong, this cut in funding will cost our TAFE provider—the Gordon—nearly $15 million next year. To say that is a disappointment is an understatement. Not only does it mean some courses may not be offered next year it also means there will be staff cuts. Under the new regime, the Gordon will now get the same money as if it were a private training provider. It will no longer be funded for its public policy and community work. That to me is a tragedy, because it completely ignores the proactive role the Gordon plays within Geelong and across our region.
Every city, particularly regional cities, has its iconic institutions that are woven into the fabric of the place. That is the Gordon in Geelong. Through its 125-year history it has trained plumbers, electricians, builders, hairdressers, chefs and artists. The Gordon Wool School began training wool classes when Geelong's fortunes and the country's fortunes were tightly wound up in that valuable rural commodity, wool. These days the Gordon offers training in laboratory technology and health sciences, reflecting Geelong's future as a clean economy with a focus on health provision and scientific research.
The Gordon's journey is our own city's journey. In 1918, when servicemen returned from the First World War it was the Gordon that helped them reskill for the jobs of the 20th century. When International Harvester closed in 1982 and 2,500 workers were laid off, it was the Gordon that helped those workers find a new place for themselves in a changing job market.
The Gillard government knows the value of education and skills training. As a government, we have been prepared to put our money where our mouth is. Federal Labor provided nearly $8 million for the expansion of the construction industry facility at the Gordon's east campus and another $2 million was provided so the city campus could go wireless. Each year the federal government gives on average $360 million to Victoria's TAFE sector, because we know that the best way to set this country up for a strong future is to improve our knowledge and to develop our skills. Last week, a Productivity Commission report gave our reforms in the vocational education training system a very big tick.
The Gordon is a training institution that has grown with our city, responded to our needs and provided the skills required to take us forward. The Baillieu government has failed miserably to recognise that.
Road Infrastructure
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (10:42): I rise to continue my strong advocacy for local infrastructure projects. I invited Warren Truss MP, Leader of the Nationals and shadow infrastructure and transport minister, to Hasluck to view firsthand what is needed in my electorate.
The first site we visited was the Berkshire-Roe Highway intersection in Forrestfield. This project is one that I have been fighting to have fixed since I took the seat 18 months ago. There are two facets to this project that need to be done to alleviate congestion and danger to motorists. Firstly, the outdated and underused footbridge that spans Roe Highway needs to be removed. Heavy haulage vehicles transporting mining equipment and other manufacturing transportation heading north towards the Great Northern Highway just scrape under the bridge or, if they are too large, they are diverted through Forrestfield, a great inconvenience to the community, truck drivers and the shire of Kalamunda. The additional cost of raising the powerlines so the trucks can pass through underneath is borne by the industry.
Recently, there have been near misses, truck rollovers and accidents at the intersection, and this needs urgent attention. Secondly, the intersection needs to see Hale Road aligned and a better traffic management system implemented. I will continue to work hard behind the scenes to lobby local, state and federal government for action on this intersection.
As I have said in this chamber before, Western Australia shoulders the burden of the mining boom. Along with Queensland, it receives significantly lower amounts of the infrastructure spend. North of this intersection is another important infrastructure project that needs urgent attention and funding: the Lloyd Street extension in Midland. Extending Lloyd Street by building a bridge over the industrial zoned area to the south in Hazelmere creates more sustainable employment options for local residents removes commuters from the Roe and Great Eastern Highways and will encourage private commercial investment into the area. I took Mr Truss to meet with the CEO of the City of Swan, the mayor and deputy mayor and the CEO of the Swan Chamber of Commerce, so he could see firsthand how important this project would be to Midland. I thank them for their support. I will continue to work hard behind the scenes with my local and state government colleagues to help make this project a reality.
Finally, I took Mr Warren Truss to the Nicholson Road-Garden Street intersection. This is an ongoing issue for the people in Southern River, Gosnells, Thornbury and Huntingdale areas. Tens of thousands of vehicles use this roundabout every day, and it is notorious for its congestion when things are running smoothly, let alone if there is a minor accident or a freight train, which can cause up to a 10-minute delay. We were met at the rail line by the state member for Southern River, Mr Peter Abetz MLA, and the City of Gosnells mayor, Dave Griffiths. There we discussed the ongoing issue. When the shadow transport and infrastructure minister left at the end of the day—which was a long day—he was acutely aware of the importance of road infrastructure needs in Hasluck. The aforementioned projects are crucial to the ongoing prosperity of my constituents, and I will fight to see them realised in the future.
Calwell Electorate: Music Education
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (10:45): I am pleased to speak in the chamber today about a fabulous development with a program in my electorate that has created a new world of music for students at Meadows Primary School. Recently I had the pleasure of being at the Broadmeadows school when it received $50,000 from the National Australia Bank's Schools First scheme grant for its musical initiative in establishing a partnership with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. Meadows Primary School received the grant for creating a program called the Pizzicato Effect, which runs for half an hour every week. Now in its third year, the popular program has taught more than 90 students in grades 2, 3 and 4 about classical music and playing string instruments. I had the pleasure of hearing one of the school's musical presentations and was very impressed by what the students had achieved. Helen Hatzikalis, the school coordinator, said that the program had come about at the school after a chance meeting with Melbourne Symphony Orchestra's education outreach manager, Ms Katherine Kerezsi. Of course, for our local community the rest is, as they say, history.
In the 2½ years that have passed since then, close to 300 students have participated in the Pizzicato Effect program. This program is made all the more unique by the fact that Calwell is one of the most socioeconomically challenged electorates in Australia, and the music provided by the students at Meadows Primary School is usually only heard in Melbourne's most exclusive schools. So, when news did break that the school was about to receive a $50,000 grant for its program, Ms Hatzikalis said the school wanted to show the impact it had had on their students and to highlight the progress of their learning. In particular they wanted to highlight the students' instilled sense of self-confidence. Another achievement of the program was that parents had developed a sense of pride in their children for achieving things that they themselves would never have dreamed of providing for them. Parents had seen their children perform at the Melbourne Town Hall with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. Their children had visited the Governor of Victoria and had been invited to events they would not ever have thought of attending. Principal Rob Greenacre said he was proud to see everyone coming together to make the program a success.
From my perspective, the program is a testament to the fact that school education needs to offer programs that extend beyond the confines of classrooms and beyond the rigours of pen-and-paper curriculum. Schools need to provide programs that challenge more than just the academic and nurture the development of the whole child, their immediate family and the wider community. The results, as seen at Meadows Primary School in my electorate, speak for themselves. I congratulate the staff and the school for their wonderful dedication and wish all my lovely young students the best of luck as they go through this very valuable program.
Durack Electorate: Australia Post
Mr HAASE (Durack) (10:48): I rise today to bring the attention of the chamber to the postal situation in north-western Western Australia. To explain the circumstances, I will give you the background. For $20 an hour you can hire a truck driver in Perth; the same truck driver will cost you between $50 and $90 an hour in the Pilbara. The federal government is collecting a huge amount of revenue from the commercial mining activity that is taking place in north-western Australia, specifically the Pilbara, yet there is no proper consideration of the necessary additional wages to employ postal staff.
The Dampier post office has just closed. Dampier, often the largest tonnage port in all Australia, is bringing in revenue hand over fist for this nation, yet a government agency, Australia Post, cannot provide postal services in Dampier. People have to travel 20 kilometres to pick up their mail from Karratha. It is simply not good enough in this day and age, when the money that is rolling in from the Pilbara operations is absolutely enormous. The Newman post office—Newman being the heart of iron ore country in the Pilbara here in Australia, of course—has just stopped its mail service delivery. We have a standard cost of a stamp in Australia so as to provide a universal service right across Australia regardless of the location, yet the Newman post office cannot provide a postal delivery service to the residents of Newman. Lo and behold, with people working 12-hour shifts from 6 am till 6 pm, they cannot get to the post office, and if they do to collect their mail then they find that there are insufficient counter staff to staff the post office for the hours that are necessary to provide that standard postal service to my people in Newman.
It is time that this government realised that additional costs need to be paid to provide a service in areas where you are paying up to $2,000 a week for a house and you cannot get accommodation without huge amounts of money. Where you collect huge amounts of revenue in a particular location and you are providing a service, you have to be prepared to pay the additional money to recruit the staff to provide the service. It is simply not good enough that residents in the Pilbara are being deprived of standard services that ought to be provided by good governance, considering that additional money has to be paid. If the rates are between four and five times higher for services in the Pilbara, the government needs to know that and to pay the rates necessary to provide the standard service.
Asylum Seekers
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (10:51): It is not often that the geopolitical situation meets the local in such a cruel and devastating way as we have seen over the last couple of weeks. Yesterday in Sri Lanka they noted the third anniversary of the cessation of the internal conflict, yet the week before last at a suburban primary school in my electorate—at Mill Park Primary—two young kids were picked up by their mother and stepfather. They were taken with those parents to a meeting at the immigration department. The stepfather waited in the waiting room as the mother and two children went to be interviewed, as they thought. They returned to the waiting room to inform the stepfather that they were to be sent to Villawood detention centre, the mother having got an ASIO security clearance that did not warrant her remaining in community detention. Think of the circumstances of that new family. A woman that had come to Australia and was adjudicated as a genuine refugee now finds that, because of this ASIO assessment, she can no longer stay in the community. At present, she is in a housing unit at Villawood. She is under severe pressure. The two young boys have not returned to school yet, and this is having a devastating effect on them.
We have to raise the question: why is it that we continue to not have a procedure where the ASIO clearances can be questioned? There have been a number of suggestions. At the ALP National Conference it was voted unanimously that the government required a national security legislation monitor to propose how adverse security assessments of asylum seekers could be reviewed in a way that protected ASIO sources. The parliamentary inquiry into Australia's immigration detention network also asked that we look at ways that the ASIO Act could be amended to allow for administrative review of these assessments without compromising national security. As the Age editorial of last Friday says:
The process for review would need to balance human rights against national security, but the task is hardly beyond the capacity of Australia's experts.
For this family, I hope that we can find a way that we can get through this mire. Why is it that two young children have been radicalised by a decision made by an agency of this government? I hope that the government takes note of the situations like that of Ranjini Perinparasa and does something to allow these clearances to be looked at so we can balance the human rights and national security requirements.
Duke of Edinburgh Awards
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (10:54): It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge six incredible Territorians who volunteer their time to the Duke of Edinburgh Awards or, as it is affectionately known, the 'Dukes Mob' program. I have spoken in this place before about the Dukes Mob. Like any organisation, volunteers are the backbone and, without volunteers, the Dukes Mob would cease to exist.
Kerry Scappini is involved with the Dukes Mob through Henbury School. It was great to meet Kerry last year when she bought some of her Dukes Mob team to Parliament House. Kerry has been involved with the Dukes Mob for five years. She became involved because Henbury needed someone and she thought it would be an interesting challenge. Kerry says she loves setting challenges for the students and watching them succeed. Her message to our youth is: 'You are capable of amazing things; don't let people's thoughts stand in your way.'
Spencer Harvey is from the Essington School Darwin, which is another wonderful example of a school with exceptional staff and students. I also have met Spencer and the students love him. He has a great attitude and a fantastic outlook on life. Spencer has been involved with the Dukes Mob for over four years, becoming involved with the Dukes Mob because he believes in what the program offers young people. Spencer's message to our youth is: 'Get out and get involved.' For me, that sums up what Dukes Mob is all about.
Emily Corso from Sanderson Middle School has been involved with the Dukes Mob for seven years. Emily first got involved with the Dukes Mob in 2002 as a participant in the program herself. She enjoyed it so much she became a coordinator. Emily says she believes so strongly in the joy and opportunities that the Dukes Mob offers. Emily's message to our youth is: 'Take hold of the opportunities life throws at you.'
Shaun Theiber from the Essington International Senior College at Charles Darwin University has been involved in the program for five years. Shaun says he got involved with the Dukes Mob because it seemed like a worthwhile program that the school should be involved in. Shaun's message to our youth is: 'Everyone's destiny is greatness. All you need to do is go out there and define it.'
I would also like to acknowledge Nicholas Tait from Kormilda College and Majeed Mogharreban from Ambrose Business Solutions who are also involved with the Dukes Mob. I am proud that we have such dedicated volunteers who support and inspire our youth. On behalf our community, I thank all of these people for their contribution to the Dukes Mob and to the young people in our community.
Education Funding
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (10:57): Not just content with slashing $500 million from Victoria's education sector last year, on Tuesday, 1 May 2012 the Victorian state budget delivered another series of cuts to the education sector. One of these cuts was the slashing of the school proportion of the Education Maintenance Allowance. The EMA provides financial assistance to families on low incomes to help with the cost of essential educational items such as textbooks, stationery, uniforms and excursions.
The electorate of McEwen represents 133 schools, and I have been inundated with letters, phone calls and meetings with school councils, principals and parents, who tell me that these cuts will have another great impact on schools' abilities to deliver services to our most vulnerable students.
I am a firm believer that every child deserves every opportunity to succeed at school no matter where they live or what their socioeconomic circumstances are. The EMA provided support for low-income families and their local schools but, without the schools component, many schools are being left with black holes in their budget.
The Liberals' cuts to the Education Maintenance Allowance will hit disadvantaged and rural school communities the hardest at a time when they need support to deliver every opportunity to our kids for their future. We have already seen how the Nationals become the curtailing wimps of the coalition as regional schools and TAFEs get hit the hardest with loss of opportunities and loss of jobs and, while all this is happening, the federal coalition members in this place sit on the sidelines and will not stand up for country kids and their futures.
The Baillieu government has said the discontinuation of the schools component of the EMA will be partially offset by the redirection of equity based funding to schools. This is where the Liberal premier does his sleight of hand, because schools like Sunbury West Primary School and Sunbury College do not receive equity funding, so they will receive nothing.
This cut will impact on schools with students from low-income families, the very people who need the support the most. This Liberal government either does not care or does not understand how important these programs are to many families in the McEwen electorate. It also means that schools in my electorate would also have less access to support services such as counselling and speech pathology.
The Liberal government has also slashed $29 million from funding for school support officers—a program that helps vulnerable students and helps keep them engaged.
The state government, after ripping more than half a billion dollars out of education, says their priority is to build—funnily enough—a $500 million prison. That is the Baillieu government's plan for education in Victoria.
Not just satisfied with kicking low-income families, the Baillieu government has also chosen to dump the School Start program, which supported low-income families with children entering prep or year 7. Given the Baillieu government last year means tested this bonus, this further savage cut will hit hardest families who can least afford it.
I cannot recall any nation or state growing or prospering by slashing their educational opportunities, but this is what the Liberals are expecting Victorians to swallow. Just imagine how things would be if the Liberals got hold of education in the national parliament and, as the shadow Treasurer said, were to end the age of entitlement.
BILLS
Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson) (11:00): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme has been the most successful dental program in Australia's history. Over 17 million services have been provided to approximately one million patients since 2007. So one must ask the question: why would the government seek to discredit this scheme? The answer is simply that Tony Abbott, as health minster, introduced the scheme.
Nearly 12,000 dental practitioners have provided services under the scheme. Their patients have chronic health conditions and many have not seen a dentist in years. The dental problems, often complex, risk exacerbating an underlying chronic health condition. The services provided by these dentists have ensured timely access to treatment, which has greatly improved the health and quality of life of their patients.
Dentists treated patients after receiving a referral from a general practitioner and mostly did so at no cost to the patient. Whilst many dentists had never had any involvement with Medicare previously, they appreciated the enormous benefit of the scheme for their patients. Despite claims of expenditure blow-outs, the average claim per patient is $1,716, well below the allowable $4,250.
Unfortunately, the goodwill of dental practitioners and the success of the scheme for patients are being seriously undermined by the actions of the government. This bill will require the minister to remedy a serious situation facing dental practitioners who have participated in the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The practitioners concerned are being ordered to fully reimburse Medicare as a result of minor administrative oversights.
The government establishment an audit taskforce in June 2010 after its attempts to close the scheme were rejected by the Senate. There is no argument against a transparent and appropriate audit process to detect cases of fraud, misuse of taxpayers' funds or the provision of inappropriate services. However, the situation this bill seeks to redress is where dentists have been found to be non-compliant and action has been pursued against them for minor, technical mistakes with paperwork. In most cases, the dentists being caught by the audit process have provided appropriate services to patients in need but merely did not comply fully with a technical requirement to provide general practitioners with treatment plans, and to provide patients with treatment plans and quotations for services prior to commencing treatment. This is not fraud.
It is important to remember that this was the first interaction most dentists had with Medicare. In many cases, dentists attempted to rectify the situation as soon as they became aware of the requirement. Some dentists, once aware, immediately sent treatment plans to GPs before an audit had even commenced.
In recognition of this, investigating compliance officers have in some cases recommended that an 'educational letter' be sent to the dentist and no further action be required. That would seem to be the sensible course of action. Incredibly, even when that option has been recommended by the compliance officers, dentists still received letters of demand for repayment of Medicare benefits. Dentists have had their reputations ruined, some are facing bankruptcy, and professional trust in government funded dental schemes is being destroyed as a result of this process.
Last year Minister Plibersek, the then Minister for Human Services, was reported in the media as having told the Australian Dental Association that 'there is no scope for the Department of Human Services to not follow through on recovery action'. The argument being relied on by the government is that section 10, subsection 2, of the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007 provides that the government has no choice but to pursue full recovery action in even the most minor, technical non-compliance cases. There are a number of problems with this argument.
In evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee inquiry earlier this month, an Assistant Secretary of the Department of Human Services said:
The minister has asked us to advise the committee that, notwithstanding the government's intention to close the scheme completely, he accepts that some but not all of the concerns that have been raised do require further consideration and that is a matter that is now underway within normal departmental processes …
While it is somewhat a relief that the government now at least acknowledges that there is problem, it is perplexing that the ministers responsible still refuse to do anything about it.
There have been 94 audits completed and 65 practitioners have been found to be non-compliant according to evidence provided by the Department of Human Services—that is, 70 per cent of dentists audited are in breach of the scheme. At additional estimates hearings in February, evidence was provided showing that of the dentists found to be non-compliant, over 80 per cent had provided all the services that were claimed. So on the government's own figures, the vast majority—over 80 per cent—of dentists found to be non-compliant, and potentially labelled as rorters, have provided the services claimed. That 80 per cent of dentists are being pursued, some to the point of bankruptcy and professional ruin, because forms were not sent on the correct date.
Despite the government claiming that there is no room for discretion in applying the law, there have been a limited number of instances where there has been education action and no recovery has occurred. However, this has not been consistently applied. Submissions to the inquiry and also to my office provide many examples where this should have occurred but has not. Nevertheless, it does indicate that there is capacity to apply sensible discretion, which, for whatever reason, has not been pursued.
Minister Plibersek even advised the ADA on 29 July 2011 that: 'Where the dental practitioner is found to be generally compliant with the requirements of the CDDS, this will generally be the end of the audit.' Unfortunately, the government does not appear to have applied this advice with any degree of consistency or predictability.
Even if the minister was correct originally, and there is no discretion in applying the relevant sections of the determination in these instances, the most obvious solution is for the minister to amend the determination. It is not unusual for any government to make technical amendments to legislation or regulations occasionally to address an unusual policy outcome. The government has no excuse in this situation. There is a very serious problem with how this audit program is being administered—and the Department of Human Services and the minister have even belatedly acknowledged those concerns. More sensible discretion needs to be applied to distinguish the very few practitioners who have committed fraud from those who have made minor and relatively inconsequential administrative errors. If the government believes it cannot, for whatever reason, ensure sensible discretion is applied, then appropriate changes should be made to the determination to at least provide a sensible outcome.
Another argument put by the government is that practitioners should have been aware of every detail in the legislation and regulations of the scheme. Indeed, Minister Plibersek said on 12 October 2011: 'We have written to every dentist in Australia telling them about the scheme and the requirements of the scheme.' However, the Department of Health and Ageing has stated that registration databases were not used to communicate with dentists but, rather, the databases of the Australian Dental Association, the Australian Dental Prosthetics Association and Medicare Australia were used. Therefore, by their own admission, not all practitioners received the information, let alone been made aware of the technical paperwork requirements. The ADA has advised that there would have been 13,000 registered practitioners at the time, but only 10,000 booklets were sent out. Further, the ADA advised that a survey of practitioners found that over 30 per cent had never received any information on the scheme and, even as late as 2010, 80 per cent were unaware of the administrative compliance requirements and penalties.
It is estimated that a dentist keeps only about 30 per cent of the Medicare benefit for providing a service. The remainder of the revenue pays for treatment and practice expenses. The demand for 100 per cent reimbursement of Medicare benefits for failure to send a form on time means that dentists have to repay money for treatment that has been provided and for which expenses have been incurred. The financial consequences of this action for those concerned are dire.
In the interests of commonsense and fairness, a solution needs to be found for the 80 per cent of practitioners audited who have acted in good faith but been found non-compliant. This bill provides a reasonable and measured response. It requires the minister to take action to redress the inequity that has arisen, and which could arise, from the operation of section 10, subsection 2 of the determination. The minister must take action within 30 days of the commencement of the act.
The inequity defined in the bill is the requirement for the practitioner to repay Medicare benefits because they did not, before providing the services, give patients, in writing, plans of courses of treatment; give patients quotations for dental services; and give copies or written summaries of the plans to the general practitioners who referred the patients.
The bill requires the minister to take one or more of the following actions: amend the determination; provide for the Commonwealth to waive its right to payments of debts arising under section 129AC of the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to dental services; provide for act-of-grace payments to be made in relation to the dental services; provide for the inequity to be redressed through the income tax system; and take such other action as is necessary to redress the inequity.
Schedule 1 of the bill provides for amendments to the determination as an option for the minister to provide redress. Specifically, the proposed amendment states that subsection 2 does not apply in relation to a dental service if, at the time the service was provided, the practitioner did not know about that subsection, or did not fully understand or appreciate the effect of that subsection or was under a reasonable misapprehension about the need to comply with that subsection. The amendment is to apply to a dental services provided before the commencement of the schedule and for which a Medicare benefit was not payable because of the operation of section 10.
The bill also requires the minister to prepare a report of the action that has been taken to redress the inequity that has arisen, and which could arise, from the operation of section 10 and cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each house of the parliament.
Labor ministers have long made clear their intention to close the Medicare scheme. The policy justifications have been flimsy at best. No attempt has been made to refine the scheme and address issues as a government funded initiative would normally require. Government rhetoric has been instead focused on sabotaging and undermining a successful program that was initiated by Tony Abbott as health minister. The government is more concerned about the politics of dental care than good policy.
The government has even dumped its own planned replacement for the scheme. In 2008, Labor proposed the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The program promised one million services by providing funding to the states and territories. The Commonwealth did not assess the capacity of the public dental workforce to provide the services. In reality, the number of services provided would have been significantly less than that promised. Irrespective, it would not have come close to matching the 12 million services that have been provided under the Medicare scheme.
Labor never delivered its much promised Commonwealth Dental Health Program and it was finally scrapped in this year's budget. Despite the government's rhetoric about dental health, there was only about $60 million in net new funding out of the $500 million announced in this budget—it was simply made up of a re-announcement of existing measures. More promises have again been made but it remains to be seen whether anything will be delivered.
Any government funded dental scheme is going to require the participation and cooperation of the dental professions. The government is in the process of destroying the trust of those professionals. Dr Johnson, a particularly brave doctor from Tasmania who has to pay back $24,000, which is three times more than she received as an employee in a dental practice, spoke for many in the profession when she said, 'There is now no chance of getting a public dental scheme off the ground because dentists as a whole will no longer trust the government.'
This bill should not be required. No government and no minister should have let good intentioned health professionals be treated in this way. The bill requires the minister to redress this intolerable situation and provides a range of sensible options for doing so. Any member of parliament who genuinely supports fairness and common sense in administrative processes, who wants to ensure patients continue to have access to timely dental health care and who recognises the importance of the dental health professions in meeting this growing area of health need, must support this bill.
In closing I want to appeal in particular to the Independents. I think they are people of good intent, particularly those who have had a great injustice delivered upon them by this government. The Independents have dentists in their regions, and dentists across regional Australia have been affected, in particular, by the measures contained in the government's rather draconian approach to this problem.
As I have outlined today, for the majority of dentists the work has been completed to a high standard and to the patients' satisfaction. The issue for dentists in electorates right around the country, including those held by Independent members in this parliament, needs to be addressed and it is able to be addressed by this bill. This bill does not go over the top. It provides, as I say, a measured and reasonable approach. It provides a solution for the dentists to continue to practise, particularly in regional, rural and outer metropolitan areas. That is why I think the Independents should support the bill that has been proposed today.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (11:15): Bills that deal with people's dental hygiene and dental health are extremely important to all of us. I have a seat, which is one of the oldest in the country, where well over 20 per cent of the population is 65 and over. The issue of dental health and dental care has been one very close to my heart for many, many years, as I know it is for the member for Shortland, who is in the chamber with us. From day one when I was elected, constituents would come to see me to tell me that they were concerned that there was no scheme in place, that there was very little in the way of dental healthcare and that they would have to go on the public waiting list.
Prior to 1996 the Keating government had put in place a Commonwealth scheme for dental care. One of the very first acts of the former Liberal government, when they came into government in 1996, was to cut that scheme, which put thousands and thousands of people on the public waiting list and extended that waiting list blow-out to, I think, about 700,000 people at one stage. We had many people, especially people who were pensioners, who were frail and who had bad health, on waiting lists for years and years with their teeth rotting, being in pain and deteriorating very quickly, which caused other issues and problems. I raised this issue many, many times whilst in opposition. All we were told was that it had nothing to do with the then government and to go and see the state government.
My view has always been that, when you break an arm, you go to hospital or to your doctor and you will be looked after. When you break a tooth, you could be in just as much pain and it could be just as detrimental to your health, yet no-one wants to know about it. So this is a very important issue.
For many years we have been talking about these particular issues. I know that the Australian government understands the importance of providing timely, affordable and high-quality oral healthcare to Australians. It has long been the Gillard government's policy to close the chronic disease dental scheme and to replace it with a new Commonwealth dental health program. This is because the chronic disease dental scheme, while providing the services for some parts of the population, is not well targeted and does not provide assistance to access dental services for Australians most in need. Many of those whom I spoke about earlier from 1996 onwards were people most in need. The government's proposal for the CDHP would provide additional public dental services for pensioners and for concession card holders.
However the Senate has twice prevented closure of the CDDS, which means that the government has been unable to implement this program and the scheme continues to operate. As I said, for years in opposition I would raise the issue of dental care, I would raise the issue of dental hygiene and all we got back was, 'It's got nothing to do with the federal government. Go to your state government and complain.' So it is quite ironic that the first time we hear anything about dental health is through this particular private member's bill, the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012, where the opposition want to give a free pass to the dentists. What about all those mums and dads out there, battling with school fees, with the rising cost of living—those people in need? They go on about them receiving the family payments et cetera. We have an opposition that says they should pay back the funds to which they were not entitled, even under financial strain, under the family package payments that were announced last week. But here we have them saying that those people who have perhaps breached should pay back funds through their taxes. The majority of dentists are fine, upstanding people and we need them, but certainly investigations have taken place and we have seen that this particular area is an area that needs to be scrutinised. It is just like anyone else—when you are given that amount of money to go to the dentist to have your teeth fixed, they need to be done—and where investigations have been done, where there have been breaches they have been asked to pay back the money. So it is interesting to see today that the first time the opposition have come to this place to talk about dental services is when they are seeking to pay money back to dentists.
This is a big, big issue. It is a huge issue in terms of ensuring that we provide services for the public that require the services of dental healthcare. This government provided around $2.27 billion, which has been claimed under this particular scheme. It commenced in 2007. We have come up with another scheme which will ensure that those in need go off that list and that will ensure that they have their teeth and their dental hygiene looked after.
We have an opposition which, through this private member's bill, wishes to give a free pass to one section of our society which does not need a free pass, which does not need overpayment from the Commonwealth. That is what this is all about. They should be more able than your average age pensioner, or family or disabled pensioner to pay back where breaches have been found. There is over $21 million owed to the Commonwealth. Over $21 million of public funds have been received when they should not have been. It is pretty simple; it is not rocket science. Now the opposition says the government should not worry about that—let it go, just let it slide. That is a double standard and the double standard is shocking. It is almost unbelievable.
The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is an animal of the conservative government of John Howard and here we are saying that we want to pay back money for breaches that are owed to the Commonwealth, which is taxpayers' money. This scheme was introduced into parliament and passed in the very last days of that government, with a view to giving the Australian public the impression that it was doing something about poor dental health in our community. As I said, for many years many members in the then Labor opposition raised this issue continuously only to be told not to worry about it and 'to go back and see your state government'.
While the rules have been in place for some four or so years the opposition says that they understand that dentists might not understand them. The rules are there for everyone and people should understand them. Not understanding the rules is not an excuse. They also say that they cannot be expected to know and apply the rules. Their argument is insulting to dentists and offensive to taxpayers all around the nation.
We all know that dental health is a central element of a person's health. We know that without good teeth or, more to the point, with really bad teeth, people do not eat as they need to and their health deteriorates. Nutrition is compromised and people become more exposed to contracting any number of ailments that affect members of our communities. We know it can affect cardiovascular health; it can affect a whole range of things. This is something that the public has known for many, many years. They also recognise that the states have not been up to the task of running and fully funding a dental scheme that meets community need.
As I said, there was a Commonwealth scheme, which was axed by the then Howard government as that government's very first act in government in 1996. After a decade of denial of Commonwealth responsibility by the former Liberal government, they finally buckled to community pressure and decreasing popularity and introduced their Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The government has long held the view that the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is a deeply flawed scheme. It is open to millionaires, as it is not means-tested. It is another example of conservatives' wastage of public funds through welfare for the top one per cent. In the meantime, over the Howard period we had 700,000 battlers on that waiting list. It does not ensure accountability. Dentists have been getting their public money even if they have not completed the work. Constituents have come to my office who have paid that money through the scheme and the work has not been completed or was not done properly. They go back and get told that the money has run out and that they should go to their doctor when the time is up and get another piece of paper to go back. You can see that these people have gone there in good faith with this scheme to have their dentures or their teeth fixed and you know there has been no accountability. Therefore, although one can say that dentists have been getting it wrong or do not know, there are criteria and people should follow those criteria, like any other organisation.
Broader than this, it is open to rorts. People are being treated without chronic conditions. The gesture within the scheme that it is targeted for the benefit of those with chronic conditions does not even stack up. We have had health professionals acting very unprofessionally with taxpayers' money without redress or penalty. This government's audit of the scheme has shown the scheme to be not working properly. And now the opposition want the government and the Australian taxpayer to wave off that manipulation that has been exposed. We have talked about $21 million. That is a lot of taxpayers' money.
The opposition wants us to adopt their position: if you are a pensioner, the government will get every cent that has been paid in error, but if you are a dentist, don't worry about it—keep the thousands of dollars delivered for each and every patient, because we're not worrying about it. But, if you are a pensioner and you have been paid one cent over the amount that has been on to you, we will pursue you. This is what the opposition are saying. It is a double standard and the hypocrisy is unbelievable. It is not good enough for anyone to take public funds inappropriately and then, when caught out, say as their excuse that they did not know the rules. That does not stack up anywhere.
I would like to ask the member opposite whether he ever had a constituent, an age pensioner, who had been told that they will need to pay back hundreds of dollars to Centrelink because of some error or something that they did not know, as the dentists are saying. The pensioner pleads for his help, saying they simply cannot afford it. Has the member ever been asked for help in such a situation, and what did he say there? What would the member have said to a pensioner who said that? 'We do have rules and we need to apply those rules.' But surely we must apply the rules fairly, impartially, without favouritism—not for one section of the community but the same across the board for everyone.
I appreciate that the opposition has at least acknowledged that the scheme is an issue, because we all know it is. It is an issue. It always has been. It does not meet the basic needs of our electorates—the people who need our care. I have had so many people in my electorate of Hindmarsh crying out for dental care, for a real dental scheme, since I became the member in 2004. I have had examples of people who have performed their own dental work because they could not afford to go to a dentist and because of the list was so long. There was a report in the media about a gentleman who drank a bottle of scotch and with a pair of pliers extracted his tooth—very painful, very graphic, but true. He actually did it because he was on a list that would have taken two years to have his painful tooth looked at.
These are real issues and we really need to ensure that people get the dental scheme that they require, because, as I said at the beginning of this speech, when you break an arm you go to your doctor or the hospital and they look at it and treat it. If you break a tooth, we need to have the same form of service as we do for all our health.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (11:29): I rise to speak in support of the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012. I hold my colleague from Hindmarsh in high regard. However, I do not agree with the tenets of some of the points that he makes in terms of accountability. We have a profession that has been committed to improving the health outcomes of Australians. It does not matter where they work. I know many through various avenues and I know their commitment is extremely strong. If people take taxpayers' money and use it in a way that is not prescribed in legislation, regulation or criteria for that funding, then I have no problems with their having to repay it. But I have an issue when we make statements in this chamber that are global in context but are hypocritical in the sense of applied uniformity across various areas of government. That ranges from members of this parliament through to the pensioner that was referred to. Of course, we all see people who have issues with the way in which government services are provided and the way in which they are charged. But in this instance a profession has been brought into a model in which the administrative requirements are onerous insofar as the workload that they have in the provision of dental treatment. Sometimes it is easy, out of an audit, to take a sledgehammer approach instead of an approach that would consider each of the individual aspects that relate to a perceived rorting of a system.
The bill that is proposed by the shadow minister, the member for Dickson, is designed in the Gillard government's vindictive pursuit of dentists who have provided treatment to the neediest Australians under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The bill requires the minister for health, in conjunction with such other ministers as may be necessary, to redress past and future inequalities that arise from the operation of subsection 10(2) of the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007. How often do we hear, across the history of legislation, that we need to make technical amendments because, although the intention of a piece of legislation is honourable, the processes required for its administration has teething problems? During that period of teething problems, mistakes are made. I know from constituents who come into my office that there are often issues that arise because legislation has not been understood. They have been penalised, they have received a letter from a government agency and we have advocated, through the agency or through the relevant minister, for consideration to be given to those specific issues. Often they are addressed and they are often remedied, except those in circumstances where they have rorted and it is demonstrated that they have rorted. Eighty per cent of dentists have not deliberately rorted a system that is providing health care to those who are in need.
The member for Hindmarsh mentioned millionaires being recipients. I do not want to enter into a class war. This is about all Australians. This is about accessing services that can prevent the onset of chronic conditions because of poor dental health. Have a look inside the mouth of somebody who does not access a dentist and you will find the origins of chronic diseases that will cost much more to the health system in the longer term. In those circumstances the impact is far greater, and therefore I find it fascinating that we would pursue this end in terms of government action to claw back $21 million. What they should be doing is looking at each individual case. If there is rorting, then deal with those who rort. Where there is a genuine mistake because of an understanding—not a lack of understanding—of the processes, then we should give due diligence and consideration to ensure that we keep dentists engaged in the delivery of services to those who have the greatest need.
I often hear ministers in the main chamber talk about 'battling families' and how Labor is committed to providing services to those who have the greatest need. I have heard them say that millionaires should not receive funding for some of the programs. But I would hate to see a dental health service that has every intention of providing beneficial outcomes for the health of every Australian diminished because government is proposing to take a sledgehammer approach. I participated in the whole health reform. That was about no blame. That was about shifting the blame game and looking at practical approaches to the health needs of Australians where there is a continuous, seamless flow between each of the sectors in order for health to be provided.
The Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill would seek an end to the injustice Labor appears determined to inflict upon the nation's dentists and dental professionals. The bill will require the minister to halt demands for repayment that Medicare is issuing to hundreds of dentists for a technical breach of the law.
Dentists are facing demands to repay all Medicare benefits they have received, despite having provided full courses of treatment. If I take the proposition by the member for Hindmarsh about rorting or that a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge should be applied in this instance, then let me share with you something that I listened to with great interest on a radio station in Western Australia. Under the BER program, where subcontractors to builders were not receiving their payments, they discovered when they approached the Commonwealth department responsible was that the companies had submitted affidavits saying that they had paid their subcontractors when in fact they had not. Let me also say that those agencies are not prepared to follow through with those breaches that are deliberative and are not prepared to tackle an issue that is absolutely wrong and has a stench to it. Yet, with dentists, we are prepared to make sure that they repay for services provided.
If we damage this scheme and damage the capacity for people to access services that will make a difference to their health, then oral and dental infections will increase. People's capacity to access dental services will be problematic. If I were one of those dentists affected, I would be less likely to want to play ball and be part of a Commonwealth program, not trusting a government, because 85 per cent of dental services are rendered by private dentists who service about 12 million Australians annually. Seven million of the other 10 million are eligible for public dental care, but what is received is approximately 1.5 million occasions of service annually. We should not diminish the need. We should really out of an audit and, having been involved with audits, what you do is you go to the crux of the problem and look at the issues. Do not apply a uniform approach that damages.
If this government is serious about meeting the needs of the battlers, then do not punish if there are mistakes that are genuine. Work with the individuals, remedy the problem, ensure the continuity of dental care that reduces the long-term impact on the health of individuals.
I certainly hope that the minister will redress what is required and make the technical amendments so that we can have a strong and vibrant program that enables ordinary families, ordinary Australians, to access the health care that they need through their dentists and in concert with their GPs; and that the care plans required are a step that, if that is problematic, then it is remedied. They are given the encouragement and support to ensure that that occurs.
I support the proposed bill and hope that government considers the impact of any decision which will be detrimental to all of those who are in need of dental health treatment; that the approach that they are taking will be reconsidered; and that each dentists is considered on a case-by-case basis so that we have a strong, viable program that is provided and accorded to all of those who have a need.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (11:39): I rise today to speak on this legislation introduced by the member for Dickson in March this year, the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012. A lack of universal access to high-quality dental health services has a significant impact on the health outcomes of Australians. As seen in our recent budget, delivering more affordable oral health and improving access to dental services for Australians is a major priority of the Gillard Labor government. We have much work to do to improve dental services. A prime example of this is the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, where people are able to get high level crowns and bridges and cosmetic work, whilst there are children in rural and remote communities who cannot see a dentist when they have rotting teeth. We need a targeted dental system that sees money go to where it is needed.
The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was established by the member for Warringah at the 11th hour, before the 2007 election, when he was health minister. It was a lemon. Since the inception of the scheme, $19.97 million has been identified as being incorrectly claimed from Medicare by dentists. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was designed to allow patients with a chronic condition to access up to $4,250 worth of dental services as part of their treatment for that chronic condition. Patients are referred to a dentist by their treating GP. There has been much criticism of this program since its inception. Much of it has revolved around the use of the term 'chronic condition'.
There have been a number of recent media reports about dentists who are being required to repay incorrectly claimed benefits. Like all health practitioners claiming Medicare benefits, dentists must fulfil all of the requirements when making a claim. This is no different from anyone seeking to claim public money for any cause. The government has a responsibility to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately. We make no apologies for this. Dentists have been provided with regular information about what they need to do in order to make a claim.
Whilst the government believes that that CDDS was poorly designed, the rules governing the scheme have been publicised to dentists many times by both the government and the Australian Dental Association. This communication includes several direct letters, journal articles, fact sheets, a booklet, a phone inquiry line, website information and a compliance checklist.
A number of steps were taken to ensure that dentists had the opportunity to understand their legal obligations prior to submitting claims for Commonwealth benefits. In September 2007, prior to the commencement of the scheme, the then health minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott MP, wrote to all practitioners and outlined the scheme's requirements. I am also advised that, upon commencement of the scheme in November 2007, the Department of Health and Ageing wrote to all dental practitioners, dental specialists and dental prosthetists describing the scheme and its requirements. The Department of Health and Ageing also issued a fact sheet, as well as the Medicare Benefits Schedule Dental Services Book, which specifically outlined the requirements of the scheme and the related eligibility criteria.
May I also note that included in this reference material was a referral to a Medicare Helpline and a checklist designed to further assist dental practitioners in complying with the requirements of the scheme. The checklist appears in the same booklet that dentists would refer to to check Medicare item numbers for claiming purposes. There should be no grey area with regards to what a dentist could claim. Medicare has an obligation to ensure compliance with the legislative requirements of the scheme and to ensure the taxpayer funds are paid out in accordance with the law. This is reasonable and it is what the Australian people rightly expect. The audits undertaken by Medicare are not random in nature. Practitioners are selected for audit as a result of complaint or tip-offs received from members of the public and/or where high claiming patterns raise concerns. Currently, less than 100 audits have been closed with fewer than 50 dental practitioners required to repay incorrectly claimed benefits.
In order to make a claim, dentists are required to inform patients and the referring GP about the course of treatment the patient will receive and make sure the patients understand the full costs of the treatment they receive. These aspects have never been voluntary. They are set out in Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination Bill 2007
Medicare has provided dentists and the Australian Dental Association with regular information about their obligations on dozens of occasions. We know that Medicare conducts audits in a fair and professional manner, giving dental practitioners time to respond to audit requests and present information while still providing ongoing care to patients. Yet many dentists claim to be confused.
It has long been the Gillard government's policy to close the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. While the CDDS provides services for some parts of the population, is not well targeted to provide assistance to access dental services to those Australians most in financial need. We have been clear on this. However, the Senate has twice prevented the closure of the CDDS, which means the government has been unable to put in place a more appropriate scheme.
Since 2007 the government has made a range of other important investments in dental health, including the establishment of the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, which provides up to $163.05 per person towards an annual preventative dental check. Since its introduction, this program has provided over 1.5 million checks for eligible teenagers, $11 million for Indigenous dental services in rural and regional areas and $52.6 million over four years in the 2011-12 budget to establish a voluntary dental internship program to help boost the dental health workforce. These welcome moves were warmly received.
The $515 million investment in dental health announced during the recent budget will lay the foundation for a new way of providing dental services, ensuring those most in need will receive care when and where they need it. The government is making a targeted investment of $515.3 million over four years in oral health for Australians who are least able to afford dental care. The new spending will see a blitz on public dental waiting lists, oral health promotion, a boost to the dental workforce and improved dental facilities in rural and remote areas. This package includes the important foundational work needed to make significant improvements to the dental system and represents a major step towards a new national dental scheme.
The 2012-13 budget included funding of $345.9 million for a public dental waiting list blitz, which would, according to the National Dental Advisory Council, address the current 400,000 people on waiting lists around the country; $10.5 million for oral health promotion and to develop a national oral health promotion plan to promote dental services and better oral health; $35.7 million for an expansion of the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program to offer 100 places per annum from 2016 to increase the dental workforce to deliver more dental services through a national scheme; $45.2 million for a graduate year program for oral health therapists to support 50 placements per annum; $77.7 million for rural and remote infrastructure and relocation grants for dentists to provide up to 100 infrastructure grants and up to 100 relocation grants to support up to 300 dentists in setting up practices in rural areas to meet the current shortage of dental services in rural and remote areas; and $450,000 to non-government organisations to coordinate further pro bono work by dentists.
Anyone claiming funds from the Australian taxpayer has an obligation to do so in accordance to the law. Dentists are no exception. Quite simply, the government does not support this bill. It is the government's intention to close the CDDS and put in place more appropriate policies. I therefore reject this bill.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (11:49): I rise to speak on the updated Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012 and support the many hardworking dentists who give of their time and energy to help others who cannot afford private health insurance. The shadow minister for health and member for Dickson is 100 per cent correct when he says this is an extreme reaction to what is primarily a clerical error. Let us all be straight here. If there has been fraud, if the work has not been done but the dentist has claimed for services he or she has not provided, then sue them into bankruptcy. To do something like that is beyond criminal, because they would be gorging on the carcass of the people who are most vulnerable.
But where a dentist has simply not completed a form, it should be clear to all of us here that when someone has been referred to a dentist by their GP they must be in the most dire dental straits. When confronted with someone coming to them who has severe health issues relating to rotting teeth, any health professional will invariably act first. If they have not completed the forms properly, then let us get them completed and move on. What is the big game here? What are we trying to achieve? In suing some dentist into bankruptcy over paperwork tardiness are we more or less likely to see health professionals such as dentists tell the public system that they will take on public patients? Are we more or less likely to see our dental waiting lists reduced? I contend that most health professionals, when confronted with the severe consequences of noncompliance, would baulk at doing what is essentially the right thing.
The member for Bass was talking about the paperwork that has been going out to all the dentists—fact sheets and all those sorts of things. We drown small business in paperwork; we drown professionals in paperwork. To do these things and to claim back absolutely everything that has been done when the work has been done professionally and properly is just wrong in my thinking. What would be a better result for the patient? This bill requires the minister to do one or more of the following within 30 days of the act commencing: firstly, making an amendment to the determination in accordance with the amendment set in schedule 1 of the bill—the proposed amendment and schedule 1 provides exceptions to a10(2) of the determination where the practitioner did not know about the subsection, did not fully understand or appreciate the subsection or was under a reasonable apprehension about the need to comply with that subsection; secondly, waiving the right to repayment of the Medicare benefits; thirdly, making act of grace payments; fourthly, providing for the inequity to be addressed through the income tax system; and, fifthly, taking such other action as is necessary to redress the inequity.
The minister must prepare a report of action that has been taken and table it in each of the houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Of the 89 completed audits, 63 dentists have been found to be non-compliant. Of these 63, 51 have been found to have completed the work. In fact, many dentists have gone above and beyond what was approved by Medicare and done extra work at no cost to the patient or the taxpayer. This is because, like the great majority of health professionals in Australia, they want to do the right thing. Medicare has said it has shown leniency, but only 17 of the 63, roughly one-quarter, have incurred only 'education action' with no cost recovery.
There are strong links between poor oral health and poor systemic health. If you have a bad run with your teeth, you will end up being sick. We need to be doing more to get successful, professional dentists to avail themselves to assist with the backlog of public dental work, but we need it to be on a productivity basis. We cannot make it so hard for professionals that they virtually throw their hands up in the air and walk away and charge privately and make more money for themselves. Charge and convict the rorters of the system, but, when the work and more has been done, do not do not hang dentists because the paperwork is not done to our liking. Work with them and get the necessary crosschecks done and then get out of their way. They have patients waiting.
I see dentists all the time who give of their time. In Townsville we have a bloke by the name of Daryl Holmes, who volunteers his time for three weeks of the year. He goes up to the Torres Strait and works in the Southern Highlands of Papua New Guinea performing up to 80 extractions per day.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr EWEN JONES: You do not know if he has made a mistake, but he is giving of his time, he is volunteering of his time, and those are the things that we are going to have to watch out for—that we make it so hard for people that they simply do not make themselves available for the system. (Time expired)
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (11:54): I must say that I find it really interesting that the first piece of private members' legislation the shadow health minister tries to introduce is legislation to protect dentists. It is not about good, strong health policy and it is not about increasing health services. I find that unbelievable and a double standard. I have heard previous speakers in this debate say, 'These are professional people; they need to be protected; they're too busy; they shouldn't have to worry about this paperwork.' It is unbelievable.
I had a constituent come to see me who was hospitalised and she filled out her Centrelink forms incorrectly. What happened to that Centrelink recipient? She ended up before the court because they said she had defrauded the government. It was a very sad case. She managed to not have a conviction recorded against her, but she was held accountable to the nth degree. Yet we have members in this House standing here arguing that dentists should not be held accountable if they do not fill in their paperwork correctly. That is all this woman did: she filled in her paperwork incorrectly. I find it absolutely unacceptable that there should be one standard applied to dentists and another standard applied to every other person in the community. I think the shadow minister for health should really turn his mind towards developing some good, sound health policy.
The chronic dental health program is a program that has been fraught with problems. As has been said by previous speakers on this side of the parliament, this is a program that we would like to end and which we have been trying to bring to cessation, but we have been stopped by the opposition. It is a program that benefits a very small group of people and it is a program that is really hard for a lot of people to access. I experienced that with my own mother, who was extremely ill but could not access the program because of the complicated nature of application and the fact that her doctor did not think it was a good program—that it did not work very well.
We on this side of the parliament believe that delivering health and dental services is about delivering those services; it is not about propping up dentists and it is not about selecting one group of people to be eligible to access a program. It should be about a person's need. Some people who have accessed the dental health program are millionaires, whereas people that are on a pension have not been able to get the dental health treatment they need. They are on lengthy waiting lists. The state government has not funded their side of the scheme properly and that is from both persuasions. I am not just saying it is a Liberal Party problem; it has been both sides of the equation. When the now Leader of the Opposition was health minister, before this program was introduced, he used to argue that the Commonwealth supports dental health through private health insurance. Well, the most needy people in the community—those people who really need to access a Commonwealth funded dental health program—cannot afford health services.
This only refers to 37 dentists nationwide, so it shows that most dentists can fill out the paperwork and comply. To think that the shadow minister for health can come in here and introduce legislation that is going to benefit 37 dentists retrospectively but not come in here to introduce legislation to provide dental health care for the most needy people in our community is absolutely despicable. I think he stands condemned by the legislation we have before us today.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:59): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Dickson. The Chronic Disease Dental Scheme was put in place to provide dental treatment to the most needy of Australians. The coalition has introduced the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill to end the Gillard government's malicious pursuit of dentists who, for the most part, have been trying to do the right thing. It is indeed unfortunate that this situation has come to this. When Tony Abbott as health minister introduced the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme, a $1 billion investment was put into dental services in this country. The scheme provided for general practitioners to refer patients with a chronic disease or complex health problem to a dentist for treatment. This scheme provided treatment up to the value of $4,250 over any two years.
That Rudd and Gillard governments have tried in the past to close down Tony's scheme but these moves were rejected in the parliament. The Gillard Labor government has tried to label the scheme as rorted and corrupt, but the evidence of these allegations is as much in existence as their integrity. As with any government scheme, there are people who will attempt to rort it. I want to make it clear that if any health practitioner did rort the scheme they should be singled out and dealt with accordingly. However, in this situation, we have before us a collective of community minded, good, honest dental health practitioners who provided dental services under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. I am talking about dentists who have treated their patients and have done the right thing by them. These dentists claimed the appropriate Medicare benefits to which they were entitled. Yet now, due to a technical failure to provide their patients with a written treatment plan, or a failure to forward the treatment plan to the general practitioner who had referred patients to them in the first place, they find themselves being pursued by Medicare demanding repayment.
These dental professionals did what we needed our dental professionals to do, and that was to treat the patients who had complex health problems and chronic diseases. There were technical breaches of the law, but when you take into consideration the good intent of the dental practitioners and the manner of the breaches, a fair-minded person would be accommodating an understanding—but not this government, who are instructing Medicare to pursue the dentists.
The important point in this policy is to remember that the bulk of dental professionals who have fallen foul of the requirements of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme were actually doing so because they were failing to fill in the paperwork. They were not rorting the system; they still did the job. Many dentists around the country have stated that they were not fully briefed on the requirements that they were to undertake. The Australian Dental Prosthetists Association was never, ever approached regarding the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. Adding to this, 990 of the nation's 1,100 dental prosthetists participated in the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. How were they expected to be aware of the paperwork commitments if they were not engaged?
On a positive note, though, 11,713 dentists provided treatment under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. They have provided more than 11 million treatments to one million Australians. Last year alone in the Northern Territory there were 5,771 category 9 dental services undertaken and 1,256 category 10 dental benefits scheme services.
In all the Northern Territory and all around the country there is a rural dental workforce shortage. This is an occupation we need to develop and grow. We must not let this blight deter future dental practitioners. The problem has been caused by the Labor government's mismanagement. I support this bill because it will sort out the problem and help dental practitioners who do the right thing.
I urge the minister to make the technical amendments that will ensure that everyday Australians have access to the healthcare they need. We need to ensure that we have a strong, viable program. Do not punish those who are doing the right thing. Deal with those who are rorting the system. I reiterate: we need a strong, viable program that will give ordinary Australians access to the health care they need.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (12:04): I am pleased to speak to this matter after the member for Solomon, who articulated this program by the name of 'Tony's scheme'. I understand that 'Tony's scheme' was actually introduced by a letter from the then minister for health letting the profession know exactly what the requirements were. Indeed, I understand that there have been some 40 communications to people who are usually highly educated to engage in the profession of being a dentist, people who have to fill out BAS forms, small businesspeople who have to read information from the government in all its forms. This small group of people who have rorted the system are now saying, 'Look, I am sorry, I did not read the letter correctly.'
Just this weekend I was reminded of a fantastic young man in my electorate who is on a disability pension. He religiously seeks out work and every time he goes to report correctly how much work he has done to make sure that he gets correct payment and no more assistance than he deserves. He takes great pride in following the requirements, taking advantage of the offer of support from the government but not exploiting it.
What we have here is a group of people who have not only found out everything about the paperwork that suits their business model and selectively ignored any elements of the paperwork that provide care and protection to the public. We have got people who have set up a business model, who have gone into dementia units and have not had a treatment plan drawn up with an allied health professional or a GP, people who have gone in and trawled dementia units, gone ahead and done work on people without their permission, and left behind them a trail of smiles and unnecessarily expensive dental work done at the cost of all Australians who do need good dental care. This unhealthy and exploitative business model cannot be overlooked, and simply saying, 'I forgot to do that bit of the paperwork,' is an inexcusable comment by people from the profession, who should be ashamed to be standing up making these claims, let alone thinking that they have a case to be given the benefit of the doubt that they did not understand.
'Tony's scheme', as it was articulated by the member for Solomon, is in fact an opportunity for people who wanted to exploit the system to go ahead and do that. That is why this government, in making sure we are looking after benefits to Australians, is determined to provide a much healthier model of response to people who need to get access to basic things like fillings—and people would be quite happy with an amalgam one instead of a porcelain one to solve their dental issues. The reality is that in our budget we have committed to absolutely crunching down on those public health waiting lists to make sure that people are able to get the support they need and get access to basic health when they need it.
When this system was set up, Medicare made it very, very clear that there were two essential elements of any organisation of a treatment plan. There was a quote to be provided to the person who was seeking assistance, and a treatment plan to be communicated to the GP. These are not onerous requirements. In fact if you were to go to any dental professional that is the kind of thing that you would generally expect. The fact that dentists were taking this money from the federal government should have alerted them even more so, in addition to normal standard professional practice, that they were required to keep adequate records. It just does not wash that people who have been brought to our attention because of excessive servicing, people who have been brought to the attention of the authorities because of complaints about the quality of their professionalism and the quality of the work that they are doing, are being supported by those in the opposition saying that they should get money back.
The reality is that this scheme was always a problem. Tony's scheme, as the member for Solomon described it, was a problem waiting to happen. He did not provide adequate information for people early on—that is what they are claiming. That absolutely causes a problem for those people within the profession and it needs to be completely removed to allow us to get on fixing up a proper dental scheme.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Australian Public Service
Debate resumed on motion by Dr Leigh:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) 23 June is the United Nations Public Service Day;
(b) democracy and successful governance are built on the foundation of a competent, career-based public service; and
(c) the day recognises the key values of teamwork, innovation and responsiveness to the public; and
(2) commends the Australian Public Service on continuing to be an international model of best-practice public service and providing outstanding services to the Australian community.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (00:00): I rise to speak today about the dire plans the coalition has in store for the Australian Public Service and to contrast them with Labor's optimistic plan for a strong Public Service. For the 11th time, the member for North Sydney on 16 May 2012 has gotten wrong the growth in the size of the Australian Public Service. For the 11th time, the member for North Sydney, Mr Hockey, has claimed that the government has grown the Australian Public Service by 20,000 when he knows in fact the true growth is 12,000.
The member for North Sydney's inability to grapple with the facts about the size of the Public Service speaks volumes about the coalition's attitude to the Public Service. Last August the member for North Sydney was offered a briefing at the Australian Public Service Commission to get his numbers right, to cease using a number that includes Defence Force reservists as public servants. But he has so far refused to take that up.
The opposition, if they are to be believed, have a plan to cut 12,000 public servants. In fact, repeatedly, when the opposition are asked how they will fill their $70 billion black hole, they point towards slashing the Public Service as their plan for meeting their budget black hole.
The member for North Sydney is a little like Rick Perry, the inept Texas governor who ran for the Republican nomination for President, saying that he would get rid of three US federal departments. The only difference is that the member for North Sydney, unlike Rick Perry, can actually remember the three departments he intends to scrap: they are the department of health, which he says is out of control, despite the fact that it employs about as many people as when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister; the department of climate change, despite the fact that, under a coalition direct action plan, more administration would be required than under the government's much more straightforward carbon pricing plan; and the Defence Materiel Organisation.
So the coalition has said that they will scrap 12,000 Public Service jobs, but it is entirely possible that they will scrap many more than that. Asked on, I think it was, 7.30, whether or not the coalition would get rid of 20,000 Public Service jobs, the member for North Sydney refused to rule it out. At the same time, the coalition has plans for a 15,000-strong standing green army without any detail whatsoever as to how that proposal would operate. But, of course, they are only the numbers that are formally placed on the table.
The opposition has formally placed on the table plans to cut 12,000—or maybe 20,000—Public Service jobs, but it is entirely possible that this is the tip of the iceberg. I am fortunate to be in the position of having a copy of the Liberal-National Party's public administration policy, which the coalition took to the 1996 election. That policy said:
Our plans to reduce department running costs by 2 per cent will involve not replacing a proportion of those who leave , up to 2500 positions over the first term of Coalition Government, a process of natural attrition with no forced redundancies.
What did the coalition actually do when they came to office? In 1996-97, they retrenched 10,070 public servants; in 1997-98, they retrenched 10,238 ongoing employees; and, in 1998-909, they retrenched 9,061 ongoing public servants. In total, upon winning office in 1996, the coalition retrenched 30,000 public servants—that is in clear contrast to their election policy's statement that said they would be not replacing 2,500 positions. Indeed, the number of public servants who eventually lost their jobs after the coalition won office in 1996 was more than 10 times the number whom they said would be made redundant.
It is interesting to note, if we turn to the bottom of the 1996 election policy, that it is printed and authorised by a Mr A Robb, who is now the shadow finance minister. He is the shadow finance minister under Mr Abbott—the man who says that you do not trust anything he says unless he writes it down—and he is the person who said, prior to the 1996 election, that there would be only 2,500 Public Service job cuts. In fact, upon winning office, the coalition got rid of 30,000 public sector jobs. When asked why they would want to get rid of Public Service jobs, the member for Dickson noted that the federal department of health does not see one patient; does not run one hospital; does not employ one doctor, nurse or pharmacist. It might surprise the member for Dickson to know that that is exactly how things have always operated in the Department of Health and Ageing, which administers a vast health promotion program, oversees health research and maintains a network of public hospitals throughout Australia. The coalition may be surprised to learn that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations does not have schoolchildren walking its corridors. They might be shocked to learn that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does not regularly partake in office fishing trips. We can only hope that the coalition does not call on the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism to demand room service and more towels.
Those opposite simply do not understand the important work of public servants. They do not understand the critical work that is being done to support Australian prosperity by the hardworking public servants in Australia, including the many public servants in my own electorate of Fraser. On this side of the House, we are proud of public servants. It was public servants who did so much to get us through the global financial crisis with a temporary, timely, targeted fiscal stimulus program that was recognised by international economic authorities, such as the IMF, as being a world-beating fiscal stimulus program because it was put into place quickly and efficiently. When those opposite see public servants, they only think of how to beat them up and how to win votes.
It is true that in the current budget we have made savings across the board. In the process of making savings across the board, there has been an impact on the Public Service. For example, there are redeployments from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations across to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. There have been changes in the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency as result of some of the pre-carbon pricing programs coming to an end. We have been honest about those changes, which will take total Australian Public Service numbers back to about where they were in 2009. Having had modest growth year on year in Public Service numbers under the Rudd and Gillard governments, this budget now sees Public Service numbers returning to about where they were in 2009.
This has been difficult for some public servants, including those in my electorate of Fraser. I have been keen to work with departments to make sure that redeployment policies are followed and to make sure that unfilled vacancies are filled. Where we are able to, we will redeploy across federal agencies and the ACT government, which is often struggling to find talented public servants. The cuts are difficult in the ACT, but they do come at a time when, according to the latest vacancy survey, there are around 4,900 job vacancies in the ACT. I do hope that the Canberra Business Council, which has spoken of the skills shortage in the ACT, is able to employ anyone who has taken on, for example, a voluntary redundancy and is able to grow and prosper in the current environment. In conclusion, Labor appreciates the value of a strong Public Service. Those opposite believe only in cutting it. (Time expired)
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (12:19): I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Fraser. I note the first two points that the member's motion refers to, recognising the important role of the Australian Public Service in upholding and promoting our democracy and its key role in ensuring stable government and, secondly, commending the Australian Public Service on continuing to be one of the most effective and efficient public services in the world. These are both commendable motions, and I think that members of this House would largely agree with them.
However, the third point reflects so much about this member in particular and the way he goes about his argument. The third point of this motion condemns the plans by the opposition to make 12,000 public service jobs redundant. There is no hiding from the fact that the opposition, and the shadow Treasurer and shadow finance minister in particular, have made it very clear that we will return public service levels to reflect what was clear when we left government in 2007.
But where the member is being quite deceitful—and he does this regularly—is where he quotes some facts but leaves important facts out. The government that he is a part of, that he would wish to be a more senior part of—he desires it desperately, and he tries to prove every day why he should be a more senior part of it—is at the moment in the midst of cutting a similar amount of jobs from the Canberra public service. We did not hear a word of that during his contribution! For the benefit of the member, I will table at the end of this contribution an article by Chris Johnson from the Canberra Times. He wrote on 9 May:
Swan slashes 4200 PS jobs: ACT takes biggest hit since Howard years.
Now, if the broader macro argument that this government has tried to make on one hand about this budget that they are somehow reducing the size of the Commonwealth government to a record extent, some four per cent turnaround in the reduction of government expenditures, that would make some sense, if that were true—in an attempt to create a paper surplus to cover over their failed economic management. But, of course, you did not hear a word of that during the member for Fraser's contribution. You heard a turgid attack on the opposition and our plans to get the budget back into some sort of manageable order. You heard the member for Fraser completely avoid the fact that his own government has plans to reduce the number of public servants. And now he sits there and does not acknowledge the fact that his own government and his own local paper made this point perfectly clear.
For the benefit of the Federation Chamber I will table this article at the end of my contribution, because it says:
In the biggest attack on the federal bureaucracy since the late 1990s, when John Howard came to power and put the ACT into recession, more than 4200 fulltime jobs will go in the coming financial year alone, with few government agencies being spared …
He goes on to say:
In 2013-14 another $164 million will be saved from the government's workforce wages bill, indicating total job losses will possibly exceed 12,000 …
His own motion says, 'condemns the plan of the opposition to cut 12,000 from the public service'!
If the member for Fraser were being completely truthful and honest with this place, he would stand and amend his own motion to say, 'The member for Fraser condemns plans by the opposition and the Labor government of cutting 12,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service'. But, of course, he will not, because this is a tactic he uses very regularly. He regularly uses economic statistics which, just occasionally, exclude important facts.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: And here is an important fact, if you would like it: you should rise and amend your motion to be completely honest with this chamber, because that would be the right thing to do. But of course he will not, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, because like with so many in this government the full story is never told.
The reason that we are being very clear with the Australian public about the difficulty that is facing the Australian budget is because of the decisions that this government has made which have put the Australian economy and the Australian budget into a position of risk. When they were elected to government in 2007 they came across a budget which was in pristine condition. There was no debt, the economy was growing strongly—
Mr Neumann: Structural deficit.
Mr BRIGGS: If the member for Blair wants to, we can talk about a structural deficit. I know that the member for Fraser is sitting there thinking, 'We shouldn't have raised that point.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Through the chair.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will be heard in silence.
Mr BRIGGS: One of the shadow Treasurer's commitments is that when we are elected we will show, in the budget papers, the structural deficit—we will show the structural position of the budget. The member for Blair is right: there are some structural challenges coming at this country like a bullet train. And the person who identified those was the former Treasurer, Peter Costello—the best Treasurer this country has ever had. He identified these issues—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: We know your private view about the current Treasurer, Member for Fraser, that is for sure. What we have before us is a misleading motion in that it excludes an important fact, which is that the Labor government is doing exactly the same thing that he wishes to condemn the opposition for planning to do. But there are some very good reasons why we are planning to do exactly this. A good and effective public service does not have to be a fat public service; it does not have to have too many staff to do a good and effective job. We showed that when we were in government the last time. The Public Service is an important part of ensuring that the country is managed properly, but it does not need to be excessive. We argue—I think rightly—that it has become excessively staffed, that there are too many fat cats, earning too much, in the Public Service. We will start the process of winding this back.
It is not just the amount of public servants; it is their benefits such as credit cards when they get to those executive levels. Since this government came to office, we have seen a 100 per cent increase in the amount of expenditure on government credit cards. That is a 100 per cent increase in four years, not because they are spending more but because there are more credit cards out there. There are more credit cards because there are more SES band staff. We have a genuine commitment to reduce the size of government.
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The chair is having difficulty hearing the member's speech.
Mr BRIGGS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your support and protection. This is an important point: the government has dragged us into a terrible position in a budgetary sense, therefore we will have to make some genuine savings to achieve what the Australian public expects. Last week the shadow Treasurer made this point very clearly in his response to the budget at the National Press Club, where he said that the coalition has a commitment, as a major priority, to achieve genuine surplus budgets in the first three years of our term.
I want to raise a serious point in relation to the first two points of this motion before us. As I said at the beginning, the member for Fraser will appreciate this. They are worthy points to make. However, not only do we have genuine concern that the numbers in the Public Service right now too high, and we will move to reduce them; we are also concerned about the standard of information that has been coming out of key departments such as the Treasury. We think, and I know several well-known economists around the country think or believe, that the standard of advice and forecasts coming out of the Treasury are not up to scratch. As a priority, we in government will be seeking to address that. We need a strong Treasury. We need a strong Prime Minister's department. We need a strong Public Service. It is fair to say that we have been disappointed, particularly with this budget, when we have seen what can only be described as extremely optimistic forecasts, particularly when it comes to the revenue side.
With this government's excesses, the waste, the mismanagement, the increasing size of government and the debt it has built up—and the member for Blair made a good point on this earlier—the structural deficit that has now been so substantially built into the budget is so great that it will be a challenge for us coming into government to handle properly. As our population gets older, we will have fewer taxpayers and a larger demand on our services. That is what Peter Costello told us in the 2000s with his Intergenerational Reports. That is the reason that the debt they have built up, with $8 billion a year we now have to pay in interest, will make it harder and harder. That is why the coalition will commit to genuine reform in the Public Service, to reduce the numbers to the appropriate levels to do the job we ask. But we will not stand for this hypocrisy from the member for Fraser in moving a motion when his own government seeks to do exactly what it condemns us for. (Time expired)
Mr Briggs: I seek leave to table the article from the Canberra Times.
Leave granted.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (12:30): It is always interesting hearing the member for Mayo. He is one of the architects and apostles of Work Choices—so, there you go. They will use the public sector when they want to, to punish workers and to reduce wages, conditions that are so important to socially disadvantaged and working class areas around the country. But, when it is convenient, they will beat up on the public sector whenever they want to.
I commend the member for Fraser in relation to this motion because we do have an independent, honourable public sector in this country. It does promote democracy. I do not know what those opposite want, whether they want public servants like Sir Humphrey Appleby, or whether they want supine public servants that do not give them fearless and frank advice. We saw that with the children overboard provision many years ago when they mistreated the public sector in a way that made out the public sector to be something that it was not supposed to be. Their plans, once again, to sack public servants and make them redundant, as the member for Fraser has put it, are so typical of what a coalition government does.
We are seeing that now in my home state of Queensland. On the weekend I visited the Ipswich show; about 25,000 people were there. It was opened by the new Premier, Campbell Newman. One of the things that struck me was that six people came up to me at the show who were concerned about jobs in their area of the Public Service, ranging from communities to workplace health and safety and the like. Of course, coalition oppositions always take the view that they will sack public servants, but they are quite remiss in explaining to the public their full and secret plans. They will say things like, '12,000 public sector jobs will go in Canberra,' and they will make that point to the Australian public as if, somehow, beating up on Canberra public servants is what to do. The coalition always campaigns on fear and always campaigns in this way. They pick up a group of people, whether it is public servants or trade unions or other people, and then demonise that particular group and say that that particular group is not worthy to get support or should be punished in some way, shape or form. It does not matter whether they are led by Menzies, or Fraser, or Howard, or indeed by the current opposition leader.
They use figures and they claim that somehow, if we sack these public servants and get rid of them, this will solve their $70 billion black hole, or is it the $10.6 billion black hole that they took to the last election and kept from the public? It was only revealed during the negotiations in relation to the formation of government. They have identified a number of areas to be put on the chopping block—the Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the like. Obviously they think that this is the way they should go. I cannot see that sacking people like this will do much in terms of carrying out their own policies, which they hope to implement after this election.
They have constantly misquoted figures. The Special Minister of State has pulled up the shadow Treasurer on many occasions about growth in the public sector. For example, Minister Gray has pointed out that the official figures show that between 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2011 the public sector grew by 11,072 jobs. But, of course, we see the shadow Treasurer, in a bid to justify his position to sack public servants, constantly claiming that it has grown by 20,000 jobs during that time. Public servants are mums and dads, they are people with children, they are people who actually spend money in local communities and contribute to those local communities. How putting those people out of work will benefit those local communities, their children and families and how that will benefit our country and communities is beyond me. It is typical of the rhetoric we see from coalition members. We see it in Queensland now. We will see it if these people actually get into power in the next 18 months, because that is exactly what they are like—constantly attacking those who serve the public, whether it is in Queensland or in the ACT or federally. (Time expired)
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (12:35): We have just heard from the previous speaker that public servants are people too. If you cut them, do they not bleed? Thank you for that blinding insight, but the critical point is that the people who pay for the public servants are people too. The Public Service is paid for by the private sector and, while it may not have permeated the consciousness here in Canberra, the private sector around Australia is doing it tough. There are organisations throughout the private sector of every scale which are going through the painful but necessary process of finding efficiencies. I have worked in business, as have many of the people on this side of the chamber, and that in itself distinguishes this side of the chamber from the other side of the chamber. All of us who have worked in business can tell you that you need to cut your cloth to suit the circumstances. When times are tough, you need to look at your expenses and ask, 'Can we justify spending as much as we presently do?' One of the indicators of the need to ask, 'Can we justify spending as much as we presently do on the number of people we have employed at this organisation?'—whichever organisation it is—is the rate at which your staff numbers have grown.
What we have seen in the Public Service under the Rudd-Gillard government is a steady increase in the number of people working in the Public Service, a steady increase in the number of people who are employed by taxpayers. Let us remind ourselves that their salary bills are paid for by taxpayers, and all taxpayers have a right and an interest in demanding that we get value for money from the money we spend on the Public Service, as all taxpayers have a right to demand that we get value for money in every dollar which is spent by the Commonwealth on behalf of taxpayers. Despite the complacent assumption of the member for Fraser, playing to his home gallery and his collection of public servant constituents, the reality is that it is not good enough to simply or complacently say, 'Oh, the Australian Public Service is "the most efficient and effective public service in the world".' Quite frankly, that is like saying they are some of the tallest short people around.
The reality is that government employees around the world are known not to be as efficient as the private sector. What the public sector can learn from the private sector is the need for a constant focus on efficiency, a constant focus on asking ourselves: 'Do we need all of the people who are employed? Are they doing the things we expect them to do? Are they doing things efficiently?' And reality and experience tell us that when an organisation grows, as the Public Service has grown steadily over the last five years, there are going to be opportunities for efficiencies.
Based upon the latest budget papers, since the last full year of the Howard government, in 2006-07, there has been an increase of approximately 20,000 government employees. This trend continues across just about every aspect of the Public Service. I have asked a question on notice in parliament of every cabinet minister as to how many new departments, agencies, commissions, government owned corporations or such bodies have been created within their portfolios. From those who have come clean so far, who have been prepared to fess up, there are 34 different new bodies established just since 2007. It is as if we have two Australias. There is one Australia where business is facing tough conditions and is taking tough but necessary decisions to reduce headcount. Then we have the comfortable, complacent, cosy, cosseted Public Service, which, under Labor, would march on regardless if we were to accept the terms of the motion moved by the member for Fraser. Apparently we have the best Public Service in the best of all possible worlds and there is something about the present number which is absolutely ideal and there is absolutely no scope for efficiency. That is a ludicrous claim. The Public Service is of course full of good, hardworking people but that does not mean there is no scope to look for efficiencies.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:40): It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on this motion that has been brought to the House by the member for Fraser, who, together with the member for Canberra, does a fine job representing the many thousands of public servants. I learnt this firsthand, because I spent many years of my life working with, alongside of, and then defending the interests of public sector employees in this country. Because of that background, I know full well that public servants and public sector employees provide essential services to all Australians.
These are services that we all rely on, whether it is securing our borders through agencies such as the Customs service, the Quarantine and Inspection Service or even our troops on the front line and the people who support those troops. The public sector includes very important but little-known work, like tracking and reporting on unexplained wealth that is associated with criminal networks and bringing that information to the criminal investigative and prosecutorial authorities. The public sector includes the people involved in the engine room of private health care in this country—the staff of Medicare and the staff who are responsible for administering the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which puts much-needed pharmaceuticals into the hands of literally thousands of Australians who rely on them for their lives.
The public sector includes emergency income support. I see my colleague across the House who represents an electorate that was much affected by the devastating floods in Queensland. The member for Moreton is also here, and his electorate was also affected by this. They would know firsthand the excellent work done by agencies like Centrelink who were in the front line in delivering government sponsored assistance, income support assistance, to those households affected. Millions of Australians—in fact, I understand it is one in four Australians—receive some form of assistance through Centrelink.
The public sector includes our national institutions, which are critical, the cornerstones of our proud democracy. There are the staff who work in this place and the staff who support our courts, our libraries and our museums. Most of us are involved in the day-to-day, week-to-week management of our lives and the businesses that we run, whereas public servants in this country are looking down the track to the sorts of policy settings that are needed to secure the future of this great country.
These are the functions, these are the jobs and these are the people who are often overlooked when we talk about the Australian Public Service, or public servants or bureaucrats or all the other pejoratives which are often tended upon them in the abstract. You will find that there is actually enormous community support for these functions. Unfortunately, they are not always supported in this place, and the contribution by the member for Bradfield is an example of that. Nor are they always supported on this side. These people are often the subject of political attacks from all sides of politics.
Whether it is the disparaging comments that we often hear in this House about 'bureaucrats' or 'fat cats' or 'incompetence' or 'mismanagement', I do not think, for the vast majority of Australian government employees, those sorts of criticisms are well earned. Of course mistakes happen, and when they do happen they should be interrogated and honed out and the people responsible should be appropriately dealt with.
I would like to point to another area where they are not well supported: the efficiency dividend. The efficiency dividend has been in place for over 20 years. The member for Bradfield makes the point that the Public Service should not be treated differently to any other agency and should continually face and find efficiencies. I would argue that, through the efficiency dividend, the Public Service is treated like no other agency or business in that they are continually required to pay between 1.25 per cent and three per cent of their annual running costs back to the government in the form of savings. There is the assumption that there is some sort of magic pudding that continually finds these savings. Worse is to come. If those on the opposite benches have their way, there will be over 12,000 job cuts and more to come. They have form on this. Before the 1996 election they promised 6,000 job cuts by natural attrition. Of course, as a result of what they put in place, we saw over 30,000 jobs lost and Canberra brought into a recession. These are the people on the other side that the member for Fraser— (Time expired)
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright) (12:45): Previous speakers have indicated that have the most efficient public service sector in the world. Well, it is our intention to make it better. We have no doubt that there are motivated, good public servants who go home physically exhausted on a daily basis. They go home exhausted because of the amount of compliance. They go home exhausted because of the frustration that is bestowed upon them through the layers and layers and layers of management and compliance regulations that just seem to dog the public service sector. Wherever it is possible, the business sector tries to reduce these types of compliance measures.
The question is not whether or not you believe that there is any room for better returns on investment of taxpayers' money spent on administration of the public sector. The coalition believe that we can get a better return on investment in administering this nation. We in the coalition fundamentally believe in smaller taxes. That is no secret. This government has introduced 27 new taxes. We fundamentally believe in fewer taxes. We believe, fundamentally, in smaller government. This is not a secret. We are on the record as saying that we will tidy up, trim up, the public service sector.
How can we ask small business, the manufacturing sectors, the farming sectors, the tourism sectors and the construction sectors to tighten their belts as these sectors of the economy soften while the government has constantly mismanaged and, as some commentators have stated, there has been a 'blatant waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money by this government and administration'?
I want to refer to the budget papers with reference to the increase in the public sector. We want to find better efficiencies in the public sector staffing levels so that we can increase frontline services. At table 22 of the estimates of average staffing levels, we see that in 2006-07 we had 238,623. In the following year that increased to 248,217. In 2009 it increased to 250,566. In 2009-10 it increased to 258,321 and through to 2010-11 it increased to 261,891. From the budget's own records, there has been an increase of over 23,000 Public Service staff.
We will be reducing the public service sector because of Labor's ongoing waste and mismanagement. You do not have to look too far to see this. There is the immigration budget blowout of $4.7 billion. When we were in government it was $85 million. There has been an enormous blowout. The live cattle export fiasco forced Labor to provide $100 million in assistance packages—notwithstanding future liabilities from class actions which may still be outstanding by our cousins in the north. The administration of the carbon tax advertising was $31.5 million. Can you imagine the number of public servants it takes to run that advertising campaign—and we did not need to have it. Remember back to the comments—comments that will dog this government through to the next election—that 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Now we are having to increase the bureaucracy to run the advertising campaign. Then we have climate change bureaucrats travelling the globe, the ceiling insulation program, Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch—and the list goes on.
We will rescind the carbon tax. We will rescind the Clean Energy Fund—$10 billion of taxpayers' money going into risky investments that the private sector just refuse to invest in. We will rescind the Clean Energy Regulator, the climate change commission and the Climate Change Authority. Why have these authorities and administrations been created when all they had to do was just use the original department? It is Labor who devalues the currency of their own Public Service by not entrusting the existing people in place to take a position from. We want to work with the honourable men and women that work hard in the Public Service, that work hard to administer and govern this country better than it has been in the past.
A recent state of the state report has indicated that the ACT has the fastest annual economic growth rate in the nation—5.9 per cent—ahead of South Australia and outstripping the mighty growth of Western Australia, the resource-rich state, on 4.6. How can that be?
Debate adjourned.
Family Law and Child Support System
Debate resumed on motion by Mr Wilkie:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the large number of mothers and fathers with serious grievances with family law and the child support system;
(2) notes that there has not been a comprehensive review of the child support system since the 2005 review In the Best Interests of Children - Reforming the Child Support Scheme;
(3) calls on the Government to undertake a comprehensive review of family law and the child support system; and
(4) recommends that the Terms of Reference of this review be formulated to ensure that the safety and well being of children are paramount.
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (12:50): I rise to call on the parliament to agree to the need for a comprehensive review of family law and of the child support system. In the 21 months or so that I have been a member of parliament, a steady stream of angry and exhausted people have come through my door to tell me they think the system is broken. Interestingly, the ratio of men and women has been pretty even, as has the fact that all have been just as likely to break down in tears as they share their stories. Most tales involve first fighting for their children in the courts only to emerge from that process to then have to fight their ex-partners for child support. Common is the experience of an adversarial court case where children are wrenched between their parents, which is distressing for all involved.
Clearly, the zero-sum game of family law is damaging for the individuals and the community. Some constituents tell me they are at breaking point and feeling suicidal. Some say they are worn out having lost all their energy, and sometimes all of their money, in lengthy proceedings. One particular man even told me he went so far as to consider murdering the Family Court judge who decided his case and that the police had taken action against him for threatening behaviour. That nobody wins in these situations is clearly an understatement.
I meet many constituents who are struggling with the costs of living and who tell me their fears and frustrations are made worse when their child support payment turns up late or sometimes not at all. Many people rightly describe this as financial and psychological abuse often exacerbating the effect of a custody dispute. The seriousness of these types of abuse has historically been underplayed, I suggest, and this was one of the reasons I supported the government's commendable broadening of the definition of abuse last year in relation to family violence.
I heard the upsetting story from one mother who told me the father of her child uses complicated income-minimising strategies to reduce his child support liability and that she believes he will never be forced to pay the adequate amount because the Child Support Agency does not have the resources to investigate him properly. Another mother conveyed her frustration because the amount of support she receives for her daughter has been reduced under the child support formula. Because the father has other children all living in separate households, a factor totally beyond her control, her daughter gets less support. She argues that the father has a high income and could easily afford to pay the full amount, besides the fact he should have a moral obligation to look after his child. But due to a technical regulation she and her daughter have to get by with over $4,000 a year less.
Viewed from the other perspective, there are constituents who argue their child support obligations are unfair because they do not see enough of their children after a custody ruling or there are circumstances the court did not consider in allocating the obligation. For instance, I have spoken to a father on a low income who sees his children only a couple of nights a week and, as a consequence, misses out on the family tax benefit. He thinks this is deeply unfair, especially as he only just falls under the threshold, but it was a factor that was not considered when determining how much he would owe. He also told me that his costs as a parent were higher than most people would expect because his boys' mother insists the children have two of everything—one at each household. He broke down when he told me he did not know how he was going to pay for the second set of soccer boots his boys would need on the weekend that they were in his care. It is, of course, quite common that, even when custody heavily favours one of the parents, each will need to buy a complete set of clothes, toys or sports equipment.
In another case two mothers shared their experiences of struggling to represent themselves in the courts because they cannot afford legal representation. So they are spending every moment they can studying family law, knowing that, with every hearing and argument, their family is at stake. They are doing this on top of their employment, university study, household responsibilities and, of course, looking after their children, for whom they are fighting on a daily basis.
In another case a woman's children have grown from toddlers to young adults in the time she spent fighting her ex-partner in the courts, and it has not ended yet. It is truly sad that some parents miss out on enjoying their children's childhood years—the very thing they are trying to protect—due to the time and effort required to represent themselves in court.
One thing almost all these constituents have in common is the belief that the formula used to calculate child support fails to take their particular circumstances into account. This raises the question of whether or not the method being used can be improved somehow.
I do not always agree with what I hear from people about family law and child support. However, I always sympathise with the people sitting across from me and do not doubt the genuineness of their hurt, anger and frustration. Moreover, the thing that must be remembered above all else is that, in each case, there are children involved—the innocent victims of domestic disputes. I can only imagine the toll it takes on them and how they must suffer seeing their family torn apart. In some of the worst cases the children are used as weapons against the other parent or to leverage an advantage in court. Regrettably, when the welfare of a child is set aside and they become just another pawn used to get a result, some families can forget the real reason they are battling in the courts in the first place—out of love for their children. The fact that some parents can be so blinded by the process is proof positive that the process may need adjustment.
It is hard to imagine any system being able to find an acceptable solution with two people who are determined to tear each other to pieces over differing views on their children's welfare. Nevertheless, we do owe it to mothers, fathers and, most of all, their children to be constantly reviewing the law and the system. We must be constantly asking whether one change or many can be made to make the outcomes more equitable. The opinion of legal experts and the ongoing work of organisations such as the Australian Institute of Australian Studies must be incorporated into an evolving system and the voices of families must be heard. One of my constituents contacted me with the following words:
I have suffered a long history of late, partial or non-payment of child support for my child. I have had minimal child support from a parent who holds substantial qualifications, including postgraduate degrees, but who refuses to work in a full-time capacity. I have had to go into debt to meet the medical costs of our child's chronic conditions and this has not been afforded any consideration by the current system.
That is why I am introducing this motion that calls on the government to undertake a comprehensive review of family law and the child support system and which recommends that the terms of reference of that review be formulated to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of children are paramount.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (12:59): I also rise to support the member for Denison's motion. Often in my electorate I have people come to my office and raise with me a couple of things in particular. One is their compassion for their own children and their commitments to wanting to make sure that their journey in life is supported, even though the circumstances between a husband and wife has reached a point in which they separate and in that separation have to enter into new agreements and arrangements. Often they say that there needs to be a review of some elements of the legislation which prevent them from having an opportunity to create the best possible pathway for their children.
Marriage separations can be very bitter—not in all instances, though. I do have constituents who have amicably separated, divorced and reached agreements in terms of their contribution and commitment to their children. In any relationship where there are children involved it takes two and the responsibility resides with both. But it is saddening when you see bitterness prevailing to the detriment of a child. I have often had people come to me saying, 'Why can't we just amend the act to enable us to do the things that are best for our child?' I have had people say to me, 'I pay maintenance; I am more than happy to do it. But I am frustrated because the money is not being spent for the purpose I intended it for, which is to ensure that my children have the best possible opportunities in life, including educational pathways.' Recently a couple came to see me and they spoke about the breakdown of a relationship and the coming together of these two people in a new partnership in life, and I made the point that their commitment in supporting their children was important. They felt that the act and the interpretation that is given to the act, and some of the orders that prevail, prevented them from entering into a shared discussion. What they wanted was a better system that would enable a supporting parent to have a say in their children's future and their pathway.
I read with great interest the Fatherhood Foundation's newsletters that come to me, partly because of the number of people who have come to me and said, 'I've reached a point where I'm contemplating taking my life.' I find that sad in this context of a society because I think that it is beholden upon us to review legislation, to look at what the impediments are that we can make better and, through that process, redesign those areas of the legislation and the administrative arrangements that cause great angst. We cannot legislate for human behaviour. But common sense should prevail in the way in which we look for solutions that encourage an opportunity for a family that has separated to look at new pathways. I often write letters on behalf of constituents advocating for support from the CSA, and we send letters to the Australian Taxation Office based on issues raised. I appreciate the legal requirements. Nevertheless, I see a constant theme of frustration.
It would be good if the member for Denison's motion were supported by both sides, and it would be good if we could review and address those things that are not quite perfect. But we are dealing with a very complex area in which legislation cannot mend broken hearts or bitterness. There we have to tread carefully, but I think that our bottom line is that we have to look at the outcome for children. Based on the evidence of work by overseas people and by the relevant research institutes in Australia, there are strong indications that children living in dysfunctional contexts tend to take a pathway that is detrimental to themselves in terms of their education, their career pathway and their health. I hope that we will transcend the differences and look at this opportunity to improve the elements that are important—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:04 to 13:38
Mr WYATT: Like all members of this parliament, I have received emails from individuals who have expressed their personal concerns in respect of family law and the child support system. I read the Dads in Distress Support Services newsletter with great interest because it provides constructive articles which tackle the issues of inspiring fathers and encouraging families. Dads in Distress Support Services volunteers have saved untold men on the brink of suicide and seen many children reunited with their fathers and extended families. As I indicated earlier, one of the greatest opportunities we have, and a privilege we have, is to look at the way in which we can ensure that the love accorded those parents who give their love to children is not diminished by separation.
The campaigners have long complained that fathers can be excluded from their legal right to see their children, particularly when a split has been acrimonious. By creating a new insight for children, ministers hope that judges ruling on custody disputes will ensure more equal access. This arises out of an amendment or a change to legislation in the United Kingdom, where children in the UK won the legal right to see both parents after divorce on the basis that it was the best possible outcome for children. Except in those cases where it would be of detriment to them, then I would suspect those courts would rule, based on the evidence, that it is most paramount. I also read with interest that a journalist, Loughton, last night told the Daily Telegraph:
The state cannot create happy families, or broker amicable break-ups. But if children are having decent, loving parents pushed out of their lives, we owe it to them to change the system that lets this happen.
I would hope that the review the member for Denison has proposed in this motion does get some serious consideration. Having experienced a number of constituents coming in and talking through their heartbreak, their concerns and their frustrations, I would certainly like to see some way that we can alleviate some of the frustration.
I think it is through frustration that we see inappropriate behaviour occur, and that often leads to a set of consequences that none of us really enjoys. Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible and undesirable in all but a small minority of cases. In all of this, the most important thing remains the principle that the child's welfare is paramount and is always considered, and it must not be diluted. If we change and consider removing some of that despair—although we cannot remove it totally—then I think it would be far better for some of the families who are affected.
In closing I want to say that I welcome the member for Denison's motion. I certainly support the four tranches of what he recommends. Let us hope that motion goes forward and that we as members of this House look at the possibility of easing some of the pain and hurt and create the opportunities that need to be accorded to all children—that the love of one parent should never be excluded where the opportunity prevails, and that the company, companionship and the learning that we take from either parent is there intrinsically for the future so that it encourages a strong and healthy individual who can understand the antagonism but at the same time share in the love of both a mother and a father.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 13:43 to 16:00
BILLS
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TONY SMITH (Casey) (16:00): On behalf of the opposition I rise to contribute briefly on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. I say at the outset that the opposition is not opposing this bill. As I indicated, I will just speak very briefly on the schedules to this bill. There are seven schedules in all. The first two relate to the goods and services tax. One relates to GST-free health supplies, the other to GST treatment of government appropriations. In each instance, in summary, they seek to restore the original intent following rulings by the full Federal Court. As I have said in previous debates on these tax law amendment bills, this is a regular piece of business for this parliament.
Schedules 3 and 4 are somewhat related. Schedule 3 is a pause in the indexation of superannuation concessional contribution caps. The opposition has rightly been critical of the government's approach almost from day 1 in this area. I will deal with schedule 3 first. We have well and truly had this debate with the government about their flawed approach to superannuation, but in this tax law amendment bill, as is the custom, we are not opposing the bill, because we recognise that all of the schedules have been factored into the government's approach and we have had those policy arguments.
Schedule 4 deals with a refund for excess concessional contributions. Similar to the last schedule, the shadow assistant Treasurer, Senator Cormann, has debated these aspects with the government over many months—in fact, since the last election.
Schedule 5 deals with the disclosure of superannuation information, schedule 6 with pay slip reporting and the final schedule with refunds. I will deal very briefly with some of those that I have not mentioned. With regard to the disclosure of superannuation information, everyone supports the intent of easier consolidation, and the coalition, naturally, supports moves to consolidate superannuation accounts, but we also think that there needs to be greater member awareness as part of this process as well. So we make that point, as we have made it so often throughout the debate.
Schedule 6, which deals with pay slip reporting, has been well foreshadowed. Schedule 7 of this bill amends the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to provide the Commissioner of Taxation with a legislative discretion to withhold entitlements to high-risk refunds pending refund integrity checks of a taxpayer’s claim. Again, the coalition supports moves to preserve the integrity of our tax system, including measures to prevent any systemic attempts to defraud the Commonwealth of GST revenue and, as has been pointed out, allowing the commissioner the discretion to hold back any suspicious claims pending verification checks is indeed a worthwhile initiative. Obviously the success of this measure depends on how that discretion is applied, and it goes without saying that if the discretion is applied far too broadly it of course has the potential for adverse impacts on small business and the like. But, as a schedule in this bill, the coalition supports this integrity measure. As I said at the outset on the bill as a whole, the coalition is not opposing it.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:06): It is a pleasure to speak on this bill, because I think any opportunity to reform and make changes to taxation and superannuation in order to provide better outcomes for people is obviously something that we should always be attempting to do—and that is exactly what the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment Bill 2012 (Measures No. 1) does. This bill particularly tidies up a range of areas where there have been some issues and concerns raised in what is always a complex area in tax and invariably a complex area in superannuation, and it does this through a number of schedules.
This bill seeks to maintain the existing GST treatment third-party procured GST-free health supplies. It is really to make sure that it is clear in law how that GST-free supply is provided to other healthcare providers or other services to make sure that, in the end, the recipient of those health supplies actually does receive them as GST-free. This will avoid increased compliance costs that otherwise would arise for taxpayers in multiparty arrangements across those types of goods. Still in schedule 1, the amendments also restore the intended operation of GST law following the department of transport decision ensuring that multiparty arrangements involving relevant health related health supplies of goods and services are also GST free. It clarifies that and makes sure that it is restored in its proper sense.
Schedule 2 clarifies the GST treatment of government appropriations following the 2009 full Federal Court decision in TT-Line and makes sure that there are no unintended consequences or that entities not face an increase in compliance in this area and do not have to change their budgetary processes and practices.
Schedule 3 allows a pause in the indexation of the superannuation concessional contributions cap for one year, where otherwise it would have been the case that there would have been an increase through indexation above the $25,000 cap to $30,000 in 2013-14. This clarifies that that suspension will mean that that does not actually take place until 2014-15. This will generate some budgetary savings while at the same time maintaining the cap as is intended for individuals and maintain that incentive for people if they wish to make extra contributions.
Schedule 4 provides eligible individuals the option to have excess concessional contributions taken out of their superannuation fund and assessed at their marginal tax rate rather than incurring a potentially higher effective tax rate for any excess contributions tax. This is a beneficial change and something that is supported. As I understand it from the opposition, while they might have some what you might expect are regular concerns about regular things, the bill and the amendments are supported across the chamber. Schedule 5, goes further in terms of a number of measures, particularly in relation to the secrecy provisions in the Taxation Administration Act. This is to make it easier for beneficiaries of superannuation funds to consolidate those funds and not have their lost superannuation interest and benefits just disappear because of a range of administrative processes. It is always good to see that. There are hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that are either unclaimed, lost or otherwise not in their rightful places because of a range of reasons. Anything that we can do in this place to remove any of those barriers is a good thing.
Schedule 6 also delivers on an essential element of the government's Securing Super package that was announced during the 2010 election campaign. What it does is require employers to report to employees, on payslips, not only how much super they will be paying but when they plan to pay it. I think it is an important part of the ongoing struggle of making sure that funds for superannuation are used for exactly that and allocated accordingly—paid to employees who have worked for those funds. I think this is a very positive step and will work to the benefit of many thousands of workers.
In fact, in 2010-11 the ATO investigated nearly 18,000 employee complaints which raised Superannuation Guarantee entitlements for a great variety of reasons. That followed through to $517 million being identified, with $269 million actually being collected in Superannuation Guarantee charges and a further $139 million in penalties. You can see that this is quite significant and something that we ought to continue to pursue.
This bill makes that much easier. It also give employees more information about their super. Superannuation has become much more centre of mind for a lot of people at a younger age. But it still is not quite where it should be in terms of people's consciousness about their own retirement planning, retirement savings and financial independence in retirement. Anything government can do, be it through financial literacy or through amendments to regulations and law, we ought to do. We ought to do it at every level, be it through the ATO proactively pursuing employers who do not pay or other methods.
Schedule 7 protects the integrity of the tax refund system by giving the commissioner the ability to delay refunding amounts claimed where it would be reasonable to verify information provided by the taxpayer.
I think all of those things are a reasonable expectation. This is more good work that I am proud to say this Labor government continues to do in the areas of financial services, taxation and, in particular, superannuation. I believe Labor members really do understand how important superannuation is to ordinary people, to ordinary workers, to young people. The younger you are the more important it is, because you have more time to accumulate a more secure future.
But we also understand how important it is for older Australians, those who are nearing retirement, to make sure that there is nothing government does to impede what would be their best opportunity for self-sufficiency in retirement. There will always be debates around amounts and caps. I agree with people who they say there are too many changes. But sometimes those changes are necessary and for very good reasons. I am very happy to be supporting this bill. I commend it to the House and expect the opposition to follow suit.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (16:13): Whilst I do not take my instructions from the member for Oxley—
Mr Ripoll interjecting—
Mr SIMPKINS: I am wiser than that, I can assure you. But I do welcome the opportunity to speak on bills such as this, the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. The previous speaker from the coalition side made clear that it was not our intention to oppose this bill, because this bill makes a series of changes to existing taxation and superannuation laws. There are seven schedules in this bill and I will go through each of them fairly briefly. Schedule 1 refers to GST-free health supplies and preserves the original policy intention of the GST act that certain suppliers of health related goods and services are to be GST free when they involve multiparty arrangements for an insurer or a government entity.
Schedule 2 addresses the GST treatment of appropriations whereby noncommercial activities of government related entities are not subject to GST.
With regard to schedule 3, this will continue a pause in indexation of concessional caps so that it will remain fixed at $25,000 up to and including the 2013-14 financial year. This schedule in my view continues the attack by the government on Australians that are trying to provide for their retirement. In government, the coalition will look to revisit the levels of concessional contribution caps and co-contributions schemes, obviously, if and when the budget is in a strong enough position to afford it.
When we talk about the importance of superannuation, I think it is often similar to what I say in the schools of the electorate of Cowan, which is that both sides of politics in this country believe in making this country the best it can be. It is the way in which we get there which is the difference between the two sides. When we look at things like concessional caps, it is something like an article of faith: if someone wants to support themselves and remove themselves as a net taker or a net user of government support through superannuation that should be the case and it should be supported. If someone has worked hard throughout their lives and accumulated assets and wealth, we should give that person the best opportunity to, again, not be a net user, not be a taker of government services but remain a contributor. If they can put more away for their superannuation and not become a burden on the taxpayer, then that is what should occur.
We should not see those that have worked hard, those that have accumulated assets, as a target for increased taxation but rather as people who we do not need to worry about in the future and that the taxpayers do not need to worry about. Those that are in need of government support are the ones that can receive that support as opposed to just targeting those that have worked very hard, made some very good decisions and accumulated assets. We should be trying to make sure that they put enough away for their own superannuation.
With regard to schedule 4, this refers to the refund of excess concessional contributions on superannuation. The relief provided by this amendment is a one-off and would not apply where a taxpayer has made excess contributions on any previous occasion on or after 1 July 2012.
Schedule 5 permits the Australian tax office to disclose details of an individual's superannuation interests and superannuation benefits to a regulator of a superannuation fund or public sector superannuation scheme, an approved deposit fund, retirement savings account provider or their administrators. The coalition supports moves to consolidate superannuation accounts but has a number of concerns that will be carefully examined by the House economics inquiry into the bill and will consider any necessary amendments arising from the committee's final report.
The amendments included in schedule 6 will require employers to report on payslips any information prescribed in the regulations about superannuation contributions.
Schedule 7 aims to provide the Commissioner of Taxation with a legislative discretion to withhold entitlements to high-risk refund integrity checks of the taxpayer's claim. The coalition believes that allowing the Commissioner of Taxation some discretion to hold back suspicious claims pending verification checks is a worthwhile initiative; however, if this discretion is applied too broadly, it has the potential to impact on the cash flow of small businesses that are not acting fraudulently.
Without doubt, the coalition does not oppose this bill; however, we must make a comment on and express a concern about the high-taxing and the high-spending agenda that the government does pursue. Since coming to power, the government has inflicted 26 new or increased taxes on Australians. Certainly, with regards to Western Australia, a $2.5 billion tax grab at the expense of the North West Shelf gas project, the carbon tax and the mining tax, are just a few examples and, as we know, the carbon tax was ruled out by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer before the 2010 election and then brought back after all the deals were done with the Greens and Independents. The world's biggest carbon tax which is set to begin on 1 July will hit all Australians, yet deliver no environmental benefits.
As I said before, the mining tax is another example of the government treating WA like a cash cow. According to Dr Henry, 65 per cent of the mining tax will come from Western Australia. I urge this government to view WA as more than just a big mine but the principal foundation of our economic strength. One thing that amazes me is that despite all this taxing, this government still cannot manage the books. The government inherited $22 billion of surplus and $70 billion of net assets. What has become of this? It has now turned into $167 billion of accumulated deficits. This equates to $4,878 of debt per taxpayer. To pay for this debt, the Labor government is still borrowing $100 million every day and the interest payments on their debt will be running in excess of $20 million a day by 2014-15.
So residents in my electorate of Cowan are sick of this government introducing new taxes in a bid to get more money to make up for their waste and mismanagement. They are sick of their hard-earned money being collected by a government whose mentality is to tax and spend. Labor's solution to every problem is to tax it and increase the costs for Australians. I have never heard of a government that has successfully taxed its way towards higher economic growth. The reality is that this government needs to learn to live within its means. It is showing that it is both lazy and incompetent by simply increasing and introducing new taxes rather than going through the proper processes to make our tax system more efficient and to make our economy more competitive. In spite of this government's strong belief, going for easy tax grabs is clearly not a viable long-term solution. As I said earlier, the coalition does not oppose this bill, however we continue to have serious concerns regarding this government's high-taxing, high-spending agenda.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:21): I rise to voice my support for the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012 and commend those opposite for supporting this wonderful piece of legislation. This bill brings in a raft of amendments to ensure Australia's tax and superannuation systems operate in a fair and just manner in the best interests of the Australian people. This bill seeks to re-establish an intended operation of GST law by making certain the supply by a healthcare provider, paid for by an insurer or a government entity, is treated as a GST-free supply where the related supply from the healthcare provider to an individual is a GST-free health supply. This bill also amends A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 to restore the policy intent that noncommercial activities of government related entities are not subject to GST.
It also brings in the government's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure to halt the indexation of the concessional contributions cap for one year. The bill provides eligible people the opportunity to have certain excess concessional contributions refunded in tax, giving individuals who exceed their concessional contribution caps for the first time a second chance.
It allows the ATO to offer improved online services by allowing taxation officers to on-disclose protected information to superannuation entities and the administrators, and it implements a necessary integrity measure by giving the Commissioner of Taxation discretion to delay refunding an amount to a taxpayer pending checks of their claim. These are all necessary actions I am pleased to see in this bill, and I echo again the support of those opposite.
But I would like to speak in greater detail about the bill's requirement that employers keep their workers in the loop about superannuation contributions, including how much and when payment is expected. It is a sad truth—and I think that some of the members on this side of the chamber would have seen it in their previous jobs—that not all employers do the right thing. Certainly in my time working in the education union I saw education employers that had got into trouble. Thankfully, it is not something that happens a lot in the education sector but it does happen. When employers do not do the right thing—or some rogues or those in economic trouble do not do the right thing—and they do not make their superannuation guarantee contributions in full and on time, the employee misses out.
This troubling situation is only made worse when employees are left in the dark and they cannot ask the ATO to step in on their behalf. Sometimes when a business is going to the wall it is a tough time for the management and they just forget to communicate with their employees. This problem impacts on thousands of workers. You need only look at the ATO 2010-11 annual report to see the extent of the problem: almost 18,000 employee complaints were investigated, superannuation guarantee entitlements for nearly 300,000 employees were raised, and $269 million in superannuation guarantee charge and $139 million in penalties were collected.
This bill will allow employees to check that their contributions have actually been made by their employers, because once it is sitting in the hands of the trustees of the super fund it is ticking over for the benefit of the employee. Obviously when it is sitting in the office tin it is not benefiting the employee at all, even though that was the contractual relationship: that they receive the money. So it is great to see the Gillard Labor government take action to address this significant problem.
Superannuation has a long history in Australia. Way back in 1915, the Income Tax Assessment Act provided for tax deductibility of employer contributions made on behalf of employees and for the exemption of superannuation fund earnings from taxation—obviously a good initiative back in 1915 but not widely accessed by many in the workforce. Fast forward to the early 1970s, and still only 32 per cent of workers were covered by superannuation. Obviously with superannuation you had the benefit of investment and accumulation and also the relative certainty of making those investments by the appropriate mechanisms. In 1973, the Whitlam Labor government established the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry. However, it was a Liberal-Country Party government that decided against setting up a contributory national superannuation scheme in 1977.
Fast forward to the 1990s, when 64 per cent of employees had superannuation coverage—obviously better but nowhere near good enough. So it was in 1992 that the Keating Labor government, building on the initiatives of the Hawke government, introduced compulsory superannuation. I seem to recall that I was working in 1992—I was in my sixth year of teaching—and there was certainly a wages trade-off as part of the original deal. We saw after the legislation that a year later 80 per cent of employees either made super contributions or had them made on their behalf. Since then many other steps have been taken to improve security for retiring workers by creating a fair, sustainable and efficient superannuation system. There has now been a gradual increase, and we have seen in the enterprise bargaining context that people do make trade-offs in terms of what they will do at their retirement.
The 2012-13 budget is building on this history of superannuation and of reforms by taking another step forward, boosting the superannuation guarantee from nine per cent eventually up to 12 per cent. From 1 July this year, workers earning up to $37,000 will get a boost to their superannuation savings worth up to $500. This ensures they effectively pay no tax on their superannuation guarantee contributions. This follows our decision to bring in the low-income superannuation contribution. It is not right that a small number of high-income earners have been getting a much better tax deal out of super than millions of Australians on average incomes—although I did notice some opposite speaking against this in their speeches. This Labor government is taking action to make the system fairer by bringing down the higher tax concession that very high-income earners receive on their concessional contributions. This will bring them a little bit closer in line with the concession received by average income earners.
No matter what we see, unfortunately some people opposite will continue to whinge and moan, but I note that they do support this legislation. It is always good in government when you can look at the average workers and their needs rather than people like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart. It is always good to put the average worker first. What we are doing is appropriately governing for all Australians and supporting families and businesses currently struggling to cope with the cost of living. I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:28): I speak in support of the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. Nothing defines the difference between the Labor side of politics and the coalition more than superannuation. Labor built the superannuation scheme in this country. Whitlam was the founding father—really the Henry Parkes—of superannuation with his proposals back in the early 1970s, but it was Hawke and Keating who built a $1.3 trillion-plus superannuation scheme and funds across the country which have meant that we are the fourth largest holder of superannuation funds in the world. We are looking to another $500 billion worth of superannuation in the next 20 years or so. I notice positive comments by former New South Wales Liberal opposition leader John Brogden in relation to the way this government is building superannuation. For example, the increase from nine to 12 per cent on superannuation means that 43,000 people in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland will benefit from the superannuation reforms, 'securing superannuation', as it says in our policy. The legislation before the chamber is part of that package, and I think it is important that we make these reforms. This is one of the few bills with respect to superannuation that those opposite are prepared to accept and agree to. We welcome that. We hope that they have similar Damascus road conversion experiences with respect to superannuation in the future. As the member for Moreton said, the first schedule really deals with a GST-free health supply. There is a fixing up of a Federal Court case in relation to problems caused by that judgment. Often we have to bring in legislation to fix up cases—this time caused by the full court of the Federal Court in a case. That relates to restoring the intention of policy so that noncommercial activities of government-related entities are not subject to GST, so we have done that in schedule 2.
Schedule 3 implements the MYEFO measure outlook in relation to pausing indexation of concessional superannuation cap for a year. It remains fixed at $25,000—it was expected to go up to $30,000, but that includes up to and including the 2013-14 financial year and has an impact on the over-50 group as well. Schedule 4 gives eligible individuals the option to have certain excess concessional contributions refunded.
I note the comment made back on 1 March by Minister Shorten in relation to this matter. He made this point, and I think he is correct:
The introduction of this bill marks another important step the government is taking to improve the fairness of the superannuation system, by making sure those individuals who make a genuine mistake get a second chance.
It means, effectively, that eligible individuals have the option to have excess concessional contributions of up to $10,000 refunded and assessed at the marginal tax rate instead of a more punitive, potentially higher, tax rate of excess contributions tax, which is certainly quite prohibitive. This is an issue which has been raised with me as a federal member on numerous occasions by a number of middle and upper-middle income earners—not just the highest income earners—in my electorate.
I have seen the benefits of what the Australian Taxation Office has had to do with respect to those employers who have failed to comply with their obligations to pay superannuation for employees. There are quite dodgy employers in relation to this matter. I am not going to start naming them, but there are a number of cases that I have heard of as a federal member. People have said to me that they have expected, and have thought, that their employers were paying superannuation but, in fact, they have discovered that they themselves are vulnerable when the company goes bust or falls on hard times. They have found that, in fact, the superannuation has not been paid, and they were not notified. They thought the employer was doing the right thing. They thought the employer was paying the money. They were not given any information on the contributions in time to take any action. The law used to require employers to report their contributions within 30 days of making them; but the coalition, when in government, got rid of that requirement back in 2004. It is a sad indictment and a big mistake in that it increased the capacity and opportunity for rogue employers to get around their superannuation obligations at law.
This particular provision was an announcement as part of our federal election campaign package in 2010. It requires employers to report to employees, on payslips, not only how much super they will be paying but also when they plan to pay it. This measure comes into force from 1 July 2012. It is not difficult for employers to do that. I was an employer for 20 years before I was elected to this place and I cannot see that it is too onerous. I think information is power, and it helps employees in those circumstances to take legal action and to make complaints to the Australian Taxation Office, and it is important that that take place. The member for Moreton was outlining the fact that there are nearly 18,000 employee complaints to the ATO regarding superannuation guarantee entitlements. I have to say that in the five years I have been a federal member, I have seen quite a number of these matters—perhaps not as many complaints or issues raised in relation to Medicare, family law or social security, but a considerable number of these complaints have come across my desk from constituents who have been very concerned. To put it in its context of 2010-11, we are talking about investigations that related to 279,000 employees. That is an enormous number of people. If you put those people into the MCG they will fit a number of times. That is the extent of the people who have had problems in this regard.
This is legislation which, when you look at it on its face, does not look particularly interesting or sexy, or like something that would engage the front page of the Daily Telegraph, but we are talking about legislation that will make a big difference. It will empower those employees who are most vulnerable and most likely to be subject to fraud, embezzlement or mismanagement of corporate affairs by their employers—particularly part-time or casual employees, women, people in low-income and low-paid areas like the service industries and cleaners and the like, who find themselves at risk of rogue employers. There are not that many, but there are still some. In fact, when you consider 279,000 employees were found to be affected in superannuation investigations by the ATO in one year and the raising of $517 million, the collecting of $269 million in superannuation guarantee charges and the collecting of $139 million in penalties, it has an enormous impact not just on corporate Australia but also on people in communities across the country.
I am pleased that we are making a big difference. One of the things that I am pleased we are making a difference on—and I will finish on this note—is the extra superannuation for 23,600 low-income earners in my electorate. I am pleased with what we are doing for senior Australians in allowing superannuation to continue. Those superannuation contributions for older Australians who are transitioning from full-time work into part-time work as they go into retirement is an important step as well. This is part of our securing our superannuation package. I am pleased to support it. I think it is worthy of support and I am glad those opposite have, like St Paul on the road to Damascus, decided to support us in this regard.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (16:37): I thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012. Schedule 1 seeks to maintain the existing GST treatment for third-party procured GST-free health supplies. These amendments ensure that a health supply by a healthcare provider paid for by an insurer, statutory compensation scheme operator, compulsory third-party scheme operator or government entity under a health-funding arrangement is treated as GST-free supply to the extent that the underlying supply from the healthcare provider to the individual is a GST-free health supply. This will avoid increased compliance costs that would otherwise arise for taxpayers and multiparty arrangements involving supplies of health related goods and services. These amendments will apply from 1 July 2012.
Schedule 2 clarifies the GST treatment of government appropriations following the 2009 full Federal Court decision in the TT-Line case. These amendments will ensure that the non-commercial activities of government related entities are not subject to GST. These amendments ensure that government entities do not face an increase in compliance costs, and do not have to change their budgetary processes and practices. These amendments will also apply from 1 July 2012.
The amendments contained in Schedule 3 amend the tax law to pause the indexation of the superannuation concessional contributions cap for one year. This change will generate budgetary savings while at the same time maintaining a cap which continues to provide an incentive for individuals to contribute over and above the mandatory superannuation guarantee contributions.
Schedule 4 gives eligible individuals the option of excess concessional contributions being taken out of their superannuation fund and assessed at marginal tax rates, rather than incurring the potentially higher effective rate of excess contributions tax. This measure will make the concessional contributions caps fairer and is expected to benefit just over 30,000 individuals over the forward estimates period. The Australian Tax Office will handle the majority of the administration process to minimise the additional compliance costs on funds and individuals.
Schedule 5 includes a further exception to the secrecy provisions in division 355 of schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953. This measure is part of a broader package of superannuation measures aimed at making it easier for superannuation funds and their beneficiaries to locate and consolidate unnecessary and lost superannuation interests and benefits. This measure will allow the ATO to disclose superannuation information to superannuation entities, and exempt public sector superannuation schemes, retirement savings account providers and their administrators.
Schedule 6 delivers on one of the central elements of the government's Securing Super package, announced during the 2010 election campaign. It requires employers to report to employees on pay slips not only how much super they will be paying but also when they plan to pay it. The measure comes into force on a date to be set by proclamation. This measure will give employees more information about their superannuation contributions. Employees will know when they can check their funds that their contributions have been made. This is very important because the system depends crucially on employees monitoring their contributions. If employees identify unpaid contributions earlier, the ATO can take compliance action more quickly and is more likely to recover the unpaid super.
The government will give serious consideration to the recommendation from the House of Representatives Economics Committee that it would be more efficient to have a single commencement date which would provide for the reporting of actual contributions. The committee concluded that if the industry can meet the 1 July 2013 deadline for introducing the reporting of actual contributions then the government should cease plans for interim reporting. However, if the industry cannot meet the proposed 1 July 2013 deadline for actual reporting then in this case interim measures would have to be considered.
Schedule 7 protects the integrity of the tax refund system by providing the commissioner with the ability to delay refunding amounts where it would be reasonable to verify information provided by the taxpayer. These changes seek to strike a balance between a taxpayer's right to receive a prompt refund and the commissioner's obligation to ensure the integrity of the tax refund system. These amendments will ensure that the commissioner is able to properly investigate claims where he suspects that the amount claimed might be incorrect, including due to carelessness, recklessness or fraud.
The amendments also preserve taxpayer rights by requiring the commission to notify the taxpayer if he decides to delay refunding the amount and allow the taxpayer to object if the commissioner has not refunded the amount after 60 days. These amendments will apply from royal assent. I commend this bill the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Bill agreed to.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (16:43): by leave—I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 6, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Health and Ageing Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:44): This is the third time I have stood to speak on the report on the registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors and it is a pleasure to continue. The committee received many suggestions for increasing efficiency of the registration process. More efficient sharing of information regarding working visas will reduce the stress and difficulty faced by international medical graduates, improving our ability to attract talent to Australia. The committee recommended that the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency provide the Australian government Department of Immigration and Citizenship with direct access to information on its registration database to improve this process. As the committee continued its investigations, the need to improve administrative efficiency and reduce duplication for accreditation and registration became apparent. Unnecessary delays of up to two years were reported to the committee. The Western Australian department of health reported the experience of five- to 24-month delays for international medical graduates in starting work in Western Australia. Clearly the lengthy time frames are frustrating for international medical graduates and their families, as well as for the prospective communities in need of their service. Screening processes need to be robust; however, steps need to be taken to reduce duplication and inefficiencies. Many of these inefficiencies arise from poor communication between key organisations involved in assessment, accreditation and registration. A streamlining of the system and more transparency in the processes will help rectify this situation.
The committee believes that there is a need to establish benchmarks for time frames, with regular reporting on performance against these benchmarks. Succinct and clear data should be published on at least a quarterly basis. This will not only assist international medical graduates and prospective employers to understand the average length of time certain processes will take, but also provide key organisations involved in accreditation and registration with an understanding of how their processes impact on the overall time frames.
As part of increasing administrative efficiency, it is proposed that the Medical Board of Australia, the Australian Medical Council and specialist medical colleges publish data against established benchmarks on their websites and in their annual reports on the average length of time taken for international medical graduates to progress through key milestones of the accreditation and registration processes. AHPRA's annual report in respect of the functions carried out by the MBA must also include a number of other key performance indicators, providing further information to international medical graduates. Furthermore, providing computer based information management systems with up-to-date information regarding the requirements and progress of individual international medical graduates' assessments, accreditation and registration status will enable timely provision of advice. Retraining of administrative staff is also suggested.
A further recommendation goes to where an international medical graduate considers the processes prescribed under the national registration and accreditation system to have placed them at a significant disadvantage compared to their circumstances under the processes of the former state and territory medical boards, proposing that the Medical Board of Australia investigate the circumstances and, if necessary, rectify any registration requirements to reduce disadvantage.
We considered the issue of harassment and bullying, with the report finding that it is implicit upon all medical practitioners to act with a high degree of professionalism not only with their patients but also with their colleagues, irrespective of seniority or any perceived advantage. Individuals have the right to work in a fair, supportive and productive workplace. For these reasons, evidence of allegations of workplace bullying was of great concern. The inquiry received evidence regarding allegations of bullying and workplace harassment. Evidence was also received from individuals asserting that some supervisors have experienced instances of harassment as a result of decisions they have made.
The instances of bullying highlighted in the report are a cause for concern. The committee understands that these issues are not confined to IMGs but also extend to others within the medical profession, with surveys reporting approximately 50 per cent of junior doctors having experienced bullying in the workplace. The committee has made a number of recommendations to deal with bullying and harassment. The tabled report calls for the Australian Medical Council, the Medical Board of Australia and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency to increase awareness of administrative complaints handling and appeal processes available to international medical graduates by prominently displaying on their websites information on complaints handling policies, appeals processes and associated costs.
IMGs and their families need support which extends beyond clinical and professional orientation to also include social and cultural support to help them as they adjust to living and working in Australia. The committee has heard evidence from a range of stakeholders highlighting the importance of initial support and outlining various orientation programs, the features of which vary significantly in relation to the timing of orientation, the duration of the program and the topics covered in that orientation. Providing a structured and targeted orientation program when they are first exposed to the medical system in Australia should better equip international medical graduates to understand the intricacies of the Australian health system and the medical profession.
The Australian Medical Council reported to the committee that the importance of orientation for international medical graduates has been acknowledged by COAG; however, mandatory participation and orientation is not currently required. A program of orientation to be made available to all international medical graduates and their families to assist them with adjusting to living and working in Australia was a key recommendation by the committee. Health Workforce Australia, in consultation with key stakeholders, should offer this program. Detailed information on immigration, accreditation and registration processes, as well as accommodation options, education options for accompanying family members, health and lifestyle information, access to social welfare benefits and services and information about ongoing support programs for the international medical graduates and their families will greatly improve their transition to Australia. Information on Australia's social, cultural, political and religious diversity and an introduction to the Australian healthcare system, including accreditation and registration processes, were also identified as key recommendations.
The committee views clinical and professional orientation, including cultural awareness education and training, as an important component of the introductory support needed to help IMGs adjust to working within the Australian health system and acquire an understanding of the social mores and customs of Australian culture. In the committee's view, the consequences for IMGs, their patients and the wider community if the IMG is not supported appropriately in this way could be considerable. For this reason, the committee believes that such introductory support should include, but not be limited to, information on immigration, with a comprehensive outline of the steps required to gain full medical registration in their chosen field. Such orientation should also include introductory information on the structure and functioning of the Australian health system. Social orientation to be provided to the IMG should include the provision of basic information such as accommodation options, education options for accompanying family members, health and lifestyle information and access to social welfare.
In conclusion I would say that I believe the committee has produced a really worthwhile report. I hope that it will make a real difference to health care in communities in both rural and city areas. However, in the medium to long term we really do need to look at training more medical doctors, and a good place to start is to establish a Curtin medical school in my electorate of Swan. Thank you.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (16:52): I would like to congratulate the member for Swan on the fine contribution that he has just made to this debate. I know the member for Hasluck will make a similarly fine contribution to the debate when he speaks to this report, Lost in the labyrinth: report on the inquiry into registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors, from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. I would like to congratulate the chair of the committee on the role that he played, and the committee staff. For the committee, this was one of those reports where, when we sat down and started looking at the issues, we were overwhelmed by the complexity of the system and by the fact that so many people involved in the system were experiencing problems, be it the person at the management end, the overseas trained doctor coming to Australia or all the associated health facilities and health workers involved in the system.
This was a system that we found was rife with intimidation. It was a fragmented system. It was a system with a lot of duplication. It was moving towards being a national system but I do not think it had quite come to terms with the fact that it is a national system and there are disparities between the states. This system is about maintaining a high standard, but at the same time we need to ensure that the doctors coming to Australia from overseas are looked after. There are communication problems. There is a partisan system. There are issues around training and cultural awareness, the need for better mentoring, hospital based experience, the appeals process and English language. All these issues came up and were identified as problems along the way. I will touch on some of them in a little bit more detail as I continue my contribution to this debate.
As we all know, Australia has one of the best health systems in the world. If you were to read the reports in the media, you would think that we had a system in crisis. All I can say is that you just need to visit a few other places in the world to really appreciate the strength of our health system, the dedication of those people who work in our health system and why it is a system that overseas trained doctors would like to work in. Unfortunately, the system does not always work the way we would like it to when it comes to welcoming overseas trained doctors—or, as I will refer to them for the duration of this speech, 'internationally trained medical graduates', or IMGs, and I am sure the House will know exactly what I mean.
Key themes that emerged throughout our inquiry were that it was a system that lacked efficiency and accountability, one where the IMGs themselves often had little confidence in the way the system operated. They had been subjected to discrimination and, I must say, some of the stories that the committee heard were heartrending. We heard about doctors who had practised in Australia for in excess of 20 years basically being told that they could no longer practise. They had no warning in a system where the rules constantly changed and was full of really poor communication. This was a system where sometimes competitive practices interfered with and had adverse outcomes in relation to where a person was.
We now have a national scheme, which I think is absolutely brilliant. It replaces state and territory schemes. As I mentioned earlier, the state and territory schemes that it is replacing have had difficulty coming to terms with the fact that it is a national scheme. There are so many duplications and the scheme needs to be more efficient than it is at the moment; it needs to provide better information to all parties involved in the system. The duplication in the system really slows it down, and doctors seeking to come to Australia are prevented from doing so or delayed. Sometimes that delay leads to them locating in another country.
First and foremost in a health system is that we have a health system. The next thing we need to look at is that we look after the patients and the workers in the system. We have to create a system that provides security to all those people who are working in the system. We have to provide support to IMGs who come to Australia from overseas. They need support to integrate into the system and they also need mentoring and cultural awareness. They need to understand the way our complex medical system works. Whilst we saw examples of that taking place in some cases, it was very fragmented and it did not always achieve what it set out to. I wholeheartedly support each and every recommendation in this report. It was a unanimous report and it was one that each and every member of that committee contributed to. We were very mindful of the fact that this would be a blueprint—at least, we hope it is a blueprint—for the way IMGs come to Australia and how they are treated when they get here. It is about setting up independent appeal processes as well as making sure that the assessments that IMGs undertake are proper assessments.
I would like to devote the remainder of my contribution to the work based assessments. We saw two very good examples, one in Launceston and one in the Hunter. I have had a little bit to do with the one in the Hunter. It has been phenomenally successful. The graduates that have gone through it have all been successful. The cost of undertaking that course is minimal when you look at the outcomes that are achieved by the participants.
I recently attended a conference that was held in Newcastle, and the chair of the committee, Steve Georganas, the member for Hindmarsh, attended that conference. It further reinforced that the work based assessment model was the best way to integrate IMGs into our system. It provided a system where IMGs were given the support that they needed right from the day they signed up into the program. There was clinical support. They had a mentor that provided them with support for their family and cultural support. They worked alongside qualified physicians and surgeons. They really learned how the system worked and if they had a problem in some area they were able to work on that. The Hunter-New England program at the time we did the report had 49 successful IMGs progress through it. There is a waiting list to get into this program, just as there is a waiting list to get into other programs.
This was a very important inquiry. It was an inquiry that I see as a way forward for IMGs coming to Australia. As a nation we have to be very mindful of the fact that if we did not have IMGs our medical system would not work. So we have to make sure of the safety within our community but we also have to value and provide the support that IMGs need to function in our health system.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (17:03): It is good to have the opportunity of rising to speak on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Lost in the labyrinth report, which was an inquiry into the registration processes and the support for overseas trained doctors. This report is interesting because it reflects the complex nature of the accreditation and registration processes and the breadth of issues faced by international medical graduates in their personal and professional lives. Each individual who gave evidence brought a different perspective to some of the challenges that they experienced in this total process—from the time of leaving their country of origin to their arrival in Australia and their appointment to a region somewhere within Australia.
I found the evidence provided by the committee both interesting and vexing. The ongoing challenges were not being considered problematic, and the patterns of access and reasons for failure to me seemed evident, but did not appear to be when we questioned those responsible for the processes when they appeared before us. Whilst things have improved, I hope that this report streamlines the way in which IMGs are recognised for their qualifications, their capabilities and their capacities, and the way in which they meet the registration requirements. I think the Commonwealth government agencies need to better coordinate the service they provide and not assume that all is fine in respect of IMGs, who provide an invaluable service to regional and rural Australia.
The other element that I found interesting was the complexity of the issues facing individuals and the way in which they had to fundamentally go it alone at times in challenging some of the considerations by the professional colleges, and certainly by government agencies, in chasing paperwork and the problematic issues of acquiring additional paperwork from their country and university of origin.
Australia has one of the best health systems in the world, delivering high quality health care to the community. The work of the committee reflects the need to ensure that the status quo is maintained. At no stage did we ever want a reduction in the standard that is provided. In fact, at a hearing in Cairns, three witnesses left the hearing. They made a comment about the committee's inquiry and the details that we were seeking. One of them suggested that we were trying to lower the bar. But at no stage did we ever contemplate that. We have an obligation to ensure that the highest quality of care is provided across this country.
The committee does not support any reduction in the high clinical standards expected of our medical practitioners. Australia is reliant on IMGs to address medical practitioner workforce shortages, particularly in the regional, rural and remote communities, where they make up over 40 per cent of the medical workforce. In some jurisdictions it is slightly higher, but on average it is around that level. IMGs indicated, in both the 22 public hearings and the 216 submissions received by the committee, that in their view they do not always receive the same level of support from the institutions and agencies that they interact with.
The aim of the committee's work was to reduce red tape, duplication and the administrative hurdles faced by IMGs, whilst ensuring that Australian standards continued to be rigorously applied. We heard from those who had difficulties meeting the new mandatory registration standards, particularly the standards pertaining to English language proficiency. One IMG shared a story of how they failed because they were not able to express what an Australian colloquial saying was—which I found very interesting to have included. Another told us about when he was asked 'When an Aboriginal grandma brings a child in for medical treatment what is the first question you should ask the patient?' and he had responded by saying you should ask about the condition of the child. He was chastised for not asking, 'Where is the mother?' On that basis, he did not pass that test. The transcripts, if you get the opportunity of reading them, are well worth looking at. They document some of the challenges experienced by highly credentialed people who through a 10-year period served time in rural and remote Australia.
Let me also say that the response from the Medical Board of Australia, the Australian Health Practitioners Registration Agency and the Australian Medical Council was constructive and positive. In fact, when I met with some of them after we released the report, they were very complimentary about the way the committee had looked at the issues but gave recommended actions that were pragmatic, that they could take responsibility for and implement. We were also ensuring that the supporting documentation, which is often a challenge in terms of presenting it to multiple points of registration and multiple points of examination, became easier with one central depository they could go back to.
We also covered in the report the issue of developing a cohesive and comprehensive system of ongoing support for IMGs and their families, with a particular emphasis on the educational needs of their children along with support and employment prospects for the spouses. The committee recommended that Health Workforce Australia in consultation with key stakeholders develop a nationally consistent and streamlined system of education and training support for international medical placements and for the graduates.
The thing that puzzled me in all of this—it still does to some extent and I hope that we do address it—is that it demonstrated that our workforce planning for our population is not our strength as a nation. If the population projection for the next decade takes us from, say, 22.5 million to 27 million, then why are we not forward planning the number of doctors and allied health professionals that we will need, and making available those places within a university? It makes logical sense. I also do not want to see us plunder other nations for their medical practitioners, because that leaves a deficit in their healthcare systems, and I would rather see us have that as a strength.
The number of medical schools needs to be seriously considered, given the time required for doctors to be trained before they can become general practitioners. We assume that a six-year training degree automatically puts a doctor in situ, where they will practice, but in fact it takes 13 years before they are able to practise on their own. So our time lag is significant. I am aware that Curtin University is seeking to establish a school of medicine to increase the number of doctors for Western Australia and, ultimately, Australia. I hope that in the future they are supported in that endeavour.
The other thing that really struck me was our absolute neglect of rural, remote and regional Australia. Time and time again we heard of the IMG's ageing workforce and some of the challenges in getting people out into regional, rural and remote Australia. We have a requirement for those on 457 visas to spend a period of 10 years in regional Australia; but under some circumstances they can return to a capital city—but they have to be mitigating. It is time that all persuasions of governments at all levels give serious consideration to health services in rural Australia and the models of care that are provided. When we consider what is in this report, I think it should be read by every member of this parliament, because it contains a good synopsis of the challenges we face for the workforce of our health system and, in that sense, will help us to position ourselves to be much more strategic in the training and skilling of people. I would hate to see in 10 years time that we have a lack of numbers to fulfil the needs of Australians.
The other thing that is important in the report is those who contribute to the skilling, to the professionalism and to the quality healthcare system that we enjoy and take for granted. On that basis, I commend the report for broader reading and certainly for support in respect of the recommendations. If they are adopted and taken up, then we will see incredible growth in the number of professionals that service this country. We will see the maintenance of a standard and quality of health care that we take for granted.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (17:13): I rise to speak on the report compiled by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing into registration and support processes for overseas-trained doctors, titled Lost in the Labyrinth. I thank the committee secretariat; the chair of the committee, Steve Georganas; my fellow committee members; and all those who made submissions and attended hearings. I thank them for attending the hearing in Launceston. It was the first time the health and ageing committee has been to Launceston. It was an important inquiry and I hope to see improvements in the processes in the future. As I have said in the House many times before, Australia has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. It delivers consistently high-quality care and we have a qualified, trained and skilled workforce—which is a key component to success in the healthcare system—including an adequate number of medical practitioners. Australia has long been reliant on international medical graduates to address medical practitioner workforce shortages, particularly in regional and rural Australia and remote communities, where they make up 40 per cent of the medical workforce.
In view of the continued reliance on IMGs, the challenge is to establish a system which enables suitably qualified and experienced medical practitioners to work in Australia while also protecting the health and wellbeing of the Australian public. It is important that IMGs undergo thorough screening processes to ensure that they meet the professional standards needed to practice medicine in Australia. We also need to ensure that the process is streamlined and transparent. Over the course of the inquiry the committee received 184 submissions from organisations, government authorities and individuals. We heard of the difficulties faced by individuals trying to go through the processes required to practise in Australia, outlining their personal experiences regarding accreditation and/or registration processes. All medical practitioners, regardless of where they have qualified, must meet certain requirements before they are permitted to practise in Australia, as noted in the submission from the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing. These requirements are designed to ensure minimum standards of quality and safety and, in some cases, will result in practitioners operating under a range of conditions, including under supervision and restrictions on area and/or scope of practice.
Although there is clearly a need for a robust system of accreditation and registration with sufficient checks to ensure public safety, some have argued that the regulatory frameworks to be navigated by IMGs are overly complex and their administration is flawed. There have been inquiries held regarding this subject previously, and there is vast room for improvement and transparency in this area. One submission the committee received labelled the system as resembling spaghetti. We heard from many individual stakeholders who consider their own processes to be straightforward but discovered that once all of these processes and steps were combined the system was far more complex. The challenge is for the various committees to appreciate that the individual steps are logical but together they are spaghetti.
As highlighted in section 1 of the report, for IMGs seeking to practise medicine in Australia, dealing with accreditation and registration is part of a wide process. Many IMGs, particularly those applying from overseas, often need to engage with the Australian government Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing, state and territory governments, recruitment agencies and potential employers, and the list goes on. This is a long and complex process.
The MBA's English language skills registration standard was highlighted by many who gave evidence before the committee and caused difficulty for some IMGs seeking registration. The committee recommends that the Medical Board of Australia review whether the current English language skills registration standard is appropriate for international graduates.
Our other key recommendations include establishing a one-stop shop to assist IMGs in navigating the accreditation and registration process; a review of the 10-year moratorium requiring IMGs to work in a district of workforce shortage for up to 10 years to be eligible for a Medicare provider number; an increase in the validity period for English language test results from two years to four years when applying for certain forms of medical registration; and the establishment of a central document repository for IMG paperwork, to reduce the duplication and administration inefficiencies.
The practice of taking IMGs, medical graduates from overseas, has been a wonderful success for Australia. I think the answer to the overseas trained doctors issue is quite complex, but we in Australia cannot do without those overseas graduates. There have been some fantastic overseas graduates and some great contributors to the Australian medical system. I know firsthand about the great contributions to Australia that internationally trained doctors have made in my time as business manager at Launceston General Hospital in just about all of the specialties. I do, however, like the committee, believe that the development of self-sufficiency in producing Australian-trained medical personnel should be the target for Australia. I commend this report to the House.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:19): I too commend every member of the committee that put together this important report. With my interest in this policy area, I have had a number of people around the country ask that the parliament take a more detailed look at the area of overseas trained doctors, international medical graduates, and the pathway—often complex—that they have to traverse in order to become a recognised health practitioner in Australia. The context of this discussion is the recent establishment of AHPRA. We know that they have assumed many of the roles that were traditionally performed by independent state medical boards. In the main, there has been some support for a nationally harmonised process to allow overseas applicants to go through a single national process of registration and ultimately be looked after by the same bodies that look after our domestic graduates.
This is also in the context of a much longer period during which Australia, like a number of developed economies, has been unable to provide itself with, and sufficiently train, domestic graduates to fulfil the needs of our health system. That is primarily because we have an extremely advanced health system that remains dependent on its human workforce despite the increasing use of technology in the health system. Health remains a growth area of government spending that is heavily reliant on highly trained individuals. Australia has not been able to provide for its entire population through lags in the system and also historically through the 1990s workforce modelling that incorrectly indicated that we actually did have enough health workforce being trained. In fact, many experts underestimated the number of, in particular, female graduates who would not move into full-time work. So, while the numbers may have appeared to have been satisfactory to a number of observers, in the early 2000s we were short in nursing, medicine and allied health in particular.
Australia has a long tradition of relying on overseas medical graduates coming into a universal healthcare system that is GP focused. That is why Australia's health system is so utterly dependent on IMGs, particularly in the larger and more sparsely populated states of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, where more than half of our medical workforce comes from overseas. Setting those ethical issues aside, there has been a longstanding debate over equivalence versus competency—'equivalence' meaning 'Do you have exactly the same degree?' and 'competence' meaning 'Are you able to demonstrate a level of health or clinical performance similar to an Australian graduate?' Slowly, over time, we have been able to make important shifts towards clear equivalence. We require a demonstration of ability, which is effectively competence, but you do not have to have an identical degree to be able to be recognised in Australia. We have shifted away from demanding that overseas graduates have the Australian qualification, the speciality qualification that is identical or comparable, to a recognition that there a number of universities and certainly countries around the world that have equivalent standards and that, for those practitioners, there should be a more streamlined approach.
If there is one thing that comes out of this report for me, it is that we need to be identifying those overseas providers who can be fast-tracked into Australia because of the recognised degrees and qualifications that they hold —in particular, English speaking—and that they can be brought in with a minimum of fuss and delay. There is obviously a cohort who have potentially high levels of qualification but come from countries where the standard of those degrees is more variable. In those cases, I think it is only right and proper that we are extremely detailed in our evaluation of those qualifications and competencies. I think everyone here would agree that in no way should we shift from a belief that quality of care has to be paramount, that we cannot compromise that for any streamlining of the system.
I think it would be wrong to presume that anything that drove this particular report or any of the views of anyone who contributed to it would have supported such a proposition. But significant groups who shape the health system in this country have contributed generously with their submissions. I appreciate that, as I know that the rest of the parliament does, because it is clear that this is an immensely complex area, that there is no simple solution and that you cannot simply treat everyone in exactly the same way. When an applicant comes into the health system, up until recent years they have predominantly done so via a purely paper based application that needed to be checked in depth. It is really good to see a shift now towards a verbal examination and structured interviews, and I think what will ultimately be most effective is workplace based assessment. That has to be at the highest level. This will allow clinical fellows who are experts in their own fields, and who are performing assessments of people coming from overseas, to give fast feedback to minimise the amount of heartbreak, disappointment, time investment or financial investment that comes with not having early feedback on exactly how that person's application is going, and what their likelihood is of success.
It is also important to recognise that when people come from overseas they come, in many cases, as a family. We still have an issue where some of our highest-need areas are also our most remote. They are the areas where it is hardest to supervise an applicant, and where support for family members is most strained. So it is a real shame that we have people arriving on visas who are, in particular, providing health services to the community but cannot get health care for their own children or enrol their children in the local school. I would like to see these sorts of inequities addressed so that we can at least know that there is the social support there for people who are doing the work in the most remote parts of our country.
We have a number of times raised the anomalies between areas of need, districts of workforce shortages and the payments that are calculated through the Australian government geographic classification of remoteness. All of these, at different times, run counter to each other. In my electorate it causes enormous heartbreak in the remote islands off the coast of Queensland, where it is immensely difficult to get a doctor to practise, and where we rely on exemptions to the DWS to maintain the staffing of our medical centres.
There are inconsistencies as you move around the country, and naturally there will always be lines that have to be drawn on the map, but we are finding that these geographic zones could be better designed. There has been a long campaign run by the Rural Doctors Association of Australia to revisit this five-tier classification system that has been introduced by the current government. We think it is too coarse a classification. It may well work for other purposes, but it does not work for the decisions that practitioners make to move into remote parts of Australia. In many cases, giving someone exactly the same payment whether they are working in Central Australia or in a provincial town is quite inequitable.
It is also concerning that the additional payments that are made to people to move into really remote areas are so small; either we are going to fail to attract people in the first place or we are going to have our remote providers burning out and leaving those areas because the incentive to stay is simply not high enough for them to continue. This will continue to cause problems for remote country towns that need a continued medical service provision. If you take that doctor away the pharmacy then collapses and a range of other providers go broke, and it can rip the heart right out of a country town.
It is very important that we keep those numbers high. It is simply not sufficient to quote numbers across broad regional areas and say that there are more doctors in an inner or an outer regional area. These regions cover areas far greater than most countries on the planet. We need to be more specific, and identify towns that are in the electorates—some even belonging to members sitting here in this chamber—that can lose a doctor and have it be an absolutely harrowing situation for the social capital within that community. Retaining a doctor is everything for a number of those communities, and we need to be finding more innovative partnerships where we can partner up large practices in urban areas—and even hospitals—to provide backup to smaller towns. After all, they have the HR back end. They have the nerve centre of HR skills and administrative capacity to be hiring and finding new providers, but many country towns cannot. It is not enough just to hand them a bucket of money and say, 'Go and find yourself a doctor.' It is extremely difficult for them to do it and to keep doing it every year when they lose someone they have only just recruited.
The messages were quite simple in this report. There will not be any magic bullet, but the shift from paper based assessment to PICSE, structured interviews and work based assessment is agreed on both sides of the chamber. We need to be more imaginative in our assessment so that we can streamline and identify those who are capable and, when they are, ensure that they are identified early and allowed to work in a base hospital or a teaching hospital first so that they understand our system before they are thrown out into the remote areas.
The current moratorium has its challenges but , at this point, as long as we can properly supervise new arrivals to our medical and health system then there are elements of the moratorium that are working effectively . T o remove it would significantly compromise large areas of this country. Once again, to those who put this report together, I commend them and the contribution they have made to rural and workforce health policy.
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (17:29): It gives me great pleasure to speak and address this report and the recommendations that we have put forward after what was for me one of the most interesting periods of learning about our health system that I have undergone. Happily, I have been blessed with good health most of the time and my experience, like most Australians my age, is of a fairly seamless system. But the reality is that we have not, particularly given the $1 billion that was pulled out of health under the former health minister, had a very careful planning of our workforce; neither have we had a very careful education of our doctors to a point that they were able to come into our system in a way that responds to the needs that are evident in the seats that we represent.
So I have to acknowledge from the outset the incredible contribution to the public health of this country of international medical graduates who have been coming to us for so many years and contributed to our local communities in incredibly significant and positive ways. That being said, some high-profile cases recently indicate that perhaps the system was not all in good health and that people who should have been picked up as unsuitable for working in our system were overlooked.
I think I can say that it was definitely a bipartisan, unanimous report in the end. Working with my colleagues we all had a sense of great understanding and acceptance of the good work that had been done but also the fact that currently people who were seeking to coming to Australia to work as international medical graduates to support the service delivery that is so vital to our people were actually, literally caught and lost in a labyrinth.
Considering that in regional, remote and rural communities 40 per cent of the medical workforce comes from the supply of international medical graduates, it will give people listening to this debate some idea of how critical this issue is for us. It was a long inquiry and it was held right across the country. There was incredibly moving testimony by people who had managed their way through the system, got out the other side and were now participating. Similarly, there was incredibly moving in a very unhappy way testimony from people who could not negotiate the system. In that sense I think that the words 'lost in the labyrinth' are something that I want to explore.
Firstly, lost in the sense that there was a very uncertain pathway forward for many of these people, who had in quite a number of cases very lengthy periods of successful service as health professionals, as doctors, in their own countries and who came and met a wall of resistance. It is fair to say that the committee was very mindful that excellence in practice was always at the heart of our concern. But with some of the processes that these formerly highly proficient and recently practising medical professionals had been engaged in, they were suddenly completely lost to our service because they were unable to negotiate the kind of paper warfare that they had to undertake to get through the requirements.
We had the testimony of people who are recruiters themselves, investing a huge amount of time in attracting great people with great recommendations and finding that when those people came to approach the system here there were complete disconnects between information received on application and then information that had to be handled and managed here. It was embarrassing to hear that people had provided accurate registrations of their success and completion of studies and that they had done that over and over and were requested on so many occasions to completely resubmit material.
It spoke somewhat to me of the imbalance of power in this structure. The people who are the gatekeepers of the profession are, with best intentions, determined to maintain excellent standards, but, sadly, in a duty-bound, process-bound system of applying and looking at applications, they ended up creating a structure where people who really should have been able to get in, get their paperwork processed, get through and get practising were actually impeded from doing so. So the sense of being lost in the labyrinth was a loss of capability to our system by people who were messed around through Immigration and through different agencies; a loss of the capacity for their talents and skills to be actually used very, very well here. A couple of the recommendations that relate to the problems that arose related to testing, particularly recommendations 22 and 23 in our report. They spoke about problems that we identified with the way in which people were tested. We had quite a degree of testimony from people who were very experienced, who had been operating for 20 years in their profession in some cases, who had to do the equivalent test of a student who was just completing their undergraduate studies. The mismatch between the testing of current practical capacities and old, known, abstract knowledge was something that we were really concerned about, and we have a number of recommendations regarding that.
I think the member for Hasluck has highlighted one of the other very significant concerns that we came across, which was a failure to have proper workforce planning. That was very evident and had resulted in the situation where we have a period where we have been incredibly overdependent on overseas trained doctors. In the testimony that we took, a number of people pointed out that we are, indeed, a very rich country, an economically developed nation, and it is vital that we have the capacity to meet our own medical practitioner workforce needs. It was indicated that the World Health Organisation global code of practice states that member states should meet their own health human resources needs as much as possible.
Sadly, we have had a period of inadequate supply complicated further by a very uneven geographical distribution of our workforce. Our commitment, as a federal Labor government, to increasing the number of training places for doctors to 'grow our own' is actually beginning to have an impact, but even that was pointed out as having some horns on it in terms of how we get the proper training in place for this large number of graduates who are coming through who are home grown.
I was pleased that in our hearings we went right around the country. I know that the member for Bass indicated that it was the first hearing of that kind held in his electorate. We did glean some extremely helpful evidence when we were in Launceston. We also had the opportunity to visit my electorate on the Central Coast.
As the member for Bowman was just pointing out, the definitions of terms such as 'district of workforce shortage' and 'area of need' became problematic. It was evident to us that these were problematic terms. When faced with the cost of recruitment and then the challenge of how that met with current regulations about where a district workforce shortage occurred and where an area of need was determined according to criteria, we found there was incredible misfit in an area such as mine, which is only 1½ hours north of Sydney. We have had a number of local ageing practitioners, some of them overseas trained, who have now retired. With three or four of them retiring, there was, all of a sudden, a drop in the capacity of local practitioners to respond to growing need, which was not being assisted by current definitions of 'district of workforce shortage' and 'area of need'. That was very, very apparent not just in the remote areas, which we could see when we went to the electorate of the member for Parkes. We saw incredible difficulty there, but it was surprising to me how there were difficulties also in areas such as mine that were quite close to cities. It tells us how fine the line is between the number of people that we are training and the capacity that we have to respond to our local communities. I think that the recommendations we have made in this report—all 45 of them—address some of the systemic problems that became increasingly apparent to us as what was described as 'the spaghetti-like nature' of how one might proceed through this system became more and more apparent.
In closing I thank the members of the committee, the members for Swan, Parkes, Shortland, Bass and Hasluck. It has been very much an experience that I will remember as a very positive one in my first major hearing in this place. I also acknowledge the leadership of the member for Hindmarsh, and in particular the work of the secretariat, who were so determined in making sure that we got excellent evidence on which to draw in making these recommendations. I particularly single out Dr Alison Clegg, Mrs Sharon Bryant and Mr Muzammil Ali, who did incredible work for us.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (17:39): I too would just like to add my brief comments on this report, Lost in the labyrinth. I would like to commence where the member for Robertson finished and acknowledge the work of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. I have to say that the work that I do on the health and ageing committee is one of the highlights of my time in this place. I acknowledge the fellow members and also the leadership of the member for Hindmarsh and our deputy chair, because we were focusing on issues that cross the political spectrum. They generally cross the city-country divide and generally are far more complex than would originally be seen from the outside.
Let me say at the outset that I think that, when we are dealing with medical professionals and we are looking at the services to provide to the Australian public, we do have to set a standard. We do need to make sure that we screen people who do not have the technical ability, the cultural ability or the language skills to undertake these jobs. This report is not about opening the doors up to anyone that might want to come and practise medicine in Australia, but what it has done is highlight a number of roadblocks that have blocked people not only in the initial stages but also later. I think it was in Brisbane that there was a doctor who was practicing in the Ipswich area who had been in the country since the mid-eighties and at one stage found himself six days from deportation because of a technicality in the paperwork. He had been here close on 30 years practising and had a loyal group of patients in his practice west of Brisbane and was on the verge of being deported.
If there is one thing that I think I would like to highlight in this report, I think the one thing we should take out of it is to straighten out the kinks and put in a genuine road map for people to come through. That is what we found, whether it was medical practitioners that were coming in as general practitioners or others that were highly specialised surgeons, anaesthetists or cardiologists, a whole range of people who were highly specialised in their own country. They came from English-speaking countries, but because of the process in place—I might say because of the self interest of some of the colleges—they were finding incredible hindrances and roadblocks put in place. That is what we need to overcome. We had people coming into this country who were leaders in their field, but those skills were not being utilised in this process.
So there needs to be a genuine pathway. The information needs to be upfront and easy to follow so that as the applicants go through the process there is a clear pathway for them to get through. We found people that had been sidelined in the process, in things like the language test. There are four parts to the language test and, if you failed one of those, you had to redo the test. The next time you did the retest, if you failed another part that you actually passed the first time, that was considered a fail. So we had some people who had been going for this test many, many times, and I would suspect that many people that were actually born and educated in Australia may have trouble with some of the issues in the written part of the test or the comprehension. But they were being blocked. There was quite a bit of inconvenience and cost. Some of the GPs from country areas who would be called in to undertake some of the testing process were given very little time to prepare and were forced to cover large distances, and every time they did not quite make the bar they were up for considerable cost. The point I highlight is that we need a clear pathway. We need to assist these people through the process. We need to make it open and transparent. We need to make sure we do not lower our standards, that we have people coming in who are suitably qualified to practise medicine in this country, and we need to be of assistance. Not only do the government departments have a role to play in this but the colleges also need to enter into the spirit of cooperation, rather than putting up blocks and looking after their own self-interests. Unfortunately, that came through on several occasions during the hearings we were undertaking.
In closing, I support this report. I believe this will be a valuable tool for governments of the future and the present to sort out this problem. The reality is—and the member for Robertson spoke about our young medical graduates coming through from Australian universities—in a large number of cases it is overseas trained doctors who are training these young students, residents and registrars through the system. They are the ones who are overseeing the training process as our own home-grown people come through. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have everything in place to make that as efficient and as painless as possible. I fully endorse the report.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (17:47): I want to focus in particular on recommendations 25 and 26 of the Lost in the labyrinth report. These refer respectively to district of workforce shortage and area of need. Recommendation 25 is seeking for the department to publish on its website a comprehensive guide outlining how district of workforce shortage status is determined and how it operates to address the issue of workforce shortages in the medical practitioner industry. It goes on to detail how that should be done. Recommendation 26 recommends that the department consult with the states and territories and their respective health departments to agree on a consistent approach to determining area of need status based on agreed criteria.
Putting that to the side for one moment, I turn to my electorate, in which houses the beautiful Whitsundays. It is an area that people want to come to all the time to holiday, and we want to encourage that more and more. There are four private GP surgeries operating in Proserpine and the Whitsundays, Proserpine being a small town right beside the latter. All of these surgeries are at capacity in terms of their patient numbers. I personally know of GPs operating in their surgeries for 10- to 12-hour days, and they are doing that six or seven days a week. They are burning themselves out. At the same time I have local residents in the Whitsundays telling me about the difficulty of getting in to see a doctor.
It is my strong belief that medical services in that area are in crisis, and that is directly related to a shortage of GPs. I know of at least three centres that have in recent times advertised for Australian GPs to come and work in those clinics—all to no avail. In one instance there was repeated advertising from one clinic for a period of over 18 months. During that time—and again I am mentioning the beautiful Whitsundays—they had one respondent, who was sent some information about the place and then withdrew his application. That just shows you the real dilemma that we have attracting home-grown doctors to regional areas.
The other option available to us is to have foreign doctors coming into our regions in need. As long as they are able to get a Medicare provider number allocated to them, everything should be fine, but this is the problem. We have no capacity to get those people in there because there are no more Medicare provider numbers available. I want to quote a couple of local doctors here. One is Dr Michael McFall from the Cannonvale Medical Centre, whom I am in contact with a fair bit about this issue. I could not believe when the other day he phoned me up and said to me that he had seen 50 patients already that day. This is the kind of pressure that our GPs are under. He wrote a letter to me here last year which we tried to do something about. Unfortunately, because of the system, we were not able to. He writes, 'I am a sole general practitioner with a client base in excess of acceptable levels.' The Mackay division of general practice recommendation for a client load is 1,000 patients per practitioner. His client load is 3,300. His medical centre, he says, is struggling to service this workload. He writes: 'I've been trying unsuccessfully to attract a suitable applicant within Australia for the last 18 months. Therefore, I have been forced to seek interested doctors outside of Australia. However, our region is restricted in allocated placements for overseas trained doctors. Although this medical centre is allowed one overseas trained doctor, this process is taking over nine months to fill this position from the initial contact to actually having the doctor on site. Due to this medical centre's high demand and growth, we could justify and easily accommodate an extra doctor. The problem is the processes do not allow it.'
I go on to 121 Medical Centre, also in Cannonvale, and Dr Yehia El-Baky, who is a great local GP. He highlights the issue more. He writes to me: 'Despite the region's obvious attractions, of which its beauty is just one, it is extremely difficult to attract doctors who have trained in Australia to the Whitsundays region. A new locally trained doctor might volunteer to permanently relocate to the Whitsundays only once or twice a year, and for that reason 121 Medical Centre, like many other medical practices in a rural or remote setting, relies on its ability to recruit overseas trained doctors to provide a stable medical practice capable of opening each day.'
I want to quote at length a local newspaper article on what Dr El-Baky said there. The article is from the Whitsunday Coast Guardian, and it says:
There are certain services you just can’t live without. One of them is health.
A Whitsunday doctor - who sees up to 60 patients each day - says the answer to the severe shortage of GPs in regional areas lies in the hands of the federal government. Principal GP at the 121 Medical Centre in Cannonvale, Dr Yehia El-Baky, says it's no longer "humanly possible" to continue working at the rate he and his colleague have been for the past number of years.
"I am not asking for a new doctor, just a replacement after one of my doctors left," says Dr El-Baky who admits he is considering closing his popular practise two days a week because of mounting pressure.
His practice is actually seven days a week, which I know is something that the government tries to promote to have after-hours medical clinic access. The article goes on:
Dr El-Baky says the answer to the doctor shortage right across the nation lies with the federal government's refusal to relax certain laws that allow overseas practitioners to work in Australia.
I do not want to be partisan and I am not going to be, because I understand that those same principles were in place in the former government as well; I have a problem with the regulations we have in place. The article goes on:
"We can't get Australian doctors … even with the $40,000 incentive to live in regional areas, for some reason they just don't want to come here. But overseas, there are fully qualified doctors—
who are actually here in Australia—
working in service stations, shop fronts, waiting for the okay to come to Australia and practise," he said.
"The government tells us we have about 23,000 people in this region who will need to see a GP, but this is not the actual population. We have 600,000 visitors to the region each year and about 10 per cent of those will need to see a doctor during their visit," he said.
I have been trying to work with Dr El-Bakyto find solutions. In the current system it is very, very difficult. We have actually got a petition that we gathered with all of the local clinics. We amassed almost 1,000 signatures to that petition in a very short time, and that is going through the process of coming before the House, which it will in due course.
I could go on and quote statements of support in trying to solve this issue for the Whitsundays from chemists, from the local ambulance service, from the local hospital—all of whom realise that there is a huge problem here. My issue comes down to this: the current structure for district of workforce shortage and area of need goes around where there is the most need, and I understand that, but we are always going to have smaller areas where there is the most need, and when you have areas where there is need but it is a little bit less they are always going to miss out. So in an area like the Whitsundays, where there may be some doctors meeting some sort of quota, there are going to be doctors there that are going to be burning themselves out because the quota is still going to be over and above what we need it to be, which as I detailed before is one to 1,000. We have doctors there working at ratios of one to 3,300 patients.
The only way currently to get through this is the granting of exemptions under the district of workforce shortage measures, and that is like trying to win lotto. So recommendations 25 and 26 out of this report are critical. They probably are a bit broad, to be honest, but I think that when the government looks at them and responds to them I would urge the government to consider relaxing some of those regulations so that we can get doctors into regional centres like the Whitsundays to take the pressure off existing GPs because, if we do not take that pressure off, they are well and truly going to burn themselves out.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (17:57): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, and may I say you are looking resplendent in a courageous combination of lilac and duck egg blue!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Flattery will get you everywhere!
Mr HUNT: Let me turn to this report from the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. It is a report which deals ultimately with the issues faced by rural and regional communities in attracting and retaining medical support for their communities. I want to deal with it in the context of the destruction of Warley Hospital on Phillip Island by the current government after it came to power in 2007 and 2008. I want to deal in particular with the destruction, the proposal in response, the let-down which we have just experienced from the government and the way forward. All of Phillip Island is looking for a way forward on long-term health facilities.
Let us address the destruction. Warley Hospital had been in place for over 80 years. Warley Hospital was founded by the people of Phillip Island who had subscribed to it in the early days and who had supported it along the way. It had received significant support from the Kennett government. It was one of very few remaining community hospitals. It was an heir to the bush-nursing tradition. It was a not-for-profit, community based, bush-nursing facility and yet it was allowed to die by the incoming government.
Warley had its challenges but we made a pledge which guaranteed that the hospital would survive. We took to the 2007 election $2½ million and within a month of coming to office this government had walked away from any support whatsoever for Warley Hospital. They deliberately chose to let a rural facility collapse. It was unjustifiable, it was unforgivable, and it will be remedied in time. What is the proposal to remedy it?
We have worked on a four-stage proposal for health services on Phillip Island. It is the community health hub. Stage 1 begins with a GP clinic and stage 2 emerges to include community health services such as dental, physio and occupational therapy. Stage 3 is nursing and hospital-type services such as palliative care, dialysis or consulting rooms and stage 4 is to have this community health hub integrated into the Wonthaggi Hospital as an annex, a satellite, a campus, with the appropriate facilities. It will not do everything, of course, but it would be a permanent facility. That is our task, our commitment and our responsibility to work to that end.
It will not be the stand-alone independent community hospital that Warley once was. Sadly, the destruction wrought by the current government will be almost impossible to mend, but we have a four-stage plan built by the community, designed by the community, which will take the legacy of over $1 million from the Warley Hospital Trust. It would also integrate federal funding and state funding. We will just work until we get there.
The disappointment is that the federal government had led the community to believe that they would receive funding as compensation for the failure to support Warley Hospital in the budget released two weeks ago. The community had sought this and hopes were raised. They were short-listed and the impression was that everything had been done properly and that it was merely a formality. Yet, when the moment came, the money was missing. The hospital vision was, again, postponed. There was not $1 million, not $100,000, not $10,000, not $1,000 and not even $1. That is a cruel neglect of, arguably, Victoria's premier regional tourism destination.
What we see are inadequate health facilities and inadequate medical facilities, all because the government failed to match and to respond to a critical need which could have had bipartisan support. It already had a pledge from the coalition. It already had a funding commitment. Yet that money was taken away by the incoming government with the destruction of a rural hospital which had been in place for 80 years.
Where do we go from here now that not only was the Warley Hospital taken away but the community health hub, which was indicated as coming, was not funded? Well, we keep going. We have our four-stage plan and we will fight for that. On our side we committed $2.5 million at the last two elections to the people of Phillip Island towards that hospital with the four-stage plan, and we will renew that commitment. We have had it confirmed internally that there will be $2.5 million. We will add that to the Warley Hospital funding and we will, hopefully, add it to funding from the state. Therefore, we can have a permanent facility which is about rebuilding medical, health and hospital facilities on Phillip Island.
Very briefly, what occurred was unforgiveable. What has transpired since is merely negligence. What will happen in the future is that the people of Phillip Island will be successful in rebuilding their medical facilities, their health facilities, and we will simply not stop until there is an integration into the broader Wonthaggi Hospital system.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (18:04): I rise tonight to support the report by the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing inquiring into registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors. I do so because it is of particular relevance to my electorate of Wannon. As a matter of fact, one of the best submissions which was presented to this inquiry came from the Western District Health Services. It goes to the nub of this issue, and that is that more and more in regional and rural areas we are relying on overseas trained specialists and GPs to support the provision of medical and surgical services.
There are two ways to address this problem and, hopefully, we can address the first by making sure that we get our Australian doctors trained more and more in regional and rural areas. There is no question that if we want to make sure that we have doctors for regional and rural areas, the best way we can do that is by training them out in regional and rural areas.
Deakin University have started that process in my electorate at their campus in Warrnambool, and they are doing an excellent job. We need to see more of that occurring across the country, because that should be the primary way we address this issue. I hope that it will be, and I hope that we will see a coalition policy which goes to the heart of this issue and continues what was started under the Howard government in this regard.
Mr Griffin: Any coalition policy would be good!
Mr TEHAN: Absolutely—all coalition policies are good and in particular this one will be a beauty. I have full confidence that Peter Dutton will deliver—
Mr Griffin: Name one of them!
Mr TEHAN: I have just named it, the one that started the medical school in Warrnambool. It means that we will start to see Australian doctors having trained in regional and rural areas wanting to provide the services out in those communities. That is what we want to see.
In the meantime, we have to ensure that those services can continue, and we are becoming more and more reliant on overseas trained specialists and GPs to do this work. What does that mean? It means that those overseas trained doctors and specialists have to have a proper pathway into Australia. We need a pathway which can be relied on, a pathway which is consistent, which has consistent time frames and which requires consistent regulation with regard to the information that is provided so that we can ensure that our communities—and it is often the smaller communities—have that critical mass of GPs and specialists to enable the health services to continue.
I referred to the excellent submission by the Western District Health Services to this inquiry, and I want to quote from their submission. In the report they also quoted from the Western District Health Services and I think it is important that we once again state on the record what the problem is. The submission says:
The recruitment of overseas trained Specialists in particular is extremely complex and complicated and requires Western District Health Service to engage the services of recruitment agencies which is a costly exercise in itself.
Despite the use of experienced and well credentialed recruitment agencies our experience in the recruitment of overseas Specialists is one of extreme frustration, extreme delays (in one instance nearly 2 years) which often results in the potential Specialist giving up on pursuing an offer of employment. Unfortunately this often appears as a deliberate strategy by the respective College.
This is a very serious point. What is occurring here is that applications by overseas doctors and specialists to get in and work in areas where these services cannot get local doctors or specialists to do the work seem to have been obstructed or had delaying tactics used so that these professionals end up going to other countries to do this vital work. We have to ensure that this issue is taken seriously because once you lose the critical mass of the specialists and the GPs you can often see services unwind to such an extent that they can no longer provide those important services to these rural and regional communities. The submission goes on:
Western District Health Service fully appreciates and supports a robust process to ensure that Specialists are appropriately skilled to provide a high quality service that we are accustomed to in Australia.
They understand that we have to meet high standards. That is not at issue here. We want the high standards met. We want to know that consumers of health services in regional and rural areas understand that the people looking after them have the required skills and the required studies to do so. That is not at issue here. What is at issue is making sure that, when overseas specialists and GPs apply, the pathway is one where the applications can be dealt with appropriately and within appropriate time constraints. The submission goes on:
It is often not understood by the Australian Medical Council and the respective Colleges that in regional and rural areas one Specialist vacancy can make all the difference in terms of providing a sustainable on call roster system for the provision of emergency medical and surgical services. Delays of 12 months and more in the recruitment process are just not acceptable. It is not only costly, but also places regional and rural communities at great risk in terms of providing medical and surgical services in an emergency situation.
I think that goes to the crux of the matter. It is very interesting that that was picked up in this report and it is important that it has been. People understand that the complexity and the time delays make it more and more difficult to get these much needed GPs and specialists into Australia to provide these services. The Western District Health Service submission concludes by saying:
Therefore our system for processing OTD's—
overseas trained doctors—
need a major overhaul and restructure to:
1. Provide better coordination and integration of the processes and procedures.
2. Streamline and simplify the entire process.
3. Ensure that an OTD who is compliant is able to be dealt with within a 6-9 months period.
4. Ensure there is a clear and transparent process.
5. Provide financial support to health organisations who require OTD's to ensure their communities have access to an appropriate and safe range of services.
6. Establish a single assessment/registration process and simplified procedure whilst maintaining a robust process to ensure safety and quality.
7. Establish a pathway between the OTD assessment and registration process and immigration.
As I have mentioned, I am glad to see that this report has picked that up. I am also glad that the shadow minister for health and ageing, the Hon. Peter Dutton, has recognised this as well. The submission of the Western District Health Service was of such merit that I made sure that I provided a copy to the shadow minister.
In his letter back to me he said: 'As mentioned in my previous correspondence addressing the maldistribution of the health and medical workforce is a policy priority for the coalition. In particular, the coalition remains committed to improving access in rural and regional areas to the increasing number of Australian medical graduates as a result of the increase in number of medical schools under the previous coalition government,' which is a point I made at the start. 'As part of our policy review process the coalition will examine issues relating to the registration and recruitment of overseas trained doctors including the recent findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.' I congratulate the shadow minister for acknowledging these two areas of concern and in committing the coalition to make sure that under a coalition government—and I think the majority of Australians are now hoping that that is what will occur at the next election—we will be able to implement these two key policy priorities.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (18:14): The first recommendation by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Lost in the labyrinth report on the inquiry into registration processes and support for overseas trained doctors goes to the very core of this most important issue. The seven-member committee firstly recommended that the Australian Medical Council, in consultation with the Medical Board of Australia and international medical graduates, take steps to assist IMGs having problems and delays with primary source verification. This would include continuing to help IMGs who have passed all requirements of a pathway towards registration as a medical practitioner, excepting primary source of verification; liaising with the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates to ascertain and address any obstacles to gaining timely primary source verification; and giving IMGs the latest information relevant to their application including the anticipated time frame for response based on their application, or options as to how they could speed up the process such as contacting the institution directly. This was one of 45 recommendations by a committee which wants the best outcomes for rural and regional health.
I know and appreciate the commitment of the committee to the promotion and welfare of country health. Two of the committee's representatives in particular have a deep sense of purpose and passion for and on behalf of those who live beyond the coastal fringe and who expect, and rightly deserve, the same health delivery as people in metropolitan areas. I refer to my coalition colleagues the members for Hasluck and Parkes, who both for many years have campaigned for improved access to medical services for the regions. Their actions are admirable.
Prior to entering parliament, the member for Hasluck served as a senior public servant in the fields of Aboriginal health and education in New South Wales and Western Australia. The member for Parkes represents almost a third of the land mass of New South Wales, a huge area with many hospitals, many multipurpose health facilities, and many challenges. For the member for Parkes, the sheer distance between health outposts is understandably a major factor. Getting specialists, general practitioners and allied health professionals to the far-flung parts of the state's far north is something for which Mark Coulton has continually and loudly lobbied, both in his capacity as Mayor of Gwydir Shire Council for three years and, since 2007, as local federal member. So I commend the members for Hasluck and Parkes and the other five on this lower house standing committee for their efforts to improve regional health. It needs all the help it can get. As experienced rural GP and obstetrician Dr Maxine Percival observed only recently at a function in this very building:
If rural practice was a patient, I would say that its condition would be critical.
The situation is critical and it is fair to say that, but for IMGs, it would be far worse for regional areas.
I would like to quote from an article in last week's The Land in a supplement entitled Rural Health 2012. Dr Paul Mara has for almost 28 years run a busy practice with his wife in Gundagai in my electorate of Riverina. He and his wife, Virginia Wrice, have also been founders of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, an organisation of which Dr Mara is the president. In the article he said:
There are not enough doctors in the bush. Basically what a lot of communities have done is taken on the idea that it's about having a doctor. Any doctor.
And the headline on this article was 'A doctor, any doctor won't fix GP crisis', and that is so true. Dr Mara went on:
Whereas, at the association level what we are looking at is how we can improve the quality of service delivery through improved training for doctors to better meet the needs of communities.
And that is regional communities. He continued:
And there is no doubt in my mind that federal government policy has put us in this situation.
We have got a lot of doctors from overseas, many of whom are not fully qualified and many of whom don't really want to be in the bush. And we see that as being a key problem.
He is right, of course. Dr Mara went on:
So at the association level we have looked at a training program which we hope will be rolled out nationally to provide doctors from Australia or overseas with the skills and expertise they need to practise in the bush.
That program would be modelled on the Queensland Rural Generalist Pathway and would be aimed at ensuring all GPs working in the bush, whether trained locally or overseas, have the wide range of skills and knowledge needed to provide high-quality service, the best-quality service, to rural communities, communities which need and deserve that sort of quality health care. Quoting Dr Mara again:
You can't have it both ways, you can't say we can just get a doctor from overseas and plug him into a country town and, on the other hand, say we want to have high-quality care.
To be a rural doctor you need to do 10 years of training. You can do a six- or four-year medical degree in Australia.
The four-year medical degree involves undergraduate degrees as well.
And then we (RDAA) are saying you probably need (another) three to five years (training) after that is to have the skills to meet the special needs of (rural) communities.
And rural communities do have special health needs. They are different in some ways to metropolitan areas. We do not have the same sort of wide range of specialists available—obstetrics is not available in many areas. So they are special areas and they are certainly challenging places.
Those extra skills short cover areas such as obstetrics, anaesthetics, surgery, emergency medicine, advanced training in paediatrics, indigenous health, acute mental health, geriatrics and palliative care, Dr Mara says.
"All of those things require a higher level of training (in the bush) than what you might necessarily need if you are a metropolitan GP."
Dr Mara also gave evidence to the inquiry which produced this report, Lost in the labyrinth. On 31 May he gave evidence at a public hearing here in Canberra, in which he said:
I think the key thing to state is that there is an ongoing medical workforce crisis in the country. The policy of importation of overseas-trained doctors is not really solving that problem. When I first did the research I alluded to, we said that there were about 1,000 doctors needed in the bush. Since then, we have imported from overseas literally hundreds of doctors, yet the situation is still much the same at the present time. So the policy of importing overseas-trained doctors is not solving the situation, but that does not mean we are opposed to having doctors from overseas working in the country so long as those doctors have access to the highest quality education, training, support and supervision if they need it and they and their families are not discriminated against. The association is clearly opposed to the moratorium (1) because we believe it does not work and (2) it imposes hardship on those doctors out there and makes them prone to manipulation and exploitation by different groups.
… … …
In regard to the issue [of] assessing these doctors, we have a position that, in their variety, the colleges should be ensuring that these doctors have the same capacity, skills and qualifications as Australian trained doctors; however, there needs to be some flexibility around assessment procedures, particularly for doctors who have been working in the bush for a number of years and have clearly been performing adequately, but are at risk now of deregistration.
Finally, in Wagga Wagga, there are concerted moves afoot at the moment to bring about a rural medical school for the city. Money—$20 million—has been provided for building such a facility in Port Macquarie, which, like Wagga, has a rural clinical school. That would be an ideal fit for New South Wales. If we had a rural medical school in Port Macquarie and also one in Wagga Wagga, we would have one in the north and one in the south.
As the member for Wannon just proclaimed loudly and passionately: we need more Australian trained doctors, particularly Australian trained doctors gaining their skills in the bush, in regional areas. That is the desirable outcome. A very hard-working group of clinicians, former member for Riverina Kay Hull, state member for Wagga Wagga Daryl Maguire and myself are working hard at achieving that very outcome. Hopefully, with federal government support in the future, that will become a reality, because it would be a great thing for Wagga to have a rural medical school to take that additional step from the rural clinical school that it has now. Working in conjunction with the University of New South Wales and possibly Charles Sturt University, both of which have very good form on the board as far as these sorts of things are concerned, it would be a desirable outcome and would certainly provide well-trained medical professionals in the bush, because let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what we need to meet many of the challenges that regional health is confronted with.
Debate adjourned.
Australia's Immigration Detention Network Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (18:24): Thank you, Deputy Speaker and thank you for stepping in where I had a clash with the role of Deputy Speaker and in speaking; I appreciate it a lot. This is an important report and an important process for a difficult issue in a somewhat difficult parliament. In speaking to this report as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Immigration Detention Network, I thank all the committee members involved, of all political persuasions. I think that, on one of the mostly hotly contested political issues of the moment, we have got as close to consensus as possible on as many points as possible. I particularly thank the committee chair, Daryl Melham, for his work in that regard. I also thank deputy chair, Sarah Hanson-Young and the opposition spokesman on migration issues, Scott Morrison. I think that, for a lot of this inquiry, those three people in particular worked well together—believe it or not—in looking at the issues rather than at the politics.
My interest in being involved is in the longer term strategy with regard to detention and migration policy in Australia, where too often the focus is on the day to day and the front pages of particular tabloids in an effort to score political points. That leads to poor policy and has an impact on people's lives. I find the language in this sector of public policy extraordinary in the way it depersonalises people's experiences; it turns what is essentially a very personal experience for the many people involved into something incredibly burdensome with regard to bureaucracy. The language alone is an example of that. The language of irregular maritime arrivals is just one example of how we depersonalise what is a very personal experience for all involved.
As well, as a member of this committee, I want through this process to try to do what I can to explain many of the complexities in this area of public policies to the communities I represent. I think most people would not be aware that there are various types of detention in Australia today. Most people would just think that there is one form: immigration detention centres, with lots of barbed wire, at various locations around Australia and that people who have come without visas or, for example, by boat are just thrown into these facilities. There is more going on in this area of public policy; there is immigration residential housing, there is transit accommodation, there are alternative places of detention; and there are residential determinations and the equivalence of community detention. So there are a range of strategies in place that governments of all persuasions are trying to implement to get the best outcomes for taxpayers and for the individuals and families involved.
I have made some additional comments to this report and, whilst I endorse the 31 recommendations made and sincerely hope they are adopted by government as quickly and thoroughly as possible, I want to highlight tonight the additional comments I have made. I am particularly pleased to see greater confidence emerging through many of the successes of community detention, for example, and, whilst it is a politically sensitive debate, if we are honest about what works and what does not work in this area of public policy, community based detention is one of the success stories that are happening now, and I would hope that public policy comes first and not the politics and that there is a greater investment in community based detention in Australia as a consequence of its success. I am pleased that this report recognises that. As well, I am pleased that this report addresses some of the anomalies regarding the rights of appeal to ASIO's security checks. I think in Australia we are shy of allowing people to question our intelligence bodies when they, in any normal circumstances, would have that right of appeal under law, yet we do not, for some reason—and whether it is just the history and the culture of this issue in Australia—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! It being 6.30 pm, in accordance with standing order 192 the debate is interrupted. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Education Funding
Debate resumed on the motion by Mr Frydenberg:
That this House rejects calls to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003 04 levels that would put at risk the financial viability of many non-government schools and leave many students disadvantaged.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong) (18:30): Of the many issues and topics we debate in this chamber, there are few more important than education. It is, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, the first defence of the nation. As I said to the House in my maiden speech nearly two years ago, there is bipartisan agreement with Menzies' proposition that 'lack of money must be no impediment to bright minds', but it is at this point that the ideological battleground begins.
We on this side of the political divide believe that parents have a fundamental right to choose the type of school they send their child to. Be it government or nongovernment, this individual choice should be supported and encouraged, representing as it does a central tenet of liberal philosophy. In contrast, for many of our opponents on the other side, non-government schools are simple 'necessary evils' that they must live with but never accommodate. Such a view not only leads to counterproductive educational outcomes but by definition is inequitable, denying parents as taxpayers equal government support for their choice of non-government schools to educate their children. This inequitable outcome is a bitter irony given that the central motivation for those on the left, who seek to reduce funding for non government schools, is their innate but misguided desire to produce a more equitable distribution of government monies.
So what do the Greens—the party who hold the balance of power in the Senate and who are in coalition with the Labor Party in government and received nearly 1.5 million first preference votes at the last election, including 18.5 per cent of voter in Kooyong—propose for non-government schools in their education policy? The answer is twofold: significantly less funding equivalent to billions of dollars per year and substantially more regulation of an intrusive and discriminatory kind. If you thought Mark Latham's 2004 hit list of private schools was bad, the Greens' policy takes this sentiment much further. In the words of Independent Schools Victoria chief executive Michelle Green, it represents 'Latham on steroids'. It would, in the words of the Victorian Director of Catholic Education, Stephen Elder, 'force school closures, increase fees, and change the ability of Catholic schools to be genuinely Catholic'.
So let us take a closer look at their current policy document, first issued in March 2010 and now available on the Greens website. Paragraph 65 commits the Greens to reduce funding for private schools to 2003-04 levels. In that year, according to data from the report on government services, non-government schools were responsible for educating 1.04 million students and received in recurrent expenditure $6,621 per student, and government schools, who were responsible for educating 2.25 million students, received $11,866 per student. Roll those numbers a few years forward and, based on 2009-10 data, recurrent expenditure per student is $14,380 for government schools and $7,427 for non-government schools. It is easy to see that, in real terms, public funding to government schools has increased at a far greater rate than it has for non government schools.
Based on these numbers, should the Greens get their way and go back to 2003-04 levels, funding for non-government schools will significantly decrease, opening up the door to higher school fees, worsening teacher-student ratios and less funding for capital works. The Greens simply fail to understand that many parents who send their children to non-government schools do so at great personal expense. They are forced to prioritise already tight budgets to choose a school with the right culture and values to suit their child. It is a choice that now sees 34 per cent of all students attending non-government schools, reaching 42 per cent at years 11 and 12. What is more, between 2004 and 2007 enrolments in non-government schools grew by 21.9 per cent compared to only 1.1 per cent at government schools. By sending their kids to non-government schools, parents are cross-subsidising the public education system to the tune of, on average, $6,000 per child per year. When it comes to the Greens policy it is not just this adjustment to the 2003-04 funding levels that they propose that causes concern; it is a host of other policy pronouncements too.
In paragraph 62, the Greens want 'proper consideration of the resource levels of non-government schools and their financial capacity, including fees and other parent contributions'. This opens a Pandora's box of issues, for currently under the SES funding model moneys raised by schools through philanthropic efforts or fees do not impact their government funding. But the Greens would dispense with this and, by making the connection with federal funding, would put in place invidious disincentives for schools to raise more funds from their own parent body. So too in paragraph 62, the Greens want 'non-government schools to be fully accountable to the parliament and therefore transparent to the public on their use of government funds and their financial situation, including all income and assets'. One could envisage each school principal and parent body chairperson being hauled before Senate estimate type committees to expound on the 'true state' of their balance sheet and all manner of expenditures. In paragraph 64, the Greens say they want to 'end public subsidies to the very wealthiest private schools'. What constitutes in their eyes a very wealthy private school could be the antithesis of what it is in reality.
In paragraph 63, the Greens say they want to 'ensure that non-government schools in receipt of government funding do not discriminate in hiring of staff or selection of students' and 'have an admissions and expulsion policy similar to public schools'. This is Orwellian in the extreme. Who would administer such a policy? And who would adjudicate in the event of a dispute? This very idea of dictating to non-government schools removes exactly the independence and autonomy that has made these schools so effective.
I could go on. In paragraph 18, the Greens seek to reverse 'excessive increases in Commonwealth funding to non-government schools in recent years'. But, as has been pointed out, schools have not received excessive increases at all, either in absolute or real terms. One has only to look at each of these Green policies to see that they are of concern. When you look at them in total they are really alarming. What this motion today seeks to do is to hold the Greens to account for their policies and to make clear to their fellow travellers in the Labor Party that funding for non-government schools must not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. In responding to the Gonski review the government and the Greens have an opportunity to affirm their commitment to the non-government school sector. This is what I and the coalition will be looking for.
I understand that a lot of work was put into the Gonski review, with over 7,000 written submissions, hundreds of meetings, 26 findings and 41 recommendations to show for it. But there are real questions that remain unanswered. What would a new, bigger bureaucracy, in particular school planning authorities and national resourcing bodies, do? Will indexation to non-government schools be maintained? If it does not, it could cost the non-government school sector up to $4.2 billion over four years. Is NAPLAN, which is a diagnostic tool, truly appropriate to determine funding as is being proposed? And what does the 'anticipated capacity of parents' really mean for the new resource standard? Ultimately, where will the money come from, because the Gonski review has recommended that at least $5 billion annually should be found, but this government in its recent budget allocated only $5 million to take this review a step further. These are the questions that we should be looking at. In my electorate of Kooyong the one big industry is our schools. I have over 52 schools, of which 30 are non-government, 13 are Catholic and 17 are independent. There are more than 30,000 school students in my electorate. This is the No. 1 issue. Parents send their kids to these independent and Catholic schools because they are aspirational, because it is a religious choice and because they are seeking a school that is consistent with their values and the educational outcomes that they seek. This is why I support the motion and this is why it deserves to be supported by this chamber.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (18:40): Again, this is an example of politics above policy. The inference in this motion is that there is some move afoot to reduce funding to non-government schools, This is simply not the case. The motion wants to exploit the fears of some teachers and parents about how the government might respond to the Gonski review. That review was exhaustive and detailed, and provided a roadmap for where we can go in terms of future support for schools. But in the period immediately following the announcement of the review the Prime Minister committed that no school in any sector will lose a dollar in funding per student from the review of the school funding arrangements we have in this country.
The government does not support any proposal to reduce funding to non-government schools. In fact, I am proud today that the government has invested over $65 billion in schools over the last four years—double the funding the coalition provided in its last term. We have arguably the most enviable record on spending in our school system for both government and non-government schools.
I do not have to look far to see the benefit of the record funding in schools, with 32 schools in Chifley receiving funding under one of the three Smarter Schools National Partnerships. Most of these were funded under the low-SES national partnership, which is supporting student engagement and attendance through whole-of-school strategies and also providing targeted intervention for specific groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. This funds reforms in leadership, teaching and learning in about 1,700 schools nationally.
Other schools in Chifley received funding from the literacy and numeracy national partnership, providing individualised support for students and targeted professional learning for school leaders and classroom teachers. Six schools in the Chifley electorate benefited from the National School Chaplaincy and Student Welfare Program, which provides schools the opportunity to employ either a religious chaplain or a secular student welfare worker. In last year's budget, we committed to an increase of some $222 million for this program, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
As of term 1 this year, the government's computers in schools program had distributed 8,672 computers to 25 schools in the electorate that I am proud to represent. This $2.4 billion investment across our nation's schools is designed to harness the potential of technology to transform teaching and learning in our schools.
With a large population of Aboriginal students in Chifley, it is great to see targeted funding to help lift school attendance and engagement for local students. Under the Focus Schools Next Steps program Marayong Public School in Chifley has received just a shade over $250 000 to provide extra training, resources and temporary employment of extra staff to achieve the program objectives.
In March, I was delighted to join with my colleague the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth in opening the Greater Western Sydney Performing Arts Centre at Plumpton High School, funded to the tune of just over $2 million under the Local Schools Working Together Program. I was really proud about this because the centre will be shared by students from Plumpton Public School, Plumpton House School, William Dean Public School, Glendenning Public School, Good Shepherd Primary School and the Australian Islamic College of Sydney. This program encourages government, Catholic and independent schools to work together to develop a shared educational facility to increase the benefits of government investment in capital infrastructure.
We always have a lot of platforms to be able to promote athletic achievement of students, and there are other avenues to put a spotlight on academic achievement. When I visit a lot of the schools in my area, I am proud to see the performing arts and creative arts talent that exists out our way but does not necessarily have the physical infrastructure to support it. This centre, through its design, its consideration of acoustic features and its layout, is providing something of quality to the people and young people in Western Sydney to be able to develop their performing and creative arts talent. I am particularly pleased that our investment will be able to foster that within them.
Again, this is not focused on the system; it is focused on the student. It has not focused on government or non-government; it has sought to bring schools together from across systems and to provide greater opportunities for students in our area. It is a very tangible way in which the government supports non-government schools, and that is on top of the Capital Grants Program, which has provided funding to schools over and above state and territory contributions. It is also funded from school community and block grant authorities.
In the three years from 2009 to 2012, capital grants totalling over $4.2 million were provided to nine independent and Catholic school building projects in our area. I have had the opportunity on a number of occasions to spruik in this place the great educational and employment benefits being provided to students in Chifley, for example, through another good program, trade training centres. Fourteen million dollars has benefited seven schools in the suburbs of Blacktown, Doonside, Hassall Grove, Marayong, Mount Druitt and Rooty Hill through three trade training centres, and a further million dollars is committed to another trade training centre.
I am particularly pleased to see that we have lifted the opportunities for students, particularly those from a low-income background, to go to university through the University of Western Sydney. But, for students who do not see that as their path, they can pursue vocational training through trade training centres in our area. This is something that I am particularly proud of and that a lot of parents, schools and industries in our local area have been happy to see.
In the 2012-13 budget, $13.9 billion has been allocated to schools and youth programs to lift science and maths education. I was pleased to attend a briefing given upstairs by Nobel laureate and physicist Professor Brian Schmidt. He has done work here in Australia, and the type of work we are trying to do to promote science and maths in schools potentially could promote further great work in this area.
I want to end on these points: the Gonski report proposed a funding model which would see every school in the country funded under the same system. It would be fair, transparent and effective. In our area, principal Mark Burnard, from the Chifley College Bidwell Campus said: 'It is not about the system; it is about the student—that is, to focus on student needs, regardless of what system they are in.'
What we have seen from the member for Kooyong, from the member for Higgins and from a lot of those opposite is this slow-burning campaign designed to whip up the fears of parents about where funding will go to into the future, who will gain and who will lose out. In our area, regardless of whether someone is in a government or non-government school, my main priority is to see funding lifted, particularly for students from a low-income background to ensure they have the support required. They were neglected in the years of Howard government and you guys are seeking to whip up fears again. It does not hold those opposite in good standing. With a noted savings target of $70 billion to be ripped out by those opposite, it will be interesting to see if the passion and fervour which we are seeing demonstrated in relation to school funding will be there in years to come should those opposite be in government. As I said, $65 billion invested by us in school spending over four years is under the $70 billion target that those opposite want to rip out. The opposition spokesperson, the member for Sturt, has refused to rule out where savings will be made in this budget, yet those opposite go around trying to whip up fears about what might happen post Gonski. Frankly, if they were serious about policy, they would put their policy forward, but they simply do not have that there. All they do have is a scare campaign, as it always is.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (18:50): I commend this motion from my friend and colleague the member for Kooyong. Like the member for Kooyong, I believe that all Australian children deserve a high-quality education that enables them to develop the skills necessary to realise their potential. Within my electorate of Higgins there are 39 schools educating the next generation of Australians. Twenty-three of these are non-government and 16 are government schools. I regularly visit these schools and am constantly impressed by the students, staff and families; their professionalism; and their real commitment to the education of children. As such, I am particularly concerned regarding the Greens' policy to drastically reduce the funding of the non-government education sector. Point 65 of the Greens' education policy states that they:
… support the maintenance of the total level of Commonwealth funding for private schools at 2003-04 levels (excluding that re-allocated under previous clauses), indexed for inflation.
But before we turn the funding clock back and given the real importance of education to our country's future, I would like once again to take the opportunity to dispel some of the pervading myths and misunderstandings surrounding education—in particular its funding.
In Australia government funding favours government schools, as it should. In fact, when funding from both federal and state and territory governments is taken into account, total government recurrent expenditure per government school student is $14,380 per annum as compared to $7,427 for non-government school students. The state and territory governments provide most, though not all, of the government school funding and the federal government provides most, though not all, of the funding to non-government schools. In short, from a taxpayer's perspective every child that attends a non-government school receives roughly half the government subsidy that the same child would if he or she were to attend a government school. Yet clearly the Greens are not satisfied with the current funding arrangements. They seek to turn back the funding clock 11 years.
So what would it mean? How would reducing funding to 2003-04 levels affect the 1.2 million Australian students in the non-government sector? What impact would the Greens' policy have on both non-government and government schools? I am dismayed to say that the Greens' policy would threaten the ongoing viability of nearly 300 schools across Australia. More specifically, recent reports suggest that 90 schools in Victoria, 79 in New South Wales, 62 in Queensland, 32 in Western Australia, 21 in South Australia, nine in the ACT, five in Tasmania and one in the Northern Territory would struggle to remain open. With a massive reduction in their revenues, independent schools would be forced to increase fees, reduce their educational programs or, most probably, a combination of both. In turn, if fees rise, independent schools become less accessible to Australian families. Many Australian families already make significant financial sacrifices in order to provide for their children's education. An increase in fees inevitably means that many families would be unable to find the additional money required.
It is worth repeating what I have previously said in this place: if just 10 per cent of students in the non-government sector switched to government education, 120,000 students would have to be immediately accommodated—not next February but next week. One hundred and twenty thousand new students in the government sector represent over 4,000 new classes. Where will the 4,000 new teachers come from? How will they be paid? Where will the students learn? Will there be 4,000 new demountable classrooms provided at short notice? How will current school facilities and resources cope? How much would all of this cost? Finally, how on earth does this improve student outcomes for any child or school in Australia?
As we in this place all know, the Greens hold considerable political power. As partners with the Labor government and the party that seeks to hold the balance of power in the Senate, they have enormous influence on the policy and legislation that affects the lives of all Australians now and into the future. So, what has been the Labor reaction on the school funding issue? They commissioned the Gonski review that recommended an additional $5 billion investment. What did we see from the Gillard-Swan budget? We saw $5.8 million, not $5 billion, over two years. What is this $5.8 million for? The answer is that it is for further research into their school funding changes. Yes, sadly, this is not some sick joke. The current school funding model expires at the end of next year. Schools, like all enterprises, need certainty to plan for the future. Unbelievably, the government still remains mute on the issue of whether school funding will continue to be indexed to keep abreast of rising educational costs. After five years of talk and an in-depth two-year Gonski review, why cannot Mr Garrett or his predecessor, Ms Gillard, simply answer the question? Either they will continue indexation or they will not, yes or no.
This is a real concern within my electorate. There are schools that are genuinely worried about their future and that of their students. In fact, if the Gillard government does not continue indexation, there will be 22 schools in Higgins which will have a shortfall of $29 million. If indexation is discontinued, fees will rise, programs will be reduced and students will be forced into government schools to the detriment of all. The Liberal Party understands the very real and negative impact that this will have.
In March the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, and I visited Presentation College in my electorate to meet with staff and students. Presentation College is an amazing school. It is an open entry school with a commitment to maintaining broad access to Catholic education for middle- and low-income families. Its students come from 114 suburbs and speak 26 languages at home. Students' families are of diverse backgrounds, from newly arrived migrants, artists and families in welfare housing to professionals and business people. Schools like Presentation dispel the myth that non-government schools are all elite. In fact, approximately 18 per cent of its students receive the education maintenance allowance. If funding indexation is discontinued, the school could lose as much as $2.5 million over four years from 2013 to 2017. This is approximately $3,800 per student.
Just a few weeks later the Hon. Christopher Pyne, shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, and I met with the principal and school council members of Greek Oakleigh Grammar School. So concerned is this school community that the principal wrote to me on behalf of his 500 students and their families regarding 'the cloud of uncertainty about the future of funding'. The principal was well aware that a reduction in indexation alone would mean a reduction in funding of $1.6 million over four years from 2013 to 2017. This is approximately $2,942 per student.
I assured him that, while the coalition offered funding certainty including funding indexation, the ALP remained deaf to their concerns. The issue of school funding clearly illuminates the fundamental difference between the Greens, the ALP and the coalition. In the coalition you have a party committed to certainty of school funding, a party that understands the importance of school autonomy and community engagement, a party that respects that families are best placed to choose the right place for their children to go to school and, fundamentally, a party that is much more concerned with the educational outcomes of all students than on who actually operates the school.
On the other side of the House you have the ALP and their partners the Greens. They are parties fixated on undermining the independent sector. They are ignorant of the need for certainty to enable schools to prosper. They are contemptuous of the role of principals and the community in schools. They think that for government schools to succeed independent schools must suffer.
I hosted a forum on schools funding in my electorate and invited principals, school officials, teachers, parents and students to have their say. They said with one voice, 'No,' to a hit list on independent schools. If the Prime Minister and her education minister have any integrity, they would too.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (18:59): Another sad moment in our parliament, I am afraid. Always go the fear line. Talk about something that is not going to happen, make people afraid of it, make up a few things and make a few motherhood statements that we all agree with anyway. Go the fear line—that is what we get from the opposition, and it is particularly a shame at this point because we are engaging at the moment in a very important review of school funding. It is the first national review of school funding in almost 40 years. It is well and truly overdue and it is incredibly important work.
Under the model proposed by the Gonski review panel, every school in the country would be funded under the same system. The system would be sector blind. The government has made that completely clear. We have said it will be a fair, transparent and effective system that will give schools long-term certainty about their funding levels. All of the investments so far have been sector blind. If you do not believe what we say we might do in the future, perhaps we should show you the money. Since the member for Riverina and the member for Kooyong having been interjecting 'show me the money' for most of the speeches so far, let us have a look at where the money is. The money has been totally sector blind.
We invested over $65 billion in schools over four years—almost double the coalition in their last term. It included $2.4 billion for the Digital Education Revolution, which has delivered a computer for every student in years 9 to 12—not every student just in public schools but every student in every school. That is 911,000 computers. We invested $2.5 billion in trade training centres. It was available to every high school to apply and they did. In my electorate I have been to the openings of language centres and science labs in public schools and in private schools. As part of the Building the Education Revolution program the government invested $16.2 billion in almost 24,000 projects at 9½ thousand schools—again, not just the state schools but all schools, sector blind.
The Gillard government is also making significant investments to improve educational outcomes of all school students. It is making available $2.5 billion in funding for the Smarter Schools National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy and to assist schools in low socioeconomic status areas. In my electorate, those funds went to schools in the public sector and in the private sector. The doubling of funding since the coalition government has been sector blind. So look at the record, for a start. Nobody could look at the record and accuse us of being anti-private school in any way. If you look at all of the statements made about the Gonski review and the consultation process that is going on now, again no reasonable person could make the judgment that we are in any way anti-private schools—no way in the world.
It is an interesting debate that happens around this current parliament. We have seen a little bit of talk today about a Greens-Labor coalition and some really extraordinary things. The member for Kooyong has not been in the parliament that long, but he has certainly been alive long enough to have noticed what tends to happen in Australian parliaments because the Australian people pick it that way. They tend to give us one party in the House of Representatives, they tend to give us a different party in the state and they tend to put some minor parties in the balance of power in the Senate. There has not been a single Labor government since Federation that has had control of both houses. We have negotiated every single bill in every government that we have been in, and that is the way it is now.
There are reasons why the names of Brian Harradine, Steve Fielding and Nick Xenophon are known. It is because for large periods of time those people had the balance of power in the Senate. The member for Lyne here, who is in the chair, and the member for New England were not as well known and probably were not household names up until this parliament in the way that Senator Harradine, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon were. That is because at the moment we have a hung parliament in the lower house. But it is not unusual for a government to have to negotiate with minor parties in order to get its bills through. What is unusual in this case is that the opposition is so incredibly uncooperative. Usually in a parliament where you have a balance of power in one house or the other—and usually it is the Senate for us—most of the bills are passed by the government and the opposition. In fact, in the first term of the Rudd government the government had to get the support of both Independents in order to get anything through the Senate. Because Senator Fielding usually voted with the opposition, we could not pass hardly anything without the support of the opposition. Yet, still, for most of that term around 95 per cent of the legislation was passed because we had an opposition with a different leader at the time who did what Australian oppositions have done for decades—and that is be an opposition that contributes constructively in trying to improve the quality of legislation.
The role of an opposition is not just to oppose. Given that the Australian people have given us every term except two a parliament where the government and the opposition needed to negotiate with each other in order to make things happen—there have been only two terms in Australian history where a government had control of the Senate as well; that was three years under Fraser and three years under Howard—if oppositions in Australia's history took the approach of the current opposition, which is to oppose everything, make as much mess as possible, brawl like crazy, throw punches and make dirt fly around so that the people cannot see what is going on, we would not have had any legislation at all.
A little bit of respect for the way the Australian people see our role is in order from this opposition—in fact, a lot of respect. They expect us to negotiate with each other. Over the history of Australian parliaments, it has served the Australian people well. I hate it. I would rather have control of both houses because then it would be much easier to do things. But the reality is that because both parties have had to get together and negotiate we have found a way of introducing legislation which stands the test of time. As one parliament passes to the next and government changes hands from one side to the other, the legislation which has been passed by the previous government in most cases has actually been partially negotiated. There has been a process, so that legislation tends to stand. Apart from the last part of the John Howard term when he introduced bills with total power that arguably went too far, and the people thought so too, and some of that was turned back quite quickly—of course, I am talking about Work Choices—I look back over a number of parliaments and what I see is that when governments change hands most of the legislation that has passed remains intact. That is because the Australian people—quite cleverly, I think, as it turns out—do this strange thing where they require some negotiation in one house or the other.
The parliament we are in now is an interesting one because that balance of power has moved from the Senate down into the House of Representatives. So suddenly there is a different group of people—the member for Lyne, the member for New England and the member for Kennedy—as the focus. But if the reality in the lower house also is that the opposition believes that funding to private schools should not be cut and the government believes that funding to private schools should not be cut and we both actually agree that schools should be funded under the same system, why is the opposition even talking about what the Greens think? We do not need the vote of the Greens if the opposition supports the same position we do. We actually have the vast majority. In fact, of 175 members of parliament across both houses we have all bar about 12. It is actually quite small. I have not done a count. But, again, if the opposition agrees with the government's position that we should be sector blind when it comes to funding schools and we should make sure that every child has the same access to a quality education as every other student, why on earth are we having this silly debate here? Why are we even talking about this? We agree, so therefore between the two of us we have the majority.
All you have to do is what every other reasonable, functioning opposition has done and come to the table and make your case and try to be part of the process. You oppose and oppose and oppose. That is not what the Australian people want. It is not the role of opposition simply to oppose; it is the role of opposition to engage constructively in the development of legislation, and it really is about time you did. (Time expired)
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (19:09): I rise today to support this very important motion from the member for Kooyong which rejects calls to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003-04 levels. As the motion rightly states, such a move would leave thousands of Australian school students at a great disadvantage.
School funding is a very important issue for the thousands of school children and their parents across the 19 non-government schools in the electorate of Ryan. At the time of the Gonski review these schools expected one of the most significant announcements on school funding for over 30 years. Instead, it is now more than three months since the Gonski review was released and non-government schools still do not have a firm commitment of support from this Labor government. Non-government schools had their expectations trashed and the end result is not clarity but confusion and not hope but despair at this government's failure to support non-government schools.
I support maintaining funding to non-government schools because doing so achieves two key aims. Firstly, it serves as a very important avenue for providing choice for Australian parents. Australia has seen a strong shift away from government to non-government schools in the last two decades because parents are becoming more and more involved in local schooling communities and want to invest their own after-tax funds on their children's education. Parents know and understand the value of holistic and comprehensive primary and secondary schooling. The non-government school sector is an integral way of ensuring that parents across Australia have a choice about the type of school to which they want to send their children. With a severe lack of autonomy in government schools across the country, non-government schools are the only way of matching the preferences of how they want their children educated.
Secondly, private schooling saves the government and the taxpayer money. As the Presbyterian and Methodist Schools Association has noted, their schools receive an average of $4,902 per student in the current government funding compared to an average of $14,380 for students at government schools. As such, the PMSA schools, including Brisbane Boys' College in Ryan, save the Commonwealth and state governments more than $47 million in annual funding. The disparity in overall funding for all non-government schools across the country is then filled in the form of school fees, donations, fundraising and levies. Every year taxpayers are saved an estimated $5.1 billion as a consequence of parents choosing to send their children to non-government schools.
It is not a surprise, coming from a Labor government trying to ignite class warfare in Australia, that they want to attack non-government schools. Many parents already have it tough, with increasing cost-of-living pressures even before the onerous carbon tax. A reduction in funding would place huge pressures on the level of school fees now expected to be paid for out of parents' pockets.
I recently held an education forum in conjunction with the member for Brisbane, and I thank the shadow minister for education, the member for Sturt, for coming to Ryan and participating in that forum. On that day question after question was from concerned principals and parents, asking what the Gillard government plans to do with their funding. They wanted to know if the government is going to reduce funding back to the failed and unsatisfactory education resource index model. Parents and educators at non-government schools are rightly worried that the Gillard government will not commit to maintaining funding. They are worried that this will reduce government assistance in real terms and that, if parents are not able to meet the consequent forced rise in school fees, then their children will not be receiving the best education possible.
There are three questions that the coalition asks in a test for any new funding model. Those questions are: does it support choice in education? Does it encourage private investment? And is the new model based on need, using an objective allocation method? The recommendations and the proposed funding model in the Gonski review do not satisfy these three basic tests.
Firstly, there is no guarantee about indexation, which could push up fees and diminish the ability of parents to afford the school of their choice. Secondly, it is possible that schools may in fact be penalised for private investment and private contributions, which would act as a disincentive for parents to invest in their own schooling communities and would add to the burden of the average taxpayer. Thirdly, the coalition continues to support a statistically objective measure of using a school's socioeconomic status as a funding model.
All parents are concerned about the quality of education in this country. Education is the great enabler. At the federal level that means fulfilling our responsibility to provide sufficient funding to non-government schools to ensure that the Australian education system is world-class. We must therefore maintain funding to non-government schools so that Australian school students are not disadvantaged.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (19:14): I am delighted that the member for Kooyong has been able to fight off the nascent political ambitions of the former Treasurer to enable him to bring this important motion before the House. It is an important motion because it enables members from all sides of the House to talk on an issue which, I know, is very dear to everyone's heart—that is, school education. I was very pleased to listen to some of the contribution by my parliamentary colleague the member for Ryan, who made a number of points about the importance of choice in education. That is where I would like to start my contribution.
I believe, with the member for Ryan, that choice is incredibly important. Let us be very frank: you simply do not have a choice if, as a parent, you are faced with the option of sending your child, whose education you value, to an underresourced, underfunded public school, which does not have the facilities, the teachers or the capacity to educate your child to the level you believe appropriate, and the only real option is to send your child to a nongovernment school. That is not real choice or, if it is, it is the sort of choice we often refer to as having your arm forced on a particular issue. I think parents should have the capacity to send their children to a school of their choice.
I am a product of the Catholic education system. I think it is fantastic. My parents made a choice to send me through the Catholic education system. A real choice should be made on the basis of a parent looking at the values or the course offerings of a particular school. A school might excel in music, in art, in engineering sciences, in sport or it might provide a particularly values-based education which is aligned to a faith. These are the real and valid choices for parents, but it is not valid for the government to construct or engineer, or for policymakers to engineer a situation where the only choice is for children to go to a nongovernment school because the government school is so woefully funded that it does not have the facilities to provide a decent education for families within its catchment area. I am delighted by the motion before the House and I am delighted that we are able to talk about the important issue of what really does provide choice to families when it comes to education.
I support the existence of the nongovernment school sector. If you want to say you are committed to education, look at what you do. In government, Labor has nearly doubled the amount of spending put towards the education budget. We are now at a record high spend of more than $65 billion over four years. We have either built or rebuilt facilities at every single Australian school. There have been over 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools, including over 500 language centres and science centres, 2,900 outdoor covered learning areas and around 3,100 libraries. So, if you want to look at commitment to education, look at what you have done—doubled the schools spending budget with over 24,000 individual projects.
The funding model proposed by the Gonski review would fund every school under the same system. I think that recommendation has much going for it. It would be a fair and transparent system, giving all schools long-term certainty about future funding levels. The educational achievements of this Labor government are considerable. I have talked about the Building the Education Revolution, but there are other initiatives.
I would like to talk about some of the initiatives which are very important in my own electorate of Throsby where schools are benefiting from the literacy and numeracy program and the National Partnership Agreement on Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities, particularly primary schools in Cringila, in Kemblawarra, Koonawarra, Lake Heights, Lake Illawarra, South Mount Warrigal, Port Kembla and dozens of other schools within my electorate. We have put new trade training centres in schools within my electorate and the Computers in Schools program is delivering real benefits to schools. I was at a school function in the Great Hall where teachers were saying, 'It's such a fantastic program; are we going to get another round of it?' because the computers we have provided are near their retirement age. Labor's commitment to education is demonstrated by what we have delivered.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:20): Education underpins a successful society. Funding is an important issue where education is concerned. We must have a strong public school system and we must ensure funding of non-government schools to allow parents to have a choice as to where their children are educated. The Director of Schools in the Catholic Schools Office, Wagga Wagga, Alan Bowyer, appropriately stated last year, 'Education is a basic entitlement and all students, whether they attend a Catholic, an independent or a state school, have the right to be funded by government at a level that provides a balanced, rigorous and properly resourced education.'
Government funding substantially favours public schools when all government funding is taken into account. Figures for 2012 from the Productivity Commission show government recurrent expenditure per government school student is $14,380 compared to $7,427 for non-government school students. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show the number of students in the independent sector has increased by 35 per cent since 2001 compared with just a 12 per cent growth in the Catholic school sector over the same time.
In 2011 the split of students between government and non-government schools was 65.4 per cent and 34.6 per cent respectively compared to 69 per cent and 31 per cent in 2010. These figures reinforce the long-term drift for students from government to non-government schools. As more students are moving to non-government schools it is unimaginable that this government is calling to reduce funding to non-government schools to 2003-04 levels. To do so would put at risk the financial viability of many non-government schools and leave many students disadvantaged.
In Australia 20 per cent of students attend a Catholic school. Statistics from 2010 show students in New South Wales were spread across the school system with most, 66 per cent, attending public schools, 22 per cent attending Catholic schools and 12 per cent attending independent schools. In my electorate of Riverina there is a strong Catholic school system and this is reflected on a wider scale, with 29 per cent of Catholic school students attending a Catholic school outside of metropolitan areas. Figures taken from the National report on schooling in Australia highlight that Catholic schools and non-government schools in general are underfunded when compared to state schools. In 2007-08 Catholic school students received on average only $7,865. Furthermore, the government, based on the same figures, provides 80 per cent of the recurrent funding needed for Catholic schools, with the remaining 20 per cent being raised by the schools and their communities.
Whilst non-government school critics cry foul over so-called overfunding for Catholic and non-government schools, the reality is that this is not the case at all. Many private schools depend on fundraising efforts by parents and friends associations. If the government were to remove funding from non-government schools it is likely they would be left with no choice but to close, leaving teachers without a job and forcing students to find a new school. Over the years 2003-04 to 2007-08, government funding to state schools increased 1.6 per cent a year in real terms, while funding to non-government schools decreased by 0.1 per cent.
This government believes that only the rich send their children to non-government schools and believes in the motto 'the rich can afford to pay it'. This government all too often lately has dealt the class warfare card, but families who choose to send their children to a non-government school are not necessarily rich and should not be treated differently to those who choose for their young ones to have a public school education. It is, as it should be, all about choice. Families with children in non-government schools, especially in regional areas, are not automatically privileged families. They are just hardworking Australian families. In fact many wealthy families choose to send their children to public schools due to the range of subject options.
There are many parents who start saving from the time their children are born or those who forgo the new car and family holidays to ensure that they can afford the best possible education for their child, an education they believe their children will receive at a non-government school. There are also many students in schools with a religious doctrine. Their parents should not be penalised for wanting to ensure, as well as an academic education, their children are also being taught the belief systems of their religion and receive a spiritual education. To decrease funding for non-government schools is to say to parents that they have no choice where to send their child, except to the local state school.
To take away funding from non-government schools would be a typical Labor attack on the rich, but the reality is that any removal of funding from non-government schools would have more widespread effects on a large group of middle-income Australians who are working hard to give their children the best start in life. This would be another slap in the face for Australians from this Labor government, which is hell-bent on imposing costs on Australian families, with no thought for the reality of its actions. Much has been said and written about the recent Gonski review, which gives this government the ideal opportunity to confirm its ongoing support for all education—government and non-government.
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (19:25): It is a pleasure to speak on this motion this evening. Needless to say, the Gillard government certainly does not support reducing non-government school funding. Those of us who are visiting schools in our electorates know very well indeed that this government has increased school funding across all sectors. But what is of interest to me this evening is not what is written on the Notice Paper in respect of this motion but what is behind the Notice Paper. Again, those of us who are out visiting schools in our electorates know that all schools across all sectors appreciate the very significant funding in terms of capital expenditure, school programs and all the other things that this government has supported in its five years, which has seen the education budget almost double in comparison to that which was left to us as the legacy of the Howard government. They know that we have made a very significant commitment to all sectors in the schooling system. At the same time, they know who does not support education in a real and practical way with funding. They know that, at the last election, the coalition took a package of cuts to school education. They cut a range of things, including capital expenditure, computers in schools and trade training centres—all the things that government and non-government schools alike take seriously and know well benefit their students and teachers.
It was breathtaking to hear, a short time before I came to this chamber, the shadow minister for education waxing lyrical about what he saw as the many and varied negatives of the Gonski review of school funding. While those opposite have talked about it being 'all about choice', for those of us on this side it is all about need. It is the reason why we commissioned the review in the first place, it is the reason why we are evaluating and taking seriously the significant findings of that review and it is the reason why we have been motivated to make such a significant commitment to education, including in my electorate, the member for Robertson's electorate and, indeed, the electorate of Deputy Speaker Adams.
The practical funding commitments that this government has made have seen the announcement of two trade training centres, which will benefit not just two schools in my electorate but a range of schools throughout the Dandenong Ranges and the growth corridor. The significant commitments in my electorate have seen funds delivered for computers in schools right around my electorate, including Belgrave Heights Christian School, St Francis Xavier College, St Joseph's College, St Margaret's School, Hillcrest Christian College, Lakeside Lutheran College and Mater Christi College. Those are just the non-government schools. Needless to say, there are also a range of government schools that have benefited from that program—a program which the coalition has been only too pleased to declare it would axe if given the opportunity.
We have seen a commitment of $110 million across 60 schools in my electorate during the last five years. Those funding commitments demonstrate the very real and very practical commitment of our government to school education. It is extraordinary to me that a motion such as this should come from the member for Kooyong and be supported by those on the other side. While we certainly support the resolution, it is extraordinary that on the one hand members are so prepared to be concerned about reduced funding for the school sector while on the other hand they have a shopping list of cuts that they propose to make. That does not even take into account the $70 billion black hole in their financial bottom line, which will inevitably mean more cuts for schools—cuts that they are reluctant to reveal in any significant way in public debate. The coalition are merely concerned with knocking the developments of this government, knocking the commitments that we have made and knocking the policy reforms that we are putting in place. While I am pleased to support this resolution tonight, it is appropriate for members to question the motivation and the reality that surrounds this resolution. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
Aged Care Reform
Debate resumed on motion by Ms Hall:
That this House:
(1) congratulates the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, and Minister for Social Inclusion, on the Aged Care Reform Package he announced Living Longer, Living Better Aged Care Reform;
(2) acknowledges that the reforms will make it easier for older Australians to stay in their own home and that the package will improve safety, security and quality of aged care, and simplify aged care for older Australians and their families; and
(3) calls on all Members to support the reforms.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (19:30): The first part of the motion congratulates the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on the fantastic aged-care package that he has announced—Living Longer, Living Better Aged Care Reform. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the amount of work that has gone into the development of this package which is going to change the landscape of aged care in our country. The minister commissioned a report by the Productivity Commission which was released in August last year. Since the release of the report, there has been lengthy consultation. The minister has travelled the countryside talking to groups to get their input into the proposal that was put forward by the Productivity Commission. The report, Caring For Older Australians, was well received in the community but, following the consultation, the minister came up with the package that has been introduced.
There was a lot of misinformation put out prior to the release of the final package. I have spoken to a number of groups within my electorate and they were so pleased when they heard the details of the package. It is a package that makes it easier for older Australians to stay in their homes while they receive care. There will be an increase in the number of home-care packages. I am sure members on both sides of the House support this package which was funded in this year's budget and will take effect in 2014. It is going to increase the number of home-care packages from 59,876 to 99,669. It provides tailored care packages for people to receive in their home and there will be new funding for dementia. The packages will be designed to meet the needs of the individual. It will be person-centred care, the kind of aged-care package older Australians deserve. They should be treated with dignity as well as having a package that meets their needs.
There is going to be a cap on costs so that full pensioners will pay no more than the basic fee. This legislation makes sure that people can keep the family home. That was something that older Australians, pensioners, have been most concerned about for a very long time. I am sure that every member of this House has been visited by a family member or an older person going into an aged-care facility who is worrying about the fact that they have got to sell their family home. This legislation will provide choice about how to pay for the care—instead of bonds, which can cost up to $2.6 million and bear no resemblance to the actual accommodation. I know that, even within my own electorate, there is a great variation in the bonds that people pay, and there is really no formula for ensuring that people only pay the level of bond that they need to. It gives a family time to make a decision about how they want to pay. It caps the costs, with no-one paying more than $25,000 a year and no-one paying more than $60,000 in their lifetime—and that is really important. Under this package, there will be $1.9 billion delivered for better access to aged-care services, $1.2 billion over five years to tackle critical shortages in the aged-care workforce, $80.2 million to improve aged-care links with the health system, $54.8 million to support carers, $268.4 million to tackle the nation's dementia epidemic—and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing is currently undertaking an inquiry into that—and $192 million to support the diverse care of Australia's ageing population. Put that together with the My Aged Care website and the dedicated hotline that is going to be set up for any complaints related to aged care. I commend this motion to the House, and I just know that members on the other side of this House will be supporting this motion, because they care about older people in their electorates. On this side, we know how important that is. (Time expired)
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (19:35): I find myself in furious agreement with the member for Shortland when she says that older Australians need help to be able to stay at home and that the ability of senior Australians to have home care and to be treated with dignity is very important. It is, and I agree with you wholeheartedly on that, Member for Shortland. This government, however, continues to make it tougher for older Australians to make ends meet. The recent budget offered little respite, and the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reform package does not hide the fact that senior Australians are, with the rest of the nation, about to be lumbered with the world's biggest carbon tax. The Acting Prime Minister today refused to call it what it is—
Ms Hall: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion before the House has absolutely no reference whatsoever to a carbon tax. I ask that the member be brought to the point.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Grierson ): Thank you, Member for Shortland. I remind the member to confine his comments to the motion before the chamber.
Mr McCORMACK: I will, but it strikes to the very core of the fact that senior Australians are facing rising costs in all sorts of ways. They are facing rising costs with electricity and to be able to actually stay in their own homes.
Ms Hall: Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr McCORMACK: I didn't interrupt you!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please resume your seat, Member for Riverina.
Ms HALL: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All I ask is that he speaks to the motion. It is about aged care.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen. Thank you.
Mr McCORMACK: This government has ignored self-funded retirees, and self-funded retirees certainly come into the—
Mr Neumann: No way in the world!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have to say, Member for Riverina, that you are straying. Please confine yourself to the motion. There is plenty of scope for you to discuss the needs of people in the aged-care area, so please confine your comments.
Mr McCORMACK: On 10 April this year, I was the guest speaker at the monthly meeting of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association in Griffith, the capital of the western Riverina. All attendees shared similar concerns: how will they financially survive when everything increases but pensions stay the same? They are worried about being able to live in their own homes. They are worried about the cost of nursing homes. They are also worried about how they are going to meet rising costs. I have had many calls to my electorate office from older Australians stating that they are ashamed of what Australia has become and wish they could move overseas to retire, because here in Australia they feel like second-class citizens. When my electorate officer told me that, I quizzed her. I said, 'Are you sure that people are ringing in and saying this?' She said, 'They most certainly are.'
Only last week an elderly woman from Narrandera rang my Wagga Wagga electorate office in tears because she felt she had been so let down by a system which she said was failing the aged. She had scrimped and saved all her life to pay for things and to pay for, hopefully, a very good retirement, but it is just getting harder and harder, she said. This woman is in pain and needs dental work, but she is finding it more difficult to make ends meet. Her story is echoed right across the Riverina, right across regional New South Wales and indeed right across Australia.
The net spending over the forward estimates for older Australians is $284 million, and the net spend of the package in 2012-13 is $55.2 million, down to $26.9 million the following year. The budget refers to caps for means tested home care for part-rate pensioners at $5,000 a year and $10,000 for self-funded retirees and an annual cap of $25,000 for residential care. The government has not released any figures as to the number of older Australians affected by these measures. However, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that there were 3,103,529 persons aged 65 years and over at June 2011. And you can be sure that many of these people will feel the brunt. The budget has made clear that under this Labor government's aged-care package more means testing will mean more older Australians will have to pay extra for their aged-care needs. That is a fact.
This Labor government will also means test the cost of residential care. Residents will pay a basic fee of up to 85 per cent of the single basic pension, which is currently $15,364 per annum. Residents will also have to pay a means tested contribution to their accommodation and a means tested contribution to their care. An annual cap of $25,000 will apply to a resident's contribution to their care costs together with a lifetime cap of $60,000. Once again, while full-rate pensioners will be exempt, everyone else will have to start paying more for aged-care services. My time has run out but I wish that I could have spoken for longer. (Time expired)
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (19:40): This aged-care reform package is extremely important not only for electorates in other states but also for nursing homes in my electorate, such as Blue Care Brassall Aged Care Facility, Blue Care Lauriston Aged Care Facility, Blue Care Nowlanvil Aged Care Facility, Colthup Home, RSL Milford Grange and the like. Dean Phelan, the CEO of Church of Christ Care in Queensland, commented in relation to the aged-care difficulties and challenges we face—and we know that from the third Intergenerational report, which said that we will have 2.7 Australians working for every person over 65 years of age in 2050. He said:
At the moment, across Australia, too few people are able to access care and support in their own home when they want it. There are also not enough nursing homes being built and employers are having trouble recruiting and keeping aged care workers. Many older Australians have to conduct a fire-sale of their home to pay exorbitantly high bonds to some providers to get into needed residential care.
I could not have put it better—and that is exactly what the Productivity Commission found in its report. That is why this federal Labor government responded with a package that shows that it is fair dinkum about aged-care reform. The sector has also responded positively, as can be seen in the comments by Dean Phelan in his most recent report in relation to this.
What we are doing here is allowing more people to stay in their home through more home care packages—massively increasing that—and helping carers get access to the kinds of respite and other supports needed. There is also a particular package in relation to dementia, which I think is groundbreaking. We know how important that is. We are strengthening the aged-care workforce. I know that the Australian Nursing Federation has been strong in that regard. Aged-care workers, particularly nurses, are paid on average $300 less than those who work in the public sector. We are also providing a new gateway agency, a one-stop shop, to help older Australians and their families navigate the difficulties of a fragmented and underfunded system of the past.
We have massively increased the funding in the aged-care sector. It is bit rich to be lectured by those opposite, who had seven aged-care ministers in 10 years and one of them famously said he did not like older people. So it is really quite extraordinary that those opposite should lecture us in relation to aged care. This is a package that will make a difference. It will provide additional assistance. There are a million Australians who access the HACC system and about 170,000 people are in residential aged care, but two-thirds of our aged-care budget is actually geared towards those 170,000 people—not the million people who want to stay in their homes with packages like the EACH package and the EACH dementia type packages. What we want to do is give people greater choice and greater options for their retirement.
I think the current system, which has been a problem for quite a considerable period of time, is something that Joseph Stalin in the 1930s would have been very happy with, as it is so centralised. Aged-care providers have for a long time told me that not enough money has been put into it. We have increased funding significantly, and this particular package in this budget adds to it. We are talking about some $44 billion across the forward estimates that we have put into aged care—far more than any other government has ever provided.
We want to make sure that older people are not forced to sell their family home to pay bonds. It is quite variable. Fortunately in my area it is not the case that we see large bonds having to be paid, but certainly it is a challenge for people. I know when I go to places like Nowlanvil and other aged-care facilities around Blair, particularly around Ipswich, there are a lot of older people going in much older. I recall when I was a boy, and my grandmother was the matron of Colthup Home, that people in their fifties would go into aged-care facilities. Now the average age is 84 years old. They are going into high care.
This sector has had problems for a long time. I spent 14 years on the board of Queensland Baptist Care so I know a bit about this sector. My family has been involved in aged-care provision in Ipswich for three generations. I think that what we need to do is have a good look at the sector. We really need to put serious money in. We are going to make the legislative changes and the administrative reforms and we are going to put extra money in. This budget is a down payment, in my view, as we really care for older people and give them greater choice and greater control over their lives, improving the quality of aged care in this country.
I am very pleased to see the money put in to tackle dementia. I think it is such an important place. If you go into dementia wards, particularly in nursing homes, you can see the challenges that are there for all of us. (Time expired)
Dr STONE (Murray) (19:46): I commend the member for Shortland for moving a motion that is related to the wellbeing of our aged in Australia. After all, they created this nation. They made many sacrifices, particularly those in their late eighties who went through the Second World War. I commend the motivation behind the aged care reform motion, but unfortunately I have to agree with the previous speaker; this is only a down payment on what is needed for us to have a comprehensive and adequate aged-care resource. We know a growing number of people will live to a very old age in Australia. A child—particularly a girl—born today might very well live to be over 100, and this package simply will not cope with that.
I want to quote from the expert Judith Sloan, who recently wrote in the Weekend Australian about the Living Longer, Living Better package:
After a bit of slow thinking, reading and discussion with a number of interested parties in aged care, I have now changed my mind about the worth of the overall package. Not only is the package inadequately described, the immediate changes are likely to induce short-term problems that will thwart the realisation of the longer-term structural reform necessary for the industry. The introduction of a form of price control in relation to accommodation bonds and charges arguably makes the situation worse relative to the current arrangements.
She went on to say:
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors to the LLLB package. While the gross size of the package is put at $3.7 billion over five years ($2.2bn over four years), there are very significant offsets, in terms of redirected funding and means-testing.
In particular, she said:
… the alteration to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, which with means testing is estimated to save the government some $2bn over the next five years.
This should not be about cost cutting; this should be about how we can make it most comfortable for many of our elderly Australians, often the most vulnerable sector in our population. The Gillard government's $3.7 billion aged-care package over five years is only some half a billion of new money in each of those five years. Unfortunately there is also a lack of detail and the changes will not start until 1 July 2014, which will be after the next election. You have to wonder why that date was chosen. It sounds a little suspicious to me. Does this government really think they will have to implement what is in fact not an adequate policy?
Comments from one of the CEOs of the largest Shepparton residential retirement village or establishment really put it into perspective for me. My staff spoke with him this afternoon. He is concerned that the government is to reduce industry funding by $1.6 billion over the next five years. For a local provider with his sized agency or institution, this means a reduction of $2,136,000 over the next five years. He does not think he can do it. In relation to low-care retention bonds, under the changes, instead of paying residential bonds, people will pay lump sums or make periodic payments. Unfortunately this is a further cut to providers' incomes from 2014, because they will no longer be able to retain any of the funds from the low-care retention bond. This will have a financial impact on the Shepparton residential facility of some $450,000 that is to be taken directly from their bottom line.
There will be a new My Aged Care website to provide older Australians and their families with centralised information about aged care, including ratings for services. I am very suspicious of these websites. How do you evaluate or enumerate the quality of caring? The interactions, one-on-one between a professional staff member or volunteer and the most vulnerable of our elderly—perhaps someone with dementia? It is very hard to enumerate. It is easier to cook the books and simply refer to how many rooms you have, how many meals you serve, whether you have a pet or not and what your programs look like. I am worried about that website.
There are also to be three new public service bodies created to micromanage the providers: the Aged Care Financing Authority, the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Reform Implementation Council. We all know about the stifling red tape already oppressing the sector. We do not need any more of that, but that is what is going to happen. The new workforce compact between government unions and the aged-care providers is also being flagged. We do not know the detail, however, if the provider agrees with the compact and signs up, they will be given additional funding. In other words, they will get back some of their funds that have just been taken away. But is it, in fact, an effort for a new entry point for unions or greater union penetration? We have to watch this very carefully.
More funds are to be allocated for providing care in homes. However, I have to say that elderly women, in particular, do not have a home. They do not have a carer, particularly in remote rural and regional areas. How are we going to make do with these new regulations and legislation? It is simply not enough— (Time expired)
Ms LIVERMORE (Capricornia) (19:51): I thank the member for Shortland for putting this motion up for debate tonight. In the days following the budget it is easy for important measures to get lost among the headlines and the commentary. Invariably attention goes to a couple of big-ticket items and, in the meantime, the significance of other budget announcements—often those involving long-term reforms—can be overlooked. This motion reminds the House and those listening that aged care was most definitely given the priority it deserves on budget night.
The Treasurer announced in his budget night speech that the government will commit $3.7 billion over the next five years to get started on the important reforms at the heart of our Living Longer, Living Better blueprint for aged-care services. Living Longer, Living Better represents comprehensive reform to an aged-care system that is under severe pressure to meet the demands of a population that is living longer and in greater numbers than ever before, and whose expectations of aged care are very different to those of previous generations.
Although Living Longer, Living Better provides a 10-year framework for reshaping the aged-care sector, we know that there are areas that need immediate attention, so that is what we are doing. Ask any Australian how they see their old age and what they want from an aged-care system, and they will all tell you the same thing; they all want to stay in their own home for as long as they absolutely can, enjoying their independence in familiar surroundings and with the people they love. They want that home environment and they also want to know that they will be able to rely on the appropriate care they need to make that wish a reality. That is a perfectly natural thing to want, and surely not too much to ask.
In response to the unmet demand for in-home services, part of the $3.7 billion in the budget will pay for 40,000 extra home care packages over the next five years. That will take the number of people receiving care in their homes from the current 60,000 to 100,000. We all know people want to stay in their own homes, and we also know, from the people who come to our electorate offices for help, just how hard it can be for people to find their way around the aged-care system, and to know what is available, how to access that care and how much it is going to cost.
One of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's report into a better aged-care system was to develop a single gateway for aged-care services. This is a key part of our Living Longer, Living Better package, and has also been given priority in the budget, with $192 million allocated for improving access to information and services through that proposed single gateway. From 1 July 2013 older Australians and their families will be able to use the aged-care gateway by way of either the My Aged Care website or a national call centre to access the information they need to navigate the range of aged-care services that are available, and to make choices about their care.
Ultimately, the My Aged Care gateway will be a one-stop shop for information on both home care and residential services in a local area, the relevant fees applicable to those services, quality indicators and ratings. For many people the difficulty of understanding the aged-care system, or even knowing where to start, comes on top of what is already a distressing time of their life, when they are faced with trying to get care for their husband or wife, or an elderly parent. We have to do everything we can to make the process of working out the options and finding the right care as easy as possible. People need to feel like they are making informed choices, that they have control over this next step in their life, and they need to do that without anxiety and without feeling helpless when confronted with the maze that is there at present.
The budget also acknowledges another very important point about aged care. The aged-care system can only be as good as the people working in it. As government we can improve the aged-care system all we like but it will not amount to anything without the workforce to meet the demand for care. That is why a big proportion of the budget allocation is going towards a new aged-care workforce compact. There is $1.2 billion to improve recruitment, training and, crucially, wages for aged-care staff. If we say aged care is important then it has to be important enough that we pay decent wages to the people who provide it.
In the 21st century, when people are living longer and healthier lives, of course there is much more to ageing than aged care. But even while they are enjoying their active senior years, people want to know that support will be there when they need it. That is why these reforms are so important and should be supported by all members. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired)
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (19:56): In speaking to the private member's motion by the member for Shortland and while not doubting her sincerity, because she is a good friend of mine, I cannot congratulate her or the government or the two ministers who were responsible for the new package, nor will I call on my fellow members to support the reforms, as the motion asks.
When the government announced its new measures, one particular item, to my way of thinking, gave the whole plan away. That was the increase in the number of home care beds from 60,000 to 100,000 over the next five years. It was even more extraordinary that no home care packages were announced in Queensland in the government's last round of allocations. How could something be so urgent in one year that you have got to announce 40,000 places when, in the previous year, you did not announce one? Quite frankly, the increase in home care packages was the clearest possible signal that the government was winding back on the troubled residential section of aged care.
In the Wide Bay statistical region, which essentially covers the Wide Bay and Hinkler electorates, we have virtually had no residential beds for four years. In fact this year, from a notional allocation of 180 places, not one bed was applied for. That clearly says to me that the government has lost touch with the realities of aged care and the industry is switching off. Since the government has come to power successive ministers have taken their eye off the ball. There will also be a need for residential care regardless of how desirable it is to keep people in their own homes, and in my area we are down 610 beds over the last four years. That is a lot of residential beds to make up. Home care packages are always welcome and they do serve to help people live happy and productive lives in their own homes, but they are not substitutes when people reach that critical time in their lives where they need residential care.
When you look at some of the government's ideas in its new package, you really start to see how potentially draconian this new program can be. For example, in future only fully funded pensioners will be exempt from the means test and copayments will be charged for other home care packages. So, if you are a part pensioner, you are going to be up for $5,000 and if you are a self-funded retiree, $10,000, and you can be asked to keep contributing to this until you reach a limit of $60,000. However, when it comes to residential care, the government has ducked a serious consideration of methods, including the family home. I know it is not pleasant, but a reverse mortgage might have been a much fairer way of doing this. The means test and charging regime is quite marked, even for residential care. Not only will pensioners be paying 85 percent of their single pension, they will not be means tested, but others will be, and there will be an annual cap of $60,000 again.
The government's lack of sincerity in this matter can be seen by simply reading between the lines. Let me explain. Although the package is sold as $3.7 billion over five years, it is essentially a recycling of the forward estimates, with a measly $577 million of new money being added. The rest is recycled from previously announced programs. The second feature is the appalling lack of commitment to a transitional scheme to boost aged-care places for residential customers. So where will we be in the Hinkler area, in the Wide Bay area? Will we be down 800 beds, 900 beds—who knows? In the most cynical move of all, the new scheme will not come into operation until July 2014, well beyond the scrutiny of the next election.
Mr CHEESEMAN (Corangamite) (20:01): It is with real pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion before us. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, the Hon. Mark Butler, for his efforts, particularly for attending to the needs of the Corangamite community and participating in a forum as a part of an extensive consultation process.
This reform is absolutely necessary. If you get around, as I do, and visit nursing homes and senior Australians, it is clear that there is need for substantial reform in this sector. The Labor government has very much prided itself in ensuring that all Australians are able to access services, whether it be in the aged-care system or in accessing world-class education.
Many people retire to my part of the nation. We have areas such as the Bellarine Peninsula, the Surf Coast and the Otways, which is a haven for people in their later years in life when they retire. As a consequence, I have one of the older electorates in this nation. I know that many people in the electorate very much want to see a strong aged-care system. When I talk to families, when I engage with my community on these very important matters, they very clearly say to me that they want to live in their homes for as long as possible. They have often raised their families in those homes, they are comfortable in that environment and they want to remain there as long as possible. I think any reform needs to enable people to remain in their home for as long as possible. Of course, there are points at which that is no longer a viable option, and moving into a nursing home often becomes the only choice in the last few years of people's lives. We need to have a sustainable system, a system that is affordable and a system that enables everyone to access care in a nursing home when it gets to that point in their lives. This reform and the efforts put in by Mark Butler, as the minister, should be commended because they very much address those issues.
Further to that, we also want to make sure that we have a very well-trained workforce to provide care and support for older Australians and their families. This is an area where we need to continue to strive as a society to make sure we are remunerating those workers, recognising the difficult task they undertake and the support they provide to their clients and the families of those clients. I would like to congratulate the minister and look forward to seeing this package deployed in my seat and right throughout the nation. I think it is a reform that is long overdue.
Mr TUDGE (Aston) (20:06): I rise also to speak on the member for Shortland's motion, which concerns the aged-care package. This motion concerns an important but challenging policy area—that of aged care. It is important because already one million people use or receive aged-care services, and this will grow to about 3.5 million people by 2050. It is important because it already costs about 0.8 per cent of GDP and this is forecast to grow to 1.8 per cent of GDP by 2050. It is also important because it concerns elderly, vulnerable Australians, Australians who have built this nation and who deserve dignity in their final years.
As the Productivity Commission report identifies, the current system suffers from many weaknesses. The PC report points out that it is difficult to navigate; services are limited as is consumer choice; quality is variable; the coverage of needs, pricing, subsidies and user co-contributions are inconsistent or inequitable; and there are workforce shortages. So the government's aged-care package must be viewed in the context of these weaknesses which have been identified by the Productivity Commission report.
It is difficult for us on this side of chamber to fully assess the full impact of the reforms at this stage and, with the relatively limited amount of documentation, how the reforms will operate. Let me say some of the positive elements which I think are contained within the package: first of all, the number of home-care packages will increase from 60,000 to 100,000—I think that is a positive move. Secondly, it makes dementia a national priority once again. Thirdly, it appears to give some more flexibility regarding how people will pay for aged-care services. Finally, overall it puts some additional funds into the system.
I think all four of those things identified are positive steps, but there are also some serious downsides which we believe are inherent in this package, and I would like to identify some of those in the time I have available. To start with, there is considerable smoke and mirrors in relation to the funding of this package. I know we hear a lot about it being a $3.7 billion package but that is the gross size over five years. Underneath that figure, there are significant offsets in terms of redirecting funding and means testing. Over five years, the net cost of the package to the government is only $580 million, and over the forward estimates is only $285 million. There is very little new spending over the next two financial years, which is probably what is most important for most people in the sector.
My second concern is that considerable means testing has been introduced through this package. The implication of the means testing is that the government believes that some aged-care providers are already receiving too much funding. I am concerned that, if we means test and they receive less funding, there will be less incentive for those providers, particularly the private providers, to reinvest. I also have a concern about the means testing creating a disincentive for people to save and to think about caring for themselves in their old age. There is now such a strong incentive to be on the aged-care pension, because you are the only ones who will receive aged care for free. Thirdly, there is not enough to reduce red tape in this reform package. This was a big area identified in the Productivity Commission report and, far from reducing red tape, this package actually creates three new agencies to oversee the aged-care sector.
Finally, my concern is that the package starts too late. It does not start until 1 July 2014. That is over two years away and after the next federal election. If it is that urgent, it should be starting immediately.
To summarise, let me quote the economist and academic Judith Sloan. She says:
There is little new money, with significant clawbacks in terms of means testing and reduced payments to providers. Greater consumer choice will be achieved only if providers are given appropriate incentives to invest and innovate. The package fails to achieve this balance—the pieces will be left for the next government to pick up.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (20:11): Aged-care reform is long overdue in Australia, so I am absolutely delighted to support this motion. With an ageing population, it will not be long before we have a generation of baby boomers who will begin to place more pressure on our aged-care services. In fact, I understand that Canberra is ageing at a higher rate than any other metropolitan capital in Australia, so it is very much at front of mind for me as the member for Canberra. Our current aged-care system is ill-equipped to deal with the needs of an increasing number of retirees and their parents who are living longer and healthier lives. That is a good thing; that is a great strength for Australia. But it is also a challenge for us: to make sure that we live longer but we also continue to lead happy and active lives.
Last Friday, I was at the COTA national policy forum at the Manuka Oval, and the motto for the day was that people were wanting to live longer, live better and live stronger. I am strong believer in active ageing—that is, the process of optimising opportunities for health, participation and security to enhance quality of life as we age. Flexibility and transitional care are the keys here. With that in mind, I too congratulate the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on the aged-care reform package.
On the weekend I was privileged to attend the 100th birthday of Mrs Dot Gordon, who was celebrating with her family and the caring staff at Goodwin Village in Monash. Visiting the residents there highlighted to me just how important it is to ensure our older Australians are comfortable and are receiving quality care in our community as they age. The Living Longer, Living Better package will make it easier for Australians like Dot Gordon. It will help them sustain their own homes or give them greater choice when the time comes to move into some form of aged care.
This reform package is a turning point. It places older Australians at the centre of a policy that will improve their lives and deliver better outcomes in health, both physical and mental. We are backing up our commitment to reforming aged care with a $3.7 billion investment. This investment will help older Australians so they can stay in their homes while they receive care. It will also ensure more people can keep their family home, and it will prevent anyone being forced to sell their home in an emergency fire sale to pay for their aged-care place. Also, for the first time, we are also introducing a system that is fairer and based on the capacity of people to pay.
These reforms are important and they are designed to ensure senior Australians can have peace of mind as they get older. Alongside these improvements to the way the aged-care system works, we are also increasing residential aged-care places. We are improving the aged-care workforce through a $1.2 billion workforce compact, and we are providing more funding for dementia care and more support for services. In fact, $268 million will be invested to tackle the nation's dementia epidemic, which is growing at an exponential rate. We are also establishing a single gateway to all aged-care services so they are easier to access and navigate.
Living Longer, Living Better shows that Labor has a real plan to reform aged care. Our plan will give every Australian confidence that they will be able to get safe, secure, high-quality aged-care services, either in their home or in residential care, when they get older. Our plan will also ensure older Australians have better access to safe, secure, quality care no matter what their background or their economic circumstance. This is a good plan, which also has the backing of the aged-care sector. COTA's Chief Executive, Ian Yates, said that COTA welcomes the package as it delivers on many of the issues that older people have been raising for many years. Others have described the plan as helping older Australians receive aged care in their own home while improving the sustainability of aged-care services, such as through Catholic Health Australia. These are just some of the comments from organisations who understand what it will take to improve aged care in Australia. I know the government will work closely with them to achieve better outcomes for the sector. Again, I commend the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing for this important reform and call on all members to support this step towards better aged care for all.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (20:15): I rise tonight to talk about the government's so-called attempt at aged-care reform—and it is 'so-called' because, once again, they seem to be talking the talk but not walking the walk. We have already heard how the funding for the package will not start until after the next election. If they are serious about reforming this sector they should have got started straight away. Everyone knows that we need reform in the aged-care sector. The government know that, they have known it since 2007, yet they have continued to delay reform. We have now had the Productivity Commission do a thorough report that shows clearly what needs to be done with this sector. And what is the government's announcement? Let's postpone it all till after the next election. It seems that every time there is a hard decision to be made, unless the Greens are there behind them forcing their hand the government just walk away from the serious priority issues which the Australian community are calling out for work on. When it comes to the carbon tax, they are quite happy to put extra costs on the aged-care sector. But when it comes to reforming the aged-care sector so it can continue to grow and develop and meet the ever-growing demands on it, this government postpones.
The member for Aston in his speech identified some positive things which were identified in the Productivity Commission report and which the government have talked about—in particular, the existing number of home care packages which will be boosted from 60,000 to 100,000 over five years. Both sides of parliament recognise the need for in-home care and I think that initiative will deliver that. It is just a pity that it is not starting tomorrow, because that is what should be happening. The government should have been able to look at the Productivity Commission report, grab it, use the budget to deliver the money and get started on this important reform work. Instead, what did we get? We got procrastination. Sadly, it will mean that the aged-care sector suffers for another year or so.
There is a real need for action now, and I have seen this firsthand. I would like to take my hat off to the shadow minister for aged care, Senator Connie Fierravanti-Wells, who came down to Wannon last month and met with the aged-care sector there. It was interesting to hear the wide variety of views and opinions from across the electorate. We met some of the small, more isolated aged-care providers, the not-for-profits, and we heard about their fears and anxieties about where the system is at the moment. Then we met some of the larger players in the bigger regional centres and heard about their issues. What they want is certainty. They want certainty that the smaller not-for-profits will be able to continue within the system laid out by the government and, in particular, they seemed to be very, very perturbed that this government was not going to be putting any additional money into the system until after the next election. We were able to tell them that if the coalition wins the next election we will not wait, we will not leave them hanging—we will get straight on with implementing this reform package. From the small not-for-profits to the larger aged-care providers, they were very glad to hear that.
We like the idea of getting the packages for home care increased, but apart from that there is not much which the government has to offer in what it is doing here. I, along with the aged-care sector, hope that we will win the next election so that we can start the reform process immediately with this important work that needs doing.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (20:20): I rise to support the private member's motion moved by the member for Shortland. The quality of life for elderly Australians is particularly important in my electorate, being one of the most multicultural and diverse electorates in Australia and having one of the largest ageing communities. Aging an integral part of the lifecycle and nothing is quite so complicated by cultural and linguistic sensitivities as caring for elderly people and their complex needs. Helping older people to stay in their own homes is an important aim of the government's aged-care reform package. That very much accords with the cultural practices and preferences of the many communities that make up my electorate of Calwell.
Many of my constituents live in multigenerational households where care of all family members, from babies and young children to elderly grandparents and great-grandparents, is considered a natural function of the extended family. However, in our modern, time pressured and finance pressured society, this is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain without proper support and quality community services. Sometimes it is not possible to maintain, and aged-care facilities that can cater to the needs of people from different cultural backgrounds are a vital community resource.
As we all know, ageing brings with it a returning emphasis and reliance on the mother tongue. Older people, no matter how fluently they have acquired a second and subsequent language during their lifetimes, tend to feel most comfortable in their original language as they grow older. It is vital that we are sensitive to this fact when planning and providing services to older Australians of non-English speaking backgrounds. How much more important is it when we are caring for Australians who migrated to this country, often in traumatic and difficult circumstances in their later years, never having had the chance to acquire fluent English? Their needs for culturally and linguistically specific services are even greater.
By way of example, I wish to draw the House's attention to the needs of the Arabic-speaking communities in our country, a significant number of whom live in my electorate. Arabic is, according to the ABS data, in the top five most common languages other than English spoken in Australian households. It is spoken not just by people who have migrated from Middle Eastern countries but also by people from a number of African nations, such as Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. Arabic speakers can be Muslim, Christian and other religions as well, each with their own specific cultural needs. Many families from the Assyrian and Chaldean communities in Iraq, who themselves are quite recent arrivals, have sponsored their elderly parents and grandparents to be with them in Australia and have very immediate needs for aged-care services and support. To this end, I would like to commend the Victorian Arabic Social Services, who have done a great job with fairly limited resources in bringing together existing mainstream aged-care services with a wide variety of Arabic-speaking communities to ensure a mutual relationship of trust and understanding. I hope that they will be able to continue to work into the future.
Under the Labor government's well-pitched aged-care reform package, needs such as I have outlined above are recognised and support made available under the Aged Care Service Improvement and Healthy Ageing Grants Fund. These grants are intended to help community organisations ensure that quality services are made available to all those who need it so that they can grow old with dignity and with as much independence as possible and with a quality of life that befits all of our community elders. Importantly however, I want to reiterate the importance of the Living Longer, Living Better aged-care reform package which makes it easier for older Australians to stay in their homes. I also want to acknowledge the very important work that the government is doing in developing appropriate aged-care policies for the large ageing migrant communities, particularly the Italian and the Greek communities which are amongst the largest of those ageing communities. For too many years the previous federal government had been absent in this policy area, so I welcome this government's focus and commitment.
And just to illustrate the importance of the ageing of the Italian and Greek communities, on Saturday I was at the National Institute for Social Assistance Conference, which is a service provided for the Italian community, and I can inform the House that the Italian community in particular is looking very, very closely at the government's formation of policy in relation to caring for the needs of the ageing Italian community. I would like to commend the work of Mr Pino Migliorino, who is the chair of FECCA and an executive member of INAS, who will play a central role in representing and advocating the needs of elderly Australians with an Italian background. (Time expired)
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (20:25): I rise to speak on the member for Shortland's motion about the importance of aged care for our community. The one thing that on both sides of the chamber we can readily agree on is the fact that we want older Australians to have the security and dignity of proper, efficient, sustainable quality aged care. We acknowledge here in this place the great work that so many older Australians have contributed to our country to make our country the great country that it is. Most importantly though, on this side of the chamber we believe very strongly that choice is critical in providing that dignity and that quality of care for older Australians.
Why though is the issue of aged care so important? You only need to look at some of the statistics to understand why it is so significant we focus our minds and attention on this important issue. Today there are about a million people receiving aged-care services. By 2050 there will be 3.5 million people who will require aged-care services. In 2010 there were around 400,000 people aged 85 and above, but by 2050 there will be 1.8 million. It is important that we get it right. It is important that we make the decisions today that will last into the future to ensure quality of care. We know that by 2050 government spending is going to significantly increase in terms of healthcare costs, which will more than triple, and the aged-care costs will quadruple according to the latest Productivity Commission reports.
There have been a number of reviews since 2007 and there have been over inquiries relating to ageing and aged-care issues including an excellent report by the Productivity Commission. In August 2011 the final Productivity Commission report was presented to the government, but we received a response only a number of weeks ago to that report, a response from the government that left many unanswered questions. I just want to go through a couple of very quick issues in the time available tonight.
Firstly, I will go to the funding issue. There was much self-congratulation and acclamation from the other side about the $3.7 billion package over the five years. However when you look closely at the detail, only $577 million of this is new money. Most is actually redirected or means tested. In fact, when you look carefully at the figures, means testing will allow the government to collect $561 million over five years and $183 million for home-care packages and $378 million for residential aged care. What does this mean? It will mean that with means testing, unless you are a pensioner your home and residential care will cost more.
These changes though, will not start until after 1 July 2014, well after the next election, which is why the government will avoid quite a significant degree of scrutiny, because the impact will not be directly felt until that time. We believe it is very important for older Australians to have choice in aged care. Many older Australians now want to be able to have home care and stay in their home for as long as possible before, in some cases, they require residential care. It is a good thing to increase home care packages, but it must be sustainable and we must ensure that those home care packages are available in a cost-effective way for all Australians.
What is very significant about the latest announcement by the government is that nothing was said about red tape. I know, as Deputy Chairman of the Coalitions Deregulation Taskforce, that red tape is a significant issue for the aged-care sector and much reform needs to occur. In fact, the government is increasing red tape, as shown in the announcement it recently made, through the new Aged Care Financing Authority that will approve accommodation charges. There are so many unanswered questions and we need to find the right solutions.
Debate adjourned.
Food Allergies
Debate resumed on motion by Ms Burke:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) food allergy affects approximately 1 in 10 children and 2 in 100 adults, and anaphylaxis is the most severe form of an allergic reaction, most commonly food associated anaphylaxis; and
(b) the number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis has doubled in the last 15 years and there have been increased incidences of anaphylaxis predominantly in infants less than 5 years of age, with studies indicating that increases have been up to five-fold;
(2) recognises that current State and Territory policies related to food allergy management in schools are not properly legislated, except in Victoria;
(3) acknowledges that an anaphylactic reaction should be treated as a medical emergency and a simple medical procedure is all that is needed to treat it, prevent loss of life and provide the necessary time to transport the victim to hospital for further medical attention;
(4) calls on the Government to introduce legislation, devised through COAG, to ensure all preschools, primary and secondary schools:
(a) utilise programs that aim to help educate school children on the cause, effects and treatments of anaphylaxis;
(b) have necessary policies and procedures to provide effective response to a student who experiences an anaphylactic reaction, such as the Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy action plan;
(c) ensure staff members are appropriately trained to support life in the event of an anaphylactic reaction; and
(d) have an anaphylaxis management program for each student developed in consultation with the student's parent/carer and physician;
(5) recognises the great work of Murdoch Children's Research Institute and Asthma Victoria in the 'Schoolnuts' study which aims to determine the prevalence of true food allergies in children and provide educational seminars to schools following research; and
(6) recognises there is further need for coordinated studies of food allergy in Australia to ascertain risk factors and help guide public policy.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm—Deputy Speaker) (20:31): I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and discuss an issue that affects so many Australians and an issue that I have raised in the parliament on numerous occasions. It is something that will not go away any time soon. The issue of anaphylaxis is growing rapidly in our community. The need for government action in relation to anaphylaxis has become even more apparent, given that the number of children suffering from severe food allergies has doubled in a generation. Many studies at the moment cannot pinpoint why, but an exponential number of people are now suffering from severe food allergies that can result in death. I have had the pleasure and the pain of meeting the Baptist family, who lost their son Alex at the age of four at kindergarten, and the Shannon family, who lost their only child, Sabrina, at the age of 13 in Canada. It makes you realise firsthand what this issue means. Having a 10-year-old who is anaphylactic and having had at least one terrifying scare, I know this is something very real that we need to deal with on a day-to-day basis.
But with increased awareness, better management systems and further research in food allergies, allergies do not need to be fatal. The growing group that are most exposed are teenagers, who think they know everything about life and do not need to take any precautions, and who certainly will not carry their epi-pen with them. This is a great debate when we go out on numerous occasions. My nephew who is 20 will not take his epi-pen with him. Even his girlfriend has got to the stage of saying, 'Well, we are not going out to dinner unless you take it with you.' We have had a couple of scares with him along the way too. But as an invincible 20-year-old he knows better than all of us.
An Australian study has estimated that a quarter of the population will have an adverse reaction to food, especially during infancy and early childhood. Food allergy affects approximately one in 10 children and two in 100 adults. Anaphylaxis is the most severe form of an allergic reaction, most commonly food associated, but as many people know there are other things such as bee stings. Many of these food allergies are potentially life-threatening, particularly with food such as peanuts, where even small traces may trigger severe symptoms and even causing death.
The number of hospital admissions for anaphylaxis has doubled in the last 15 years. Death and life-threatening episodes from food associated anaphylaxis are completely preventable. A simple medical procedure is all that is needed to treat it, prevent loss of life and provide the necessary time to transport the victim to hospital for further medical attention. Administering an epi-pen and giving a dose of adrenaline to individuals buys you time to get an ambulance. It does not relieve the symptoms or stop the anaphylactic episode. People need to be hospitalised and we need to get that message through to individuals, that using your epi-pen is not the end, it is the beginning of this process.
Apart from Victoria, where the Baptist family moved with the state government to ensure legislation, there are currently good policies across states and territories. But it is not legislated, and this is causing a grey area. I am a great believer in legislation where things are as important as life-threatening illnesses. I think childcare centres, kindergartens and primary and secondary schools need to have properly trained individuals and this is better managed in a properly legislated sense.
For the year 2010-11, there were 8,840 children in approved childcare in my seat alone. Given statistics, that is approximately 900 children with anaphylaxis in child care. When you send your small child off to childcare or kinder, you do not expect that they will not come home because they have come into contact with an allergen, as was the case with the poor Baptist family. Alex went to kinder one day—there has been a coronial inquiry and how this happened has never been quite resolved—and he came home dead. I do not want to have to see that situation ever again. My child's picture is all over the school. You can see him everywhere, and in the canteen there is a picture of him with the caption: 'Do not feed this child peanuts or eggs; please do not.' That is something he is quite used to; he is not worried about it. But as he moves on to secondary school, it becomes another issue entirely.
Since 2008, the Victorian government has had legislation that demands that each school has an anaphylactic management plan for each student, developed in consultation with the student's parents, carers and medical practitioner; prevention strategies for in-school and out-of-school settings; and a communication plan to raise staff, student, school and community awareness about severe allergies and the school's policy. Regulated training and updates for school staff in recognising and responding appropriately to an anaphylactic reaction, including complete administration of an EpiPen or Anapen and how to use the device appropriately, are very important.
As I said, I have been involved with this issue for many years and personally understand the precautions that must be taken when caring for a child with an anaphylaxis. With the increased number of children with anaphylaxis in each school across the nation, the risk of an allergic reaction is also increasing. It is not something where you can say, 'We won't have nuts at school.' The actual number of items to which there are allergic reactions these days is increasing. It might be strawberries, it might be honey, it might be lettuce—the number of items is enormous. The predominant one is still nuts and many schools have a policy of no nuts.
I want to talk about the SchoolNuts project, which is operating through funding from the Victorian Asthma Association and the Murdoch Children's Institute. I have had the pleasure of meeting with Katie Allen, who is the chair and the driving force of that study. The study is focusing on what has become a major public health concern, anaphylaxis, recognising the apparent increase in childhood food allergies. The research aims to investigate and determine the origins of true allergies in schoolchildren, engage with students to explore the knowledge of and attitudes towards food allergies in children and adolescents as well as provide education seminars to schools following the research. The research is essential in ascertaining modifiable risk factors and thereby helping to improve public health policy. The research aims state:
Since the 1980s, the world has experienced an epidemic of allergic disease. Asthma rose rapidly during the 1990s, followed by increasing eczema and allergic rhinitis, both of which continue to rise. Of great concern is new evidence that yet another allergic condition is on the rise, food allergy, with our own work showing that up to 10% of infants have food allergy proven using the golden standard method—oral food challenge.
If you have ever had to do one with your child, it is fairly scary. The project outline continues:
The emergence of this new allergy epidemic poses significant and unanswered questions relevant to ensuring a healthy start of life for future generations of children.
This is particularly so for the most unstudied age group of children, adolescents, the age group that is most likely to be lost to follow up in the medical system but most worryingly at high risk of food deaths from food-related anaphylaxis.
The study is looking at this group of adolescents by going into schools and recruiting students to understand food allergies and then test students. It has discovered that a lot of them have an allergic reaction to food that has gone undiagnosed. The SchoolNuts program is up and running. It is seeking assistance to get more funding to produce a DVD answering those questions about why foods make people ill, not just making them break into a rash but potentially leading to death. Talking about all those things is very important and this is a groundbreaking study. One of the other unanswered questions is why anaphylaxis, food reactions, asthma and eczema are exponentially on the rise in Australia. We have a greater concentration of them than any other country. Whilst I welcome the action of many childcare providers, kindergartens and schools who have voluntarily introduced policies related to food allergy management, there is currently no consistent national approach to improving awareness and understanding about how to treat a severe allergic reaction in a child. This must change, especially given the increased number of children with anaphylaxis and the potential for sudden death if not treated correctly.
The government must through consistent legislation through the COAG program, with the cooperation of the states, ensure that all preschools, primary schools and secondary schools are set up to deliver life-saving information and care to students. As I say, it is not just about having a photo up around the school that says, 'Don't feed this child peanuts.' It is about how to ensure that an EpiPen is administered and that an ambulance is called.
As I said before, I have been in contact with the Baptist family, who are courageous, brave parents who have lost their son and are still caring for two other children. The parents of children like Alex, who was four when he died, and people like the Shannon family, who created 'Sabrina's law' in Canada, are the driving force behind seeing that no more children die in vain. We should honour their memory by passing laws that will ensure all children are protected whilst at child care and at school.
I have spoken about the increased prevalence of anaphylaxis in our community and among young Australians in particular. The key is ensuring greater awareness, planning, engagement and research. (Time expired)
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (20:41): I start by thanking the Deputy Speaker for this motion on food allergies in general and anaphylaxis in particular. I believe that this is a very serious issue. It affects many Australians and action needs to be taken to better inform the community in general and parents in particular about food allergies and also food intolerances.
Tonight I would like to draw attention in particular to food allergies and intolerances. For most Australians, food is a part of our everyday lives that is generally a pleasant experience. Not only do we have the pleasure of preparing the food but we also see it as a social experience. We go out to dinner, we have friends over for dinner and we meet at restaurants and cafes. It is really part of our lives. However, for some people food can and does cause distressing reactions and even death through a severe allergic reaction—anaphylaxis.
A food allergy is an immune reaction to food protein. To manage the allergy and the reaction it is necessary to determine the food that is the cause of the allergy and eliminate all traces of that food. It is mainly babies, toddlers and young children who are affected by food allergies, but this is not always the case as allergies to peanuts and shellfish often last into adulthood or even present during adulthood. But in these cases it is often that the food was not tried when the person was younger. A common example of this is an allergy to crustaceans. A toddler is unlikely to taste a crustacean and hence the allergy is not picked up until adulthood when the older person tries a crustacean for the first time.
The most common food allergies in children are from peanuts, eggs, milk, other nuts, seafood, sesame, soy and wheat. The most common reaction is eczema, which can be particularly distressing for very young children as scratching inevitably makes the eczema much worse and it is virtually impossible to do anything to give instant relief. Also, the eczema can remain long after the food has been consumed, often making it difficult to determine precisely which food is causing the reaction.
The reaction to a food allergy varies considerably depending on how sensitive the individual is to the allergen and how much of the food is eaten. There are also other factors such as whether the food is raw or cooked. Eggs are a very good example of this, with some individuals who show an allergic reaction to raw or soft-cooked eggs, such as soft meringue, able to eat eggs when they are well cooked—for example, in a cake. This is not the case for everyone, but it is the advice that has been given to me by an allergist. As I understand it, cooking or heating the food changes the protein structure and hence the cooked food may not produce an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. But I stress that that is not always the case. As I have already said, eczema is the most common food allergy reaction but there are others, including hives and redness around the face, swelling and, if the food is swallowed, there can be vomiting and diarrhoea. The most severe reaction, anaphylaxis, can proceed very rapidly with swelling of the throat and breathing difficulties, and it can be life threatening if not treated immediately with an injection of adrenaline.
Those who are known to have a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction generally carry an EpiPen. I certainly take on board what the Deputy Speaker said about teenagers and young adults and their view of an EpiPen. Unfortunately, they do often believe that they are invincible and that they do not need to carry their EpiPen. I would hate for there to be a tragedy because of that, but unfortunately that has been the case in the past. There is always that initial reaction when it is first determined that there is a potential for anaphylaxis or when it actually occurs. In most instances there is unlikely to be an EpiPen handy for that very first attack. Often it will happen at home with a parent or a carer, or at a childcare centre where the carers are responsible for the care of that child.
I recently visited a before-school care centre in my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast. One of the staff there told me about a child who had recently experienced their first allergic reaction to a food at before-school care. Fortunately, a staff member identified what was happening. They saw the symptoms and realised what was going on, and an ambulance was called and it arrived very quickly. In the interim, the staff member stayed on the phone and spoke to the emergency operator and followed all the instructions until the paramedics arrived. The child was taken to hospital and treatment continued. In that case, the allergen was ginger. It was certainly not something that would have been easily detected in any food that the child was bringing into the centre, but that was the advice that came back.
As I said earlier, food allergies do affect a significant number of people in Australia. An Access Economics report published in 2007 found that 4.1 million Australians have an allergy of some type, and the cost to productivity is $5.6 billion. Two per cent of Australians are thought to have some form of food allergy that will trigger anaphylaxis. Based on Australia's current population, that means that about 500,000 people suffer from a food allergy. So it is a significant number. It is particularly concerning that over the last 12 years there has been a doubling of admissions to Australian hospitals, with a fivefold increase of young children under the age of five.
I note that this motion refers to the work of the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and Asthma Victoria in the SchoolNuts study. I commend them for their work and encourage them to continue with their research. I also congratulate and commend the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Allergy Unit for the work that they have done over a number of years—not only with food allergies but with food intolerances, which is the next issue I would like to speak about tonight. Many people consider food allergies and food intolerances to be the same thing, but they are not. They are very different. Whilst a food allergy is an immune reaction to a protein, a food intolerance—which is also known as non-allergic food hypersensitivity, is not an immune reaction. The chemicals involved in food intolerances can be naturally occurring or artificial. They are quite varied and they occur in many different foods. The issue often becomes determining which chemicals are causing the reaction and eliminating those entire food groups.
The Royal Prince Alfred Hospital developed the elimination diet in the late 1970s, and this diet has now been used very widely throughout Australia and in some overseas countries, including New Zealand and the United States, to assist with the identification of foods that cause reactions. The three natural substances that are most likely to cause reactions in sensitive individuals are salicylates, amines and glutamates. They are common to many foods—for example, apples, tomatoes, peas and avocadoes, just to name a few. So the intolerances that come from these various chemicals are very widespread.
Research has shown that individuals who are sensitive to naturally-occurring food chemicals usually react to colours, flavours and preservatives. So, with our modern diet, sensitive individuals can react to goods that less sensitive individuals consume on a daily basis with no effect. Essentially, our highly processed diet creates a range of reactions for an increasing number of people. Those reactions from food intolerances, whilst not normally life threatening, can be very debilitating and include a range of symptoms, such as eczema, stomach pains, leg pain, flu-like symptoms, headaches and sinus problems.
The elimination diet requires the elimination of food chemicals, both natural and artificial, and food additives for such time as the symptoms have disappeared for a certain period of time and then each food group is reintroduced to test for a reaction. Following these diets is a huge commitment from the individual and also from the families of those individuals, because it has an absolutely huge impact on their life. But it is a necessary step in determining the food intolerances. I believe that it is time for schools to renew their policies in relation to food being brought into school and also sold in tuckshops, and consideration most certainly must be given to children with food allergies. (Time expired)
Ms SMYTH (La Trobe) (20:51): I am very, very pleased indeed to be able to support the motion that is before us this evening, both in terms of the significance of this as a public health issue and also in terms of family allergies and friends' allergies. Certainly that has been a consistent theme through the discussion of this motion this evening. We know that anaphylaxis is the most severe form of allergic reaction and it is potentially life threatening; although, the incidents of fatalities in Australia as a result of anaphylaxis are happily still relatively rare. However, the incidents of anaphylaxis is obviously on the increase, so the risk of potentially life-threatening consequences from it is inevitably also on the increase.
Anaphylaxis obviously requires emergency attention and early medical treatment and can affect a range of different body systems—for instance, the skin and respiratory systems. We also know that anaphylaxis takes place within a relatively short period of time after exposure to the relevant trigger—within 20 minutes or two hours. So for parents with young children who are at school or who are in unfamiliar environments and exposed to different foodstuffs or to different allergens, it is an ongoing source of concern.
Indeed, it also a worry for people who are contemplating having children or those who are currently pregnant, because family history of allergic reaction clearly has a significant impact upon the propensity for your offspring to have an anaphylactic response or to have an allergic reaction of any kind. If a person or their partner has an allergy, the chance of the child of that relationship developing an allergy is around 30 per cent, which is an extraordinary figure, and it goes up to between 40 per cent and 60 per cent in the event that both parents have a history of allergic reactions.
The significance of the motion this evening cannot be overstated. Indeed, allergies, particularly food allergies, have become a significant public health concern in many developed countries. In particular, Australia and New Zealand have amongst the highest prevalence of allergic reaction disorders in the developed world. So we are living in a region where this is increasingly becoming of significance—and to a population of young people who are increasingly exposed to the prospect of allergic reaction.
Earlier this evening we heard speakers in this debate talk about the Access Economics report of 2007, which—we understand from discussions earlier—estimated that around 4.1 million Australians had at least one allergic disease. That is an incredible figure in a population of our size. Around 78 per cent of those with allergies were aged between 15 and 64, so even though we are increasingly concerned about the incidence of allergies amongst very young children, it is the case that the bulk of those people who are exposed to allergic reaction are between 15 and 64 years.
The report that I mentioned earlier considered the impacts of an ageing Australian population and, based on current trends, it is estimated that there will be a 70 per cent increase in the number of Australians with allergy from 4.1 million in 2007 to 7.68 million by 2050—that is more than one in four Australians who are likely to be exposed. So the consequences for quality of life for those who are exposed to allergic reaction and, particularly given the motion before us, the extreme effects of allergic reaction, namely anaphylaxis, are significant. They inevitably have consequences for the quality of life for individuals and their families, particularly in cases where small children are concerned. Family holidays, going to school and the very independence of individuals and families are affected significantly by anaphylaxis and allergies.
The consequences from a public health perspective for our economy are significant. The consequences in terms of health costs and the economic costs associated with productivity are clearly very significant, so it is timely that this resolution come before us tonight. I encourage others to take note of the resolution and, particularly for some of our piecemeal responses at a state and territory level, for those in a position to influence policy development to consider this resolution and the deliberations of the House. (Time expired)
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (20:56): I thank the member for Chisholm for this motion. I think it is a very important motion. Almost every member of this House will have had experience either on a personal basis or with family members, friends or constituents that have suffered from serious issues of allergy and therefore the risk of anaphylaxis.
It is an emerging and evolving problem in our society. Others are better qualified to define the cause, but the incidence is clear. We will all have our theories, and no doubt the exposure to different chemicals, different products and different elements of modern life contributes to this issue.
I want to proceed briefly in three phases: firstly, with a personal reflection; secondly, with a notion about the broader societal risk; and, thirdly, in terms of the solution. Let me deal with the personal reflection: my wife's goddaughter, Grace Diamond, is a beautiful girl in the upper levels of primary school on the Mornington Peninsula. She is extraordinarily artistic and bright but was born with a major allergy which, as she became a little older and travelled through her toddler years, was discovered to be a peanut allergy but at the extreme end. Whenever the family comes to our house there is a purging, as it were, of all items associated with nuts and, in particular, peanuts. The school, to its eternal credit, has adopted a no-nuts policy. We have this engagement with the family of this beautiful, young, highly intelligent girl but it is a broader issue to be aware of the threat that the family has to carry with them. Pens, which can be used for the immediate injection to deal with anaphylaxis, if it arises, put a different layer of responsibility on the problem. So it is not just an inconvenience for the parents; it is a great, lasting and abiding threat. This is part of a broader risk.
We know that around 20 per cent of cases of peanut allergy, for example, resolve but around 20 per cent of cases can become worse with time. About 60 per cent are stable. From the UK and the USA, we see that there has been a doubling of this one area of peanut allergy over five years. It is now estimated to affect one in 50 young infants, and we are seeing broader allergies with general nuts. The real issue here is that a minor problem can evolve into anaphylaxis. So there are two things we need to do going forward: one is education and two is a set of standards for our schools which are universally understood and which are at the appropriate level of protection. I thank the member for raising this issue. It has resonance in our family and resonance in our community. I think it is time for a national approach upon which we can all agree.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Question proposed:
That grievances be noted.
Child Care
Mr FRYDENBERG ( Kooyong ) ( 2 1 : 00 ): Unfortunately, in politics we have become used to the disjuncture between rhetoric and reality, but under this government it has been turned into an art form. Big spending budgets from so-called fiscal conservatives and thousands of pages of new regulations from a Labor Party claiming to be a friend of small business are two cases that come to mind. But there is now another area where federal actions are having an invidious and negative impact on the lives of millions in our community—namely, child care.
Under the guise of the best interests of the child, the Gillard government has imposed sweeping changes to the childcare sector, leading to more red tape for providers, higher costs to families and volunteer fatigue among the thousands of parents who make up local management committees. It is a classic case of big government thinking it knows best, with top-down solutions for what are uniquely grassroots community organisations, who themselves have the most at stake in producing the best possible outcomes. What is more, we are often seeing reluctant state governments push back against the heavy-handed approach of their federal counterparts who are seeking to impose their solutions from up on high.
These strongarm tactics make a mockery of Julia Gillard's claim of 'cooperative federalism' and shine a light on some of the key deficiencies in the legislation. Indeed, just last week there was a major story in the Age, with the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth threatening to withhold over $100 million in funding from Victoria if it does not implement by 2013 the universal access requirement for 15 hours of kindergarten a week for all four-year-olds.
While 15 hours of kindergarten a week may be a noble objective, it does come with immediate costs. Not only does the overall financial burden for parents increase and it becomes difficult in the immediate term to find sufficient numbers of qualified staff but it is also that other programs for three-year-olds in the same facility often need to be cut to accommodate the extended hours for four-year-olds. This problem is particularly acute in Victoria, where we have a high number of three-year-olds in kindergarten programs. At a public child-care forum I recently held at Kew Heights Sports Club in the electorate of Kooyong, which was attended by senior representatives from the for-profit and not-for-profit child-care sector as well as by the local Boroondara council, a number of local providers indicated they had been forced to scale back changes for three-year-olds that would have otherwise continued but for these new changes. Many parents also expressed their concern about the changes and the perverse impact they were having on them. With this level of uncertainty hovering over federal funding, kindergarten management committees feel they are unable to plan with confidence infrastructure upgrades, class sizes and fee schedules. For these volunteers who are already dedicating hundreds of hours a year to their kindergartens, like Diana Nelson, President of the JJ McMahon Memorial Kindergarten in Kew, this cloud of uncertainty is making their difficult task even harder. Based on the views aired at the Kooyong Child Care Forum, it is easy for me to see why the Baillieu government is absolutely right to call on the federal government to show more flexibility when it comes to implementing the mandatory universal access requirement.
The sector is in transition and will need time and resources to adjust. It is not just the universal access issue which is causing problems for the sector; it is also the other changes being introduced as part of the National Quality Agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care.
Under this framework, all preschools and long day care services are required to have in place a child-staff ratio of one-to-four for children under two years of age. For children 25- to 35-months, it must be one-to-five by 2016. And for children aged 36 months to school age, it needs to be one-to-11. By 2014 family day care educators will be entitled to care for up to seven kids, with no more than four under school age. In terms of staff for preschool, including long day care and family day care, they will, under the new requirements, need to hold a formal qualification or be working towards one in early childhood education and care by 2014. For long-day services and preschools, at least half the staff will need a diploma and others a minimum of a certificate III. For family day care educators, a certificate III will be the minimum, with coordination unit staff holding at least a diploma.
These are very significant changes, particularly when one considers that the Productivity Commission found in its 2011 report into the early childhood development workforce that 45 per cent of educators in family day care do not hold this new minimum qualification and that, in their words:
… some FDC educators will not consider it worthwhile to begin working towards it, instead opting to exit the sector.
Should these departures eventuate, existing shortages of labour supply in the childcare sector will only be exacerbated. Indeed, the Productivity Commission has said that the government's reforms will require an additional 15,000 workers and that to cater for this demand wages will need to increase. In the words of the report:
The supply of suitably qualified workers is likely to take some time to respond, and temporary exemptions from the new standards (waivers) will be required. Government timelines for reform appear optimistic.
This is an important warning sign for the Gillard government.
At the Kooyong Childcare Forum, local providers said that the absence of qualified staff often forced them to fill gaps with temporary staff, which put upward pressure on wage bills, again lifting the cost burden on the parents. In addition to airing their concerns with the lack of qualified staff available, local providers also raised their concerns with the quality of vocational training in the sector. This is a problem that was also identified in the Productivity Commission report and one that the Gillard government should be far more attentive to than it has been. One of the panel participants in the Kooyong Childcare Forum was Ms Gwynn Bridge, who is President of the Australian Childcare Alliance. They conducted a survey into childcare affordability in April-May this year, the results of which are illuminating.
The survey found that 68 per cent of respondents could not afford the 15 per cent increase in childcare fees that the Productivity Commission report found would be the case. Such an inhibitive cost increase will force 72 per cent of respondents to find alternative care arrangements among their own family, 88 per cent of respondents to reduce the hours spent by their children in long-day child care and 34 per cent of respondents to place their children in unregulated childcare arrangements. Among those families already experiencing financial stress, these additional costs would see 76 per cent of 'respondents withdraw their kids from current long-day care arrangements, and 70 per cent of parents would consider delaying having more children if the costs of childcare increased further'. Remarkably, this 70 per cent figure is a doubling of the number of parents who answered a similar question in a 2010 survey.
What this survey and others like it have found is that parents are screaming out for relief from the rising costs of child care in this country. If we do not do something urgently, the consequences will be profound. The Labor government's decision to cut the childcare rebate, to freeze its indexation and to abuse Tony Abbott for rightly raising the issue of funding support for nannies is indicative of their insensitivity to this burning issue in the electorate. What is more, Labor have broken their 2007 election promise to build 260 new childcare centres, with only 38 ever built. When one adds to this poor record Peter Garrett's inflexible and heavy handed approach to the universal access requirements and the other quality framework reforms, it is easy to see why we need a new approach.
My colleague the member for Farrer, who has done an impressive job as shadow minister for childcare and early childhood learning, has made it very clear that the coalition is committed to a more flexible and understanding approach. We must always remember that child care is not a welfare entitlement but, rather, part and parcel of key measures to boost productivity and labour force participation. For me, it was terrific to have Sussan Ley participate in the Kooyong Childcare Forum, along with many other professionals in the sector. I look forward to working with her and my other colleagues in this place to drive a better deal for the children and their families who, at the end of the day, are the only ones that count.
Gene Patents
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (21:10): I wish to speak tonight about a matter that has grieved me for three years, ever since I became aware that companies were taking out patents over human genes and of the consequences of this in restricting science and health research, as well as the cost not only in human lives and quality of life but also in the massive expense to the taxpayer through additional imposts on the health system, including the PBS. This issue is essentially about who gets to own and control genetic information.
At the moment, corporations can patent human genes and have monopoly control over those genes to the exclusion of all others. This is wrong on a number of levels. Firstly, it is wrong because genetic information belongs to all of us. It should not be the subject of private property. Genes contain information fundamental to humanity and this information should be freely available to all. Secondly, it is wrong as a matter of legal principle. It is a bedrock principle of patent law, indeed it is the basis for the entire patent system, that there must be an invention. Clearly, no-one invented our genes, not even the defective cancer-causing ones. Genes are natural phenomena: they are products of nature, not of any corporation, and as such they should not be patentable. Thirdly, it is wrong as a matter of public policy to grant monopoly control over fundamental genetic information that has the effect of stymieing research and innovation and preventing health researchers and clinicians from having access to genes in order to diagnose disease and develop health treatments.
We are only at the beginning of what we know about human genes. Scientists are finding that diseases are often caused by multiple genes acting in concert. If these genes are owned by different companies, how will a researcher ever be able to freely carry out the research that is necessary to discover new cures and treatments? Genes are going to play an even greater role in diagnostic treatments and personalised medicine—for example, developing medicines that react with a certain genetic profile. The more patents we grant over the genes, the more complex we are making the landscape for researchers and those that want to produce new diagnostic treatments and medicines. Indeed, the evidence is to the effect that gene patents are having a chilling effect on research and testing as scientists and clinicians fear being sued by large corporations with deep pockets for infringement of patents.
It is helpful to look at some examples of how this has occurred in the Australian context. The US corporation Myriad holds the patents over the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genes. The Australian licence holder is Genetic Technologies. In 2008 Genetic Technologies ordered all Australian public laboratories to stop testing for breast cancer, claiming it had the sole right to do so under the patent. In 2010 the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre gave evidence to a Senate committee inquiry that its research into breast and ovarian cancer had been delayed two years and ended up costing three times as much because Myriad and Genetic Technologies refused it permission to use the breast and ovarian cancer genes in its research. Myriad's patents are currently under challenge in the US and here in the Federal Court of Australia by breast cancer patient Yvonne D'Arcy and Cancer Voices Australia. They are only able to do this because the law firm Maurice Blackburn as well as David Catterns QC and Professor Peter Cashman have taken this on as a pro bono case. It is shameful that cancer patients have been forced into this action because of the facilitation of gene patents by IP Australia and inaction by successive governments.
It is not only cancer research and treatment being impacted by these patents. Chiron Corporation held the patent over the hepatitis C virus and aggressively defended this patent through legal action, thereby preventing the development of better alternative tests for hepatitis C for 10 years, despite its own test being largely ineffective. Professor Baruch Blumberg of the Fox Chase Cancer Centre in Pennsylvania was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine and physiology in 1976 for his work on the hepatitis B virus. During the course of patent litigation between Chiron Corporation and Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd, Professor Blumberg gave the following testimony:
I have reviewed Chiron Australia's Australian patent No. 624105 for the purposes of these proceedings.
… … …
Based on the unusually broad nature of the patent, if I were a research director for anti-virals and had the option of working on several viruses, the existence of this patent would weigh against my deciding to undertake HCV research. A company, or even an academic laboratory, might well be deterred from conducting research on HCV because the patent is, in effect, intimidating. With the patent as it stands, any investigator, particularly in commercial laboratories (where much of the work on hepatitis has been done) would have to seriously consider that Chiron would bring an action against them if they attempted any commercialization of anything related to HCV.
There is also the matter of doctors at Westmead Hospital sending children's samples to Scotland for epilepsy testing rather than pay the exorbitant fees demanded by Genetic Technologies. What makes this even more preposterous is the fact that much of the work that went into identifying the epilepsy gene was done at publicly funded research institutions in Adelaide, and the diagnostic test for epilepsy was developed with the help of a $1 million AusIndustry grant from the Australian taxpayer.
The fact is that knowledge about human genes should belong to everyone. That is why, when the human genome was decoded 12 years ago, US President Clinton and UK Prime Minister Blair issued a joint statement which said:
… raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind.
This has been recognised in an extremely significant legal case in the United States. The US Supreme Court, in the case of Prometheus v Mayo Clinic, made a unanimous 9-0 decision two months ago affirming the long-held legal principle that natural phenomena are not patentable. They noted that Einstein could not have patented E=MC2 and nor could Newton have patented gravity. The Prometheus case was not about a patent on genes but about a patent on the measurement of naturally occurring metabolite levels in the blood, but the legal issue was the same: can you patent natural phenomena? The court's definitive and emphatic response to that question was no.
The Supreme Court has now ordered the US federal court to look again at the validity of Myriad's patents over the breast and ovarian cancer genes, in the light of its decision in Prometheus. The US Supreme Court's judgment supports the recent decision by the US government to overturn decades of US patent policy. The US government policy is now that genes isolated from the human body are not patentable, in the same way that coal extracted from the earth and cotton extracted from cotton seeds are also not patentable. In the course of its judgment in Prometheus, the Supreme Court made the important point that 'monopolisation of natural phenomena through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it', and this is the key reason why we must challenge the claim by the biotechnology industry that a ban on gene patents would mean the end of investment in genetic research.
As Nobel laureates for economics and medicine Professors Joseph Stiglitz and John Sulston have written in the Wall Street Journal, in an article entitled 'The Case Against Gene Patents':
Proponents of gene patents argue that private companies will not engage in genetic research unless they have the economic incentives created by the patent system. We believe that a deeper understanding of the economics and science of innovation leads to exactly the opposite conclusion.
Patents such as those in this case not only prevent the use of knowledge in ways that would most benefit society, they may even impede scientific progress. Every scientific advance is built on those that came before it. There is still a great deal to learn about our genes, particularly how they contribute to disease. Gene patents inhibit access to the most basic information.
I want to make it clear that there is no objection to corporations getting patents over genuine inventions like treatments, vaccines and medicines that use genetic materials in them. The objection is to the patenting of the genes themselves, as these are the building blocks of the human body. The fact is that it is immoral, and contrary to both legal principle and good public policy, to continue to allow the creeping privatisation of the human body through gene patents, and there is, in my view, an urgent need for the Patents Act to be amended to address the issue of patentable subject matter, which was not dealt with in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 that recently went through this parliament. When I spoke on that bill, I looked at the research exemption that is raised by industry as the answer to the problems created by gene patents. The research exemption is a step in the right direction, but, as Professor Ian Olver, CEO of the Cancer Council of Australia, has noted, the research exemption is simply too narrow to be of any practical use to researchers and it is of no use to clinicians at all.
I come back to the basic point: that no-one should be getting a patent over something that they did not invent in the first place. As the Cancer Council of Australia noted in its submission to the Senate inquiry into gene patents:
… excluding genes from patentable subject matter would be the most efficient way to ensure medical research and resultant public health outcomes are not compromised by the current anachronistic patent arrangements.
I know that there are many parliamentarians inside the Labor caucus and across the political spectrum who would like to see reform in this area, and I will be continuing to work within the government, the caucus and the parliament to see this wrong righted. When you have the Cancer Council of Australia, the National Breast Cancer Foundation, the Royal Australian College of Pathologists, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Clinical Oncological Society and the Human Genetic Society, among many others, all saying there is something seriously wrong here, we should listen to that. We as lawmakers have a duty to listen to that and to do something.
Northern Territory
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (21:20): I rise tonight to raise serious issues affecting the Northern Territory. I have previously said in this place that most Territorians are a 3½-hour flight from the nearest capital city. We are remote and regional Australians and we are proud of our uniqueness and our frontier style approach. Our character defines us and we are proud of the community that we continue to build. Whilst my home is far away in distance and small in population, that is not reason enough for this Labor government to continually overlook the Northern Territory. Every major issue that the Labor government has created has had a huge impact on every Territorian. I do not mind telling you that Territorians are not very happy with the Gillard Labor government. There are many reasons why Territorians, like most Australians, have an issue with this government.
I would like to remind the House and, in particular, the Gillard Labor government members opposite that the Northern Territory's biggest industries are tourism, the cattle trade, road transport and the mining sector. We know that the Gillard Labor government knows that the mining and gas sector in the Territory is big. The Prime Minister was in Darwin last week to turn the first sod of a $33 billion project. I just hope that the Prime Minister does not have the reverse Midas touch on that significant project as she has with everything else that this Labor government has touched.
Each of these sectors will be affected in one way or another by poor Labor policy. Many sectors will be impacted by the carbon tax. And we already know what happened when this government stopped the live cattle trade. Territorians are still feeling the effects of that ridiculous decision. I have said in this place previously that nearly everything is freighted into the Territory. Everything from fruit and vegetables to general groceries and building materials is transported into the Territory, mostly by diesel road trains. The carbon tax will no doubt increase our freight costs as well.
The Northern Territory—in particular, Darwin and Palmerston—is going through a housing crisis, which is another point that I have raised many times in this place. The Northern Territory has multiple detention centres and not enough hospitals. This government has created more detention centre beds in my electorate than hospital beds—not something to be proud of. Whether it be the Gillard government's ban on live cattle exports, the minerals resource rent tax, the government's failure to deliver affordable housing or the toxic carbon tax, every piece of bad legislation hits the individual Northern Territorian. The combination of these broken promises, poor management and new taxes has already significantly hurt Territorians and will continue to hurt us all.
Another issue I have spoken about in this place before is the current healthcare situation in my electorate of Solomon. The Royal Darwin Hospital is under pressure from the detention centres. This has occurred because of the Gillard Labor government's failed border protection policy. I have heard the story all too often: when Territorians go to the emergency department the waiting times are getting much longer as doctors are required to see detainees before they can see citizens of this their own country. Adding to this, our ambulances are constantly being called out to the Wickham Point detention centre, which has stretched their capacity to care for the needs of Territorians.
I was horrified to hear the other day that some constituents think that, in an emergency situation, it would be much better to drive their own car rather than take the risk of waiting for an ambulance. We have learnt in recent days that it is not just the hospitals; the ambulance service and the police service that are under pressure because of the demands placed on the community by the illegal arrivals detained in our detention centres. Our legal aid centres are also under pressure. This is just a mess—a mess of the government's own doing.
To top it all off, the carbon tax is going to devastate the Northern Territory economy. The carbon tax will have an impact on everything, especially remoteness. Yet this government, rather than repealing this bad legislation, has chosen to play ostrich politics. It has its head stuck deep in the sand and it is hoping that the problems will go away. Well, they will not. Millions of Australians will be worse off under the carbon tax, and the compensation being handed out will not be enough. The carbon tax will drive up the cost of living for Australian families, and the money being delivered in the coming weeks by the government is simply a sweetener for the financial pain ahead. The compensation is a con, because on the government's own figures millions and millions of Australian households will be worse off under the carbon tax.
Every day in my electorate office we are getting calls and emails from people who have done the calculations and checked the website, and they are telling us that they are going to be worse off under the carbon tax. We cannot accept that best-case scenario from a government that delivered failings such as the pink batts program, the failed education revolution scheme, the inefficient solar rebate program, the set-top boxes to pensioners that cost more than a whole new television, the ban on live exports that destroyed years of international trade relationships and the $900 stimulus package that was sent to people living overseas or to people who were deceased. The government has failed in the past; what makes the Gillard Labor government think we can trust them now?
Many dual-income families will be worse off once they reach the typical income of a schoolteacher and a shop assistant, or a policeman and a part-time nurse. Self-funded retirees who do not qualify for a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card will receive nothing, which includes all those under the age of 65. The longer this tax is in place, the worse the consequences will be for the economy, jobs and families. The 2012-13 budget confirms the government is forecasting the carbon tax to rise from $23 a tonne to $29 a tonne by 2015-16. The compensation simply will not be enough to outweigh the extra costs for Territorians who will be hit because of the carbon tax.
Take your typical Northern Territory family, for example—a mum, a dad and one child under the age of five. Both parents are working in one of the Northern Territory's major industries—tourism, public service, mining, the Defence Force or the cattle trade. Both mum and dad are on $75,000 a year, earning a combined income of $150,000 per annum. They will receive $281 in compensation, but they will be hit with $809 under the carbon tax. So they will be $528 a year worse off. This is simply unacceptable.
When the Prime Minister of Australia announced a carbon tax, she said it was a tax on big businesses, yet the government's own figures show that it is mums and dads who will have to fork out the extra money for this toxic tax. To make things worse, many small businesses in the Northern Territory are worried that this tax will spell the end for them. I have spoken to private airline operators, builders, building equipment suppliers, fish and chip shop owners, grocers, butchers, florists and market stallholders. All of them are telling me the same thing: this tax will make their costs go up. They will try to pass on their costs but no longer think that their businesses will be viable. It saddened me the other day to hear that for some small businesses this tax will be the final nail in the coffin.
The Prime Minister is in cahoots with the Greens and has introduced this tax at the worst possible time. This is the world's biggest carbon tax, and the Leader of the Greens, Christine Milne, is still talking about adding the carbon tax to petrol, which would add a minimum of 6½c per litre to the cost. I do not know about everywhere else, but we have already got high petrol costs in the Northern Territory, so that is another thing that is not going to be good for us. Families will be better off under a coalition government. We will remove the carbon tax and deliver tax cuts.
I will sum up with this final point. I understand that the Gillard Labor government's policy is going to hurt all Australians across the nation, but in my electorate of Solomon there is a housing crisis, the Royal Darwin Hospital is under immense pressure which is being caused by failed immigration policies, the small business community is still recovering from the ban of the live export trade and, to top it all off, the carbon tax is going to have a devastating impact on business as well as our already high cost of living. My grievance is with the Gillard Labor government and what its ridiculous, poorly-thought-out policies are doing to my electorate and my community and how it is hurting every single Territorian.
Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (21:29): I want to bring to the attention of the parliament the case of Ballard v Multiplex, where judgment was delivered on 13 May 2012 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales's equity division. At the outset I want to indicate that I am a director of the Committee to Defend Trade Union Rights, and that has been declared in the Register of Members' Interests. Also, I have been a friend of Andrew Ferguson for almost 38 years.
The New South Wales Supreme Court dismissed a 15-year-old case accusing the CFMEU of conspiring with construction giant Multiplex to drive a subcontractor, David Ballard, out of the industry. Justice Robert McDougall rejected evidence of a conspiracy after finding Ballard's key witnesses, ex-union-organiser Craig Bates and ex-Multiplex-financial-controller Ian Widdup, were not credible.
I propose to read excerpts from the judgment in relation to a number of witnesses. Paragraph 113 states:
I accept, of course, that an assessment of the credibility of any particular witness must take into account the extent to which the testimony of that witness is, or is not, conformable to other evidence in the case …. To take an example from this case: the evidence of Mr Bates (which, as I shall show, must be regarded as untrustworthy, having regard to admissions as to dishonest, discreditable and corrupt conduct in which he engaged and to admissions of serial perjury) may, nonetheless, find corroboration in other parts of the evidence ….
Paragraph 139 states:
At the outset, two points should be made. The first is that, as he—
Mr Bannon—
frankly conceded, Mr Ballard has become "obsessed" about the subject matter of this litigation. Even had he not conceded this, the conclusion would be inevitable, both from a reading of his evidence overall and from observations made by other witnesses. Secondly, and again as Mr Ballard frankly conceded, his memory is poor. Again, the conclusion is manifest from even a casual perusal of his affidavit and oral evidence.
Paragraph 148 states:
There were other aspects of Mr Ballard's evidence that, on a fair reading, are unacceptable. They include:
… … …
(3) his unimpressive attempt to suggest that his pleas of guilty to two charges of giving false evidence were entered on the advice or instruction of a detective, and that as soon as he was in a position to do so he would take action to have the convictions reversed. It may be noted that at the relevant time, Mr Ballard was, on his evidence, doing well in business, and lack of funds could hardly have been a reason for a failure to defend the charges;
(4) more generally, the pervasive tendency to attribute blame or responsibility to others for deficiencies in his evidence;
(5) the related tendency, when confronted with inconsistent or inaccurate propositions in his affidavit, to suggest that he had not read them thoroughly before swearing them, and had relied on the solicitor to ensure that they were accurate; …
Paragraph 148 states:
Further, Mr Ballard's affidavit evidence was not entirely candid about his earlier brushes with the law. … It is sufficient to say that Mr Ballard was either extremely forgetful or, perhaps, selectively cautious in his recollection. Neither interpretation is supportive of an assessment that, in general, his evidence should be treated as credible. … The point is that the way in which Mr Ballard approached the question of his criminal history is less than impressive.
Paragraph 150 states:
… I have come to the view that I should not accept Mr Ballard's evidence unless it is supported by the evidence of other, credible, witnesses; or is supported by contemporaneous documents; or is consistent with what I regard as the probabilities, objectively ascertained.
The judgment continues at paragraph 151:
151 Mr Bates is the only witness who gives express evidence of the alleged conspiracy. He is described in Multiplex's submissions (MS) at para 178 as "a totally disgraced former Union official and serial liar". That description is not far from the truth.
152 Mr Bates has an extensive criminal history, dating (on the evidence) from 1985 to 2006. It includes numerous offences of dishonesty. It does not include any convictions for false swearing. However, Mr Bates admitted that, in relation to a particular subject matter, he lied repeatedly and on numerous occasions when giving evidence to the Cole Royal Commission. That does him no credit.
153 The occasion for those lies does Mr Bates no credit either. He (and apparently other union officials) had concocted a corrupt scheme whereby they extorted payments from contractors or subcontractors, threatening that industrial action would be taken on their sites if the payments were not made, and promising industrial harmony if they were. …
154 Not only did Mr Bates confess his involvement in that behaviour, he sought, in my view falsely, to implicate Mr Ferguson in it. I say "falsely" because there is no other evidence to suggest that Mr Ferguson had been involved in such behaviour.
… … …
156 Quite apart from these matters, which go to credibility in the broad sense, there is another major problem with Mr Bates' evidence. In his affidavit sworn 19 October 2009 (paras 19 to 39), Mr Bates effectively suggested that the conspiracy arose from Mr Ferguson's continuing anger at the ACA broadcast and Mr Ballard's role (as, apparently, Mr Ferguson is said to have perceived it) in procuring that program to be made. Had the conspiracy followed immediately on the screening of the ACA broadcast, that might be understandable. But in circumstances where the conspiracy meeting is said to have happened some 11 months after the program was screened, and after excerpts from it were twice repeated, and where (as I have said) Mr Ballard through Stoneglow had been engaged in demolition projects in the Sydney metropolitan region since then, to the knowledge of the union but without any interference, this seems somewhat tenuous.
Paragraph 165:
In my view, Mr Bates' evidence as to the preferred contractor scheme is fabricated. That reflects adversely on his credibility, and not in any peripheral way. It goes to the heart of his evidence, because the existence of the preferred contractor scheme is said to be either the, or at least a supplementary or alternative, explanation for the hatching of the conspiracy.
Paragraph 167:
In my view, this whole aspect of Mr Bates' evidence is utterly implausible: not only in its substance, but also having regard to the way in which and the belated time at which it emerged. I cannot regard it as anything other than something intended both to buttress the central plank of Mr Bates' evidence—the coffee shop meeting—and to embarrass or discredit Mr Ferguson.
Paragraph 170:
In truth, I think, Mr Bates was motivated by a desire to obtain revenge.
Paragraph 172:
But to be put against them is the history of lying, deceitful, corrupt and dishonest conduct in which Mr Bates has, on his own admission, engaged over some years. It defies human experience to suggest that a person who has demonstrated such disdain for the mores of society, for notions of proper and ethical dealing, and for the concept of testimony on oath, should be accepted as a witness whose evidence should be given inherent credibility in the absence of powerful corroboration.
Paragraph 173:
Be all that as it may—and inquiries as to motive are not always capable of satisfactory resolution—the simple fact is that the combination of Mr Bates' past criminal history, including many offences of dishonesty, his admission of widespread corrupt behaviour, and his reluctant admissions of widespread on oath lying about that behaviour are such as to make him a witness whose evidence is not worthy of belief unless it is supported by other, credible, evidence.
Paragraph 257:
At the very least, Mr Widdup's memory of events relating to the Finger Wharf demolition contract—which is a key part of the case for Mr Ballard—is shown to be faulty. A less charitable view, which in my view is the correct one, is that there are numerous elements of fabrication.
Paragraph 271:
I do not accept Mr Widdup as a witness on whose uncorroborated evidence I can rely, unless that evidence happens to coincide with what I perceive to be the probabilities, objectively ascertained.
Paragraph 379:
Consideration of the transcript of the cross-examination of each of Mr Sharkey and Mr McClelland does not suggest that either of them was being obstructive, or seeking to do anything other than tell the truth to the best of his recollection. It is obvious that each of them had a less than perfect recollection of the central events. But there is nothing in the evidence that, to me, suggests that it represents anything other than the best effort of each to give honest evidence as to his recollection of what had happened.
Paragraph 469:
The only evidence that there was a meeting of the kind alleged comes from Mr Bates.
Paragraph 471:
For the reasons that I have given, I am not prepared to accept any uncorroborated evidence given by Mr Bates. I do not accept his evidence of the occurrence of the meeting, or as to what was said.
Paragraph 472:
Further, even if Mr Bates' evidence on this topic should be accorded any shred of credibility, it is clear that there were grave problems with his recollection (or purported recollection).
Paragraph 750:
Before I leave the Rech conversation, I wish to make it clear (if I have not done so already) that I regard this aspect of Mr Ballard's evidence as entirely unacceptable. In my view, whether fabricated consciously in an attempt to shore up his case, or unconsciously, as a result of his obsession with the alleged conspiracy and the harm done to him as a result …
Mr Deputy Speaker, journalists around the country relied on that fabricated material to attack the credibility of Mr Ferguson and the CFMEU. They owe them an apology. This judge—the independent umpire—has basically discredited the case against Mr Ferguson and the CFMEU and exposed what in effect was a conspiracy of lies, put together by a number of people to attack the union, which was itself seeking to get rid of corruption within the industry. These so-called credible journalists were on a jihad to destroy decent people, and it has blown up in their face.
Kimberley Toad Busters
Mr HAASE (Durack) (21:39): I rise this evening to bring the attention of the House to an organisation called the Kimberley Toad Busters. The Kimberley Toad Busters have been working very hard for some seven years from a core developed by one Lee Scott-Virtue in Kununurra and struggling to get recognition and some financial assistance to do a job that was vitally important to more Australians than Australians realised, quite frankly. Cane toads are an obscene little amphibian that is best treated with a golf club in my opinion, but others might have more humane points of view. But this little core group that Lee Scott-Virtue in Kununurra created has grown to some 7,000 volunteers. Toad busting is carried out 12 months of the year. It is a finely honed group that is well led and well organised. It is well motivated, because I do not think that there are any amongst us that recognise cane toads as being anything but a toxic, obnoxious pest. It does not endear itself to any one of us.
The important fact is that cane toads are an introduced species that have created havoc with our fauna since their introduction. They were introduced in a well-meaning way to combat the cane beetle, as I think you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, would well know. Since then they have slowly worked on our Australian native fauna to its disadvantage. At all stages of the food chain, the cane toad attacks and destroys, because they, frankly, are absolutely toxic. They are toxic at tadpole stage. They are toxic as they emerge as nymphets. They are toxic as adults. All stages of the Australian fauna have been destroyed, from the smallest lizards to the largest crocodiles. We have crocodiles found with stone dead cane toads in their mouths because the cane toad toxin has impacted them as they struck the cane toad.
Government members interjecting—
Mr HAASE: I would appreciate it if you would stop this heckling—this rubbish that comes from the other side of the House. This is a serious topic. The reason I stand here tonight is that this incredibly well-motivated and dedicated parochial Australian group of volunteers that are doing their bit to keep back the advance of the cane toads have not received any funding in this last budget. It is true to say that there has been no funding received at any stage from this Rudd and then Gillard government. There has been—
Mr Champion interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! I will deal with the member, who will shortly find himself out of this Federation Chamber if he continues to interject.
Mr HAASE: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been some substantial funds received from the state government of Western Australia, because Western Australia is not in love with cane toads. Western Australia believes that anyone who will do anything to stop this advance needs to be supported, because collectively the people of Western Australia—the taxpayers of Western Australia—agree that there is no place in Western Australia for cane toads. Queenslanders have a different point of view, I am sad to say: they have almost conceded that the cane toads have won and that all stages of the food chain of Australian fauna are now victims of cane toads.
The Western Australian government gave some $1.2 million to the Kimberley Toad Busters and, back in the Howard days, there was $289,000 received from the federal government. But sadly there is now nothing, especially in this last fantasy budget of the government. There is nothing for a group, now 7,000 strong, of volunteers working tirelessly to halt this advance of the cane toad. There is not a brass razoo. There is no support. There are no dollars. It is totally unacceptable, because at this stage there is nothing else that will stop the advance of the cane toads to, for instance, the pristine tourism area of the Margaret River in Western Australia. There is no federal funding being devoted to CSIRO research, for instance, that might find a molecular or viral solution to the advance of the cane toads. We need to commit serious funds; I am talking millions of dollars, not tens of thousands of dollars. Until such time as we support the CSIRO or other independent researchers to find some viral solution to the cane toad—this may involve great research, perhaps going back to South America, where these insidious amphibians emerged from—and until such time as we seriously treat this as an issue that needs substantial funding, we are not going to have an institution that dedicates its time to coming up with a permanent solution. Until such time as we have a permanent solution, all Australian fauna is at risk, because there is no point in the food chain that is not susceptible to the toxins of the cane toad.
Having said that, I believe there is absolute justification for substantial funding going to the Kimberley Toad Busters. Let me explain to you why they are deserving of substantial funds. The Kimberley Toad Busters have never been about just busting toads, quite frankly. They are a community group of volunteers. They have, of course, been involved in halting—slowing down, I should say—the cane toad movement. They have also been absolutely committed to mitigating the impact on the native biodiversity. They have also involved themselves as, if you like, an amateur group—but that should not be considered a criticism of their status—that has been supporting scientific research. They have given research funds to a number of graduates who have looked at various issues that may halt the advance, including the lungworm. The lungworm parasite research includes the questions of when the density of the lungworms is actually affecting cane toads, how lungworms affect the immune system of cane toads and whether lungworms could possibly be used as a biological control for the eradication of the cane toads. They have been looking at non-invasive methods to determine lungworm infection in the cane toad. They have been looking at the migration of the lungworm parasite.
The name 'Kimberley Toad Busters' implies an amateurish group, but this is a mob led by a veterinarian, Lee Scott-Virtue. It is not well resourced by government but is certainly promoted by local business entities. It is, quite frankly, true to say that the Kimberley Toad Busters are the primary volunteer group in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia. They need funds, basically. They need funds to keep doing the good work—work that today includes taking on the Kids @ Risk Positive Outcomes program, where disruptive members of the Indigenous community in Kununurra are now being taken out on toad-busting campaigns to occupy their days and give them a vision of nature and community contribution that is above and beyond just making hell on the streets at night. So the motivation of the KTB is strong and their research and associated activities are strong. The only thing that they do not have is some reasonable support from what is supposedly a caring government, dictated to by the Greens but totally bereft of funding for such a worthy institution.
Werriwa Electorate: Not-For-Profit Organisations
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (21:49): I know that the member for Goldstein would not associate himself with this sentiment, but sometimes you have got to feel sorry for the member for North Sydney. He is out there trying to find $70 billion. If the previous contribution and that of the member for Brisbane in the House earlier today are anything to go on, there will be billions of dollars of promises from opposition members during this budget process. So he has really got his job cut out for him.
I want to briefly talk about some organisations in my electorate. On 4 May I had the opportunity to attend an exhibition of organisations in my electorate conducted by Sector Connect, which is the interagency group in the Macarthur-Wingecarribee area that institutes interagency sharing, fills service gaps and takes up state and federal issues on behalf of all the organisations that fall into the category of non-government providers in my electorate. They are also involved in advocacy, training, Volunteering Macarthur, Families New South Wales and some Indigenous programs.
Amongst the groups that were there on that day were the South Western Regional Tenants Association, based in Liverpool. That has been going for 28 years. It undertakes work on behalf of public, Aboriginal and community housing tenants throughout south-west Sydney, Werriwa being a significant part of that region. It assists people with new housing applications, other Pathways forms, maintenance issues—which of course are in a lamentable condition in New South Wales because of the neglect that has been there for decades—appeals against decisions, information about tenants rights and responsibilities relating to tenancy and explaining and responding to letters and forms received from Housing New South Wales. It was amongst the 40 or 50 groups that were there on the day. I had the opportunity to meet some organisations that I had not come across before. All of them are out there trying to work for the community.
In a similar fashion to my colleague the member for Fowler, I recently attended the Liverpool Migrant Resource Centre's domestic violence forum, another important activity in our electorate. It is worth noting that, in the past year in Australia, 21 per cent of sexual assaults were found to have been perpetrated by former partners and eight per cent by current partners. At the event and in newspaper coverage later, Fatima Rashid Hassan, the domestic violence education officer for the Liverpool Migrant Research Centre, drove home the particular issues that confront non-English-speaking recently arrived families, such domestic violence, intergenerational conflict, differences in power structures in family units, the inability of males who have previously thought of themselves as being dominant in relationships to gain employment, communication issues et cetera. That matter was addressed by me and the member Fowler as well as a significant number of police active in this area and also by local community organisations and academics.
Amongst other events in the electorate recently there have been two launches of the Beacon business breakfast at Ingleburn and Eagle Vale high schools. This organisation started in a very deprived area of Launceston. I think former Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting came from the school area where it started and has been a strong supporter of it. It is involved in engaging business with schools in deprived areas to make sure that pathways into employment are available. There are some impressive statistics as a result of students being engaged in this program, with more than half of them likely to find some secure employment with defined pathways. They are five times less likely than the national average to disengage from full-time education. The unemployment rate for Beacon students is five times lower than the national average for 16-year-olds. There is an above average retention of students, with nearly 12 per cent still in education six months post year 10. Amongst the activities engaged in are charter signings; business events; student ambassadors; business blackboards, where businesses talk to students about their experiences to provide links to the school curriculum; speed careering et cetera. At both those schools, there was a reasonable level of participation by local businesses. Beacon is supported by the federal government, AMP, Accenture, the Coca-Cola Foundation, Rio Tinto et cetera.
The Eagle Vale school caters for the suburb of Claymore, whose reputation is one of social deprivation. The state and federal governments are currently cooperating in trying to get some mixed housing into what was essentially a totally housing department area. It is a very deprived area and it is great to see that Beacon and the local school community are participating in that project. I have to say that in that area that I would hope to see an increase in productivity by the housing department in its restructure of the local housing. At the moment there is some question about the way in which they have engaged people. I think that the Eagle Vale High School could be the major nucleus for cooperation and delivery of information to the community.
There are other local activities that I would like to comment upon briefly. Like many members I will be engaged in the Biggest Morning Tea with regard to cancer funding. The group cosponsoring this with me is Macarthur District Temporary Family Care Inc. It is mainly involved in assisting disabled local citizens and providing respite. Annamaria Woods is the driving force in that organisation, and last year we had a very commendable attendance. I have said this before in the House: in changing from the Reid electorate to Werriwa, one of the major differences is the extremely active local community with regard to disability issues. I probably went to, at most, one disability function a year in my 20 years in Reid. In the Werriwa electorate you are talking about 20, 30 or 40 functions, and about 15 of those are fundraising. Anne-Marie's organisation is just typical of the local social workers, community workers and the very strong nucleus of active residents.
It is no surprise that Campbelltown council's annual ball this year, held at Menangle racecourse, went towards an organisation for mental health. It typifies a local community attitude on these matters. In that case, it was an organisation which is working with schizophrenic people and moving towards better amenities for them close to the Campbelltown hospital.
A similar event being held very soon is hosting Cook for a Cure on 1 June. Once again, this will have a significant local involvement focus. That will occur in Ingleburn, and this actual event is around the question of raising money for medicine funding in Australia. It is a coalition of organisations specifically devoted to particular health issues—people who have sufferers who are family members or who have had victims who are deceased, but also significant research elements and companies in the pharmaceutical sector. That, of course, is being held around the country and amongst the focuses are cancer, Alzheimer's, asthma et cetera. I am pleased to be engaged with local groups in supporting that.
As I said, they are indicative of local events and activities in an electorate where you really do have to say that there is a strong sense of community and involvement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The time allocated for the grievance debate has expired. I call the member for Wakefield.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (21:58): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 21:58
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Portfolio Entities
(Question Nos 802 and 818)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 7 February 2012:
How many departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Minister's portfolio since 24 November 2007 (excluding existing departments that have been re-named or merged into a larger entity), what is the name of each such entity, and how many fulltime equivalent employees did each such entity have at the end of 2011.
Dr Emerson: On behalf of the minister for Foreign Affairs and me, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
No departments, agencies, commissions, Government owned corporations or other such bodies have been created within the Foreign Affairs and Trade Portfolio since 24 November 2007.
Home Insulation Program
(Question No. 895)
Mr Fletcher asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, 13 March 2012:
In respect of the claim submitted by the Demand Group under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration arising out of the Home Insulation Program, can he confirm that written advice was provided by his department to the Demand Group indicating that the 'Department is working towards a response being provided to you by the end of February [2012]...'; if so, was the response was provided by the timeframe indicated, if not, why not, and by when will the response be provided.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
On 15 February 2012, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency advised Mr Doug Mill of the Demand Group that 'at this time the Department is working towards a response being provided to you by the end of February, subject to internal clearance processes running smoothly.' The response was not provided by the end of February as it was not ready to be provided to the Demand Group at that time. The response was provided on 28 March 2012.
National Diabetes Services Scheme
(Question No. 902)
Mr Christensen asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 15 March 2012:
Is the Government investigating the benefits of listing continuous glucose monitors on the National Diabetes Services Scheme; if not, why not.
Ms Plibersek: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Continuous glucose monitors are not currently listed on the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS), as these products are medical devices, not consumable items.
The NDSS provides subsidies for consumables items such as syringes and needles for insulin delivery, blood glucose test strips, urine ketone test strips and insulin pump consumables.
There are two insulin pumps listed under the Prostheses List that include integrated continuous glucose monitors. Private health insurers may pay benefits for medical devices on the Prostheses List. However, it is up to each individual health insurer to determine whether they cover such products.
Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 906)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister representing the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Combet: The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research has provided the following answer to the honourabl e member's question :
The following results applies to the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. The results do not reflect breaches identified within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations as the reporting period is prior to the recent Machinery of Government changes.
Year |
No of Breaches |
Amounts |
Comments |
2008-09 |
24* |
$50.85, $32.95, $14.95, $73.95, $106.10, $600.00, $50.00, $33.49, $19.90, $50.72, $275.00, $10.00, $20.00, $18.40, $67.00, $430.00, $240.00, $40.80, $38.00 and $41.70 |
All amounts repaid |
|
4 |
$106.70, $850.00, $329.84 and $16.00 |
Technical breach— transaction reversed at point of sale |
2009-10 |
30* |
$198.45, $185.45, $285.95, $64.00, $44.70, $34.95, $16.95, $16.95, $26.40, $4.49, $26.70, $6.10, $147.42, $260.00, $21.75, $15.00, $237.90, $57.95, $135.69, $60.00, $276.11, $248.50, $10.00, $15.87, $41.00 and $230.00 |
All amounts repaid |
|
4 |
$19.40, $12.00, $60.00 and $US 32.86 |
Technical breach -transaction reversed at point of sale |
2010-11 |
36* |
$111.13, $51.18, $35.50, $24.80, $23.80, $30.00, $16.20, $39.60, $137.43, $46.31, $200.00, $13.00, $56.47, $44.95, $52.05, $500.00, $101.00, $9.50, $90.32, $368.75, $27.00, $27.50, $8.80, $24.95, $12.50, $16.50, $16.50, $9.66, $17.90, $6.00 and $204.40 |
With the exception of one amount ($137.43), which is currently being pursued, all amounts have been repaid |
|
2 |
$18.59 and $97.95 |
Technical breach— transaction reversed at point of sale |
Note (*) Some amounts have multiple instances.
No employees were disciplined for such breaches as the breaches were inadvertent.
Foreign Affairs and Trade: Credit Card Breaches
(Question Nos 910 and 934)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11:
(1) How many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines?
(2) What was the dollar value of each breach and what sum was repaid in each instance?
(3) Were any employees disciplined for such breaches?
Dr Emerson: On behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and myself, the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) (a) 2008/09 - Nil.
(b) 2009/10 - One.
(c) 2010/11 - One.
(2) (a) Not applicable.
(b) $3.11, the amount was re-paid in full.
(c) $88.26, the amount was re-paid in full.
(3) (a) Not applicable.
(b) and (c) The employee was counselled.
Industry and Innovation: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 926)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Industry and Innovation, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Combet: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to the answer provided to House of Representatives Parliamentary Question in writing No. 906.
Social Inclusion: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 931)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Social Inclusion, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Butler: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet supports the Minister for Social Inclusion.
For answers to the Department’s Credit Card usage in 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 please refer to the answer to Question Number 904.
Small Business: Credit Card Breaches
(Question No. 933)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Small Business, in writing, on 20 March 2012:
In respect of departmental credit card use in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10, and (c) 2010-11, (i) how many times has the use of a credit card breached departmental guidelines, (ii) what was the dollar value of each breach, and what sum was repaid in each instance, and (iii) were any employees disciplined for such breaches.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Please refer to the answer provided to House of Representatives Parliamentary Question in writing No. 906.