The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Anna Burke) took the chair at 9:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Promoting the rights, wellbeing and development of Australia's children and young people is a fundamental priority for the Gillard government.
Children and young people are our future, but they are often also vulnerable. Australia's future depends on them reaching their full potential.
The Gillard government wants every child to grow up safe, happy and well.
We want to give kids the best start in life.
Labor came to government with an important agenda for supporting and protecting children. We have been determined to put children's interests at the centre of policy making, not on the margin.
Across all areas of government, including family law, education and early childhood, youth health policies and programs and child protection and welfare, we are working to improve the wellbeing, rights and safety of Australia's children.
In 2009, Labor delivered the first ever National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children.
The national framework outlines an ambitious, long-term national approach to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Australian children. It aims to deliver a substantial and sustained reduction in the levels of child abuse and neglect.
It includes practical reforms so children at risk are identified and protected, such as improved information sharing between agencies like Centrelink, Medicare and state protection authorities.
Working with the states and territories, we have developed national standards for out-of-home care. These national standards seek to drive improvements in the quality of care so that children and young people in out-of-home care have the same opportunities as other children and young people to reach their potential in life no matter where they live in Australia.
Our ongoing commitment to the Family Support Program complements state and territory services through early intervention and prevention support for children and families at risk. It also supports the government's commitment to putting the safety and wellbeing of children at the heart of the government's social policy agenda.
And putting the safety and wellbeing of children front and centre is exactly what Labor has done in relation to changes to the Family Law Act that will come into effect on 7 June this year.
These changes will provide better protection for children who are exposed to family violence. This means the Family Law Act will continue to promote a child's right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, but with a stronger emphasise that the child's safety must come first.
In February 2011, Labor delivered Australia's first National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children .
The national plan is unprecedented in the way it focuses on preventing violence by raising awareness and building respectful relationships between young people to foster attitudes and behaviours that reject violence against women.
Labor introduced new National Quality Standards for early childhood education and care so that Australian children receive better care and attention and can participate in play-based learning activities led by trained early childhood educators.
Labor's significant reforms and investment in early education are directed at giving all kids the best possible start in life and will give all Australian kids access to 15 hours of early childhood education and care for 40 weeks a year by a university-trained teacher.
We have made unprecedented investments to close the gap and address the unacceptable levels of disadvantage faced by too many Indigenous children.
The Labor government is committed to working in partnership with Indigenous families to deliver better opportunities for Indigenous children.
Labor is working to support families and children with funding for playgroups, creches, youth workers and safe houses in communities across Australia. We are also significantly increasing the number of Communities for Children sites, which provide services such as early learning and literacy programs, parenting and family support programs and child nutrition advice.
The government is also providing additional funding for the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters, otherwise known as HIPPY, in this year's budget to better prepare disadvantaged Indigenous children for school though a home-based parenting and early childhood program in 100 sites across Australia.
These significant reforms for our most vulnerable children complement the changes we have made to help families with the costs of raising children.
Labor increased the childcare rebate in July 2008 from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of out-of-pocket childcare expenses up to $7,500 a year, making it easier for parents to return to work and contribute to the family budget.
We have introduced Australia's first national Paid Parental Leave scheme because giving new mums the financial security to take time off to bond with their newborns is giving babies the best start in life.
And in this year's budget, we have delivered a new schoolkids bonus to help low- and middle-income families with the costs of school, as well as increases to the family tax benefit part A starting next year.
Labor is very proud of this record for children but we know more can be done.
Children and young people need an independent voice on the national stage.
A National Children's Commissioner will be a strong and forceful voice for Australia's children and young people and will play a proactive and positive role in their wellbeing and development. Our children are our future and if we do not value them we cannot ever hope to protect them. A National Children's Commissioner will put their needs front and centre.
I held this view as shadow minister for children and youth in 2002 when I announced my intention to introduce a private member's bill to establish a National Children's Commissioner and I hold that view today. In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, with you in the chair, I believe we were actually in your electorate when we announced that policy. The bill was introduced in 2003. Sadly, the then government would not support the important initiative at that time.
And that is why I am so pleased that, although it is 10 years later, the Gillard government will now establish for the first time a dedicated advocate focused on the human rights of children and young people at a national level.
In this context, I am pleased to introduce the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012, which will establish the position of National Children's Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission.
This bill's basic principle is that every child is a valued member of society.
These amendments will ensure there is an independent, child focused voice to advocate for children and young people at the national level.
A National Children's Commissioner will raise public awareness of nationally significant issues affecting children and young people through discussion, research and educational programs.
The commissioner will examine relevant existing and proposed Commonwealth legislation to determine if it adequately recognises and protects children's rights in Australia and report their findings to government.
The commissioner will consult directly with children and their representative organisations, which will ensure they can influence the development of policies and programs that affect them at the Commonwealth level.
This will signal to children and young people that we as adults think that they matter—that we value their childhood and that we will listen to their needs and hopes.
Importantly, the National Children's Commissioner will have a clear focus on vulnerable or at-risk groups of children, such as children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, homeless children or those who are witnessing or subjected to violence.
The commissioner will give a voice to those groups of vulnerable children that have not had one.
A National Children's Commissioner will also provide an annual report to the government each year on key issues affecting children's rights, wellbeing and development that will be tabled in the parliament.
The position will also contribute to meeting Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and reinforce our commitment to our international obligations and relationship with the United Nations. It is another example of how Australia is turning commitments made during its Universal Periodic Review at the UN into reality.
The commissioner will not duplicate the roles of state and territory children's commissioners but will seek to work with them to identify issues of national importance.
The commissioner will not have a guardianship role nor will it have a complaint handling role or a role in dealing with individual children, including individual cases in the context of child protection or family law.
However, the commissioner will have a limited role to seek leave to intervene in court proceedings which raise significant children's rights issues but this will not extend to representing individual children.
I also take this opportunity to briefly report on a related issue, the government's project to consolidate Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, including the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, into a single act and I can report that it is anticipated that draft legislation will be released in 2012.
I can advise that these amendments introduced today have been brought forward earlier, ahead of the consolidation project, to enable the role of the National Children's Commissioner to be established as soon as possible.
The government calls on other members in this place to support this bill to ensure a National Children's Commissioner can be established as soon as possible for the benefit of Australia's children and young people.
The creation of the National Children's Commissioner is an important initiative in the government's work to protect our children and young people and promote and protect their human rights. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon. I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This government is committed to reducing red tape and unnecessary regulation on industry and small business.
We recognise that Australia's 2.7 million small businesses are this nation's economic engine room, employing over five million Australians and making up a third of our economy.
These businesses comprise hard working men and women who, through their time and effort, are building a career and a better future for their families.
This government is doing its part to make sure business owners can get on with growing their enterprises, not spending time searching for relevant assistance or wading through unnecessary red tapes and additional laws.
The Prime Minister recently announced the creation of the Small Business Commissioner to provide a direct voice to government and a one-stop shop for small business services and information. And it took this Labor government to ensure small business is represented in cabinet.
This bill is another step in the process to reduce unnecessary regulation and in an orderly, efficient and consultative way. It will provide a clear process to assess, renew or allow to 'sunset' the thousands of pieces of subordinate legislation currently on the statute books.
In 2003 the Legislative Instruments Act was enacted to establish a consistent system for the registering, tabling, parliamentary disallowance and sunsetting of Commonwealth legislative instruments.
The sunsetting provisions of the Legislative Instruments Act provide that most legislative instruments sunset, or automatically cease, after 10 years. This limit was introduced to ensure that legislative instruments are regularly reviewed and only remain operative if they continue to be relevant.
The 10-year limit on validity remains appropriate.
However, at the time of enactment, the then government did not accurately assess the number of legislative instruments in existence, apart from those 663 already published in hard copy in the Statutory Rules series.
This Labor government has prioritised extensive work to discover and register a large number of additional instruments, consistent with our commitment to clearer laws. These were instruments made under previous governments which were for the first time made publicly accessible by this government—so that small business and indeed all members of our community would have ready access to the laws to which they are subject.
Due to the large number of instruments registered in the years immediately following commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act, sunsetting will cause the mass expiration of over 6,300 instruments from 2015, with two peaks in 2016 and 2018.
As the legislation was structured in 2003, assessing which legislative instruments remain necessary would put unnecessary strain on industry, business groups and other stakeholders, as well as government.
The Productivity Commission, in its 2011 report Identifying and Evaluating Regulation Reforms, expressed concern about the mass expiry of instruments from 2015. They identified an increased risk that instruments will be remade without adequate review and without proper consultation with business and other stakeholders. The commission noted that the sheer quantity of instruments required to be remade by government increases the risk that business and other stakeholders will not have sufficient time to make a meaningful contribution to any review.
Consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, the purpose of this bill is to smooth these sunsetting peaks and to encourage high-quality consultation before regulations and legislative instruments are remade. It is also intended to ensure the information on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments is current.
The specific measures in this bill are as follows.
Firstly, this bill will smooth sunsetting peaks by simplifying sunsetting dates. For instruments that were registered in bulk when the register commenced in 2005, sunsetting dates will be spread out to reduce the number of instruments that expire at the same time and provide ample time for proper review and consultation.
The bill also establishes a new default rule for regulations and legislative instruments. They will now sunset on their date of registration, making sunsetting dates easier to calculate.
Secondly, the bill will insert a new provision into the act to provide for thematic reviews. The introduction of thematic reviews was recommended by the Productivity Commission. By contributing to these reviews, key stakeholders will be able to actively participate in the regulation of their sector and contribute to consistency in regulation making.
Under this new provision, the Attorney-General can declare a common sunset date for a number of legislative instruments if satisfied that the instruments will be subject to a single review. The new aligned sunsetting date must be within five years of the sunset date of the earliest sunsetting instrument. The Attorney-General's declarations will be tabled in parliament for public scrutiny and be open to disallowance by either house of parliament.
Thematic reviews will provide industry and business with the opportunity to engage in one comprehensive review process instead of having to provide comment on up to dozens of separate regulations without a view of the wider regulatory framework.
Thirdly, the bill will allow for the efficient repeal of spent and redundant instruments on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. According to the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, approximately 40 per cent of the 40,000 titles on the register are either spent or redundant, but to a person looking for information on the register, these instruments appear to be in force.
To ensure the register accurately represents the current state of the law, the bill provides for the automatic repeal of instruments and provisions which have commenced in full and whose only effect is to amend or repeal other instruments. This amendment will only apply to instruments and provisions that are created after the bill commences.
For instruments already contained in the register, the bill will enable the creation of a specific regulation to effect a bulk repeal of instruments which are spent or redundant. Bulk revocation will only occur after extensive consultation. The Attorney-General will also need to be satisfied that the instruments are in fact spent or redundant.
Regulations that effect a bulk repeal will be tabled in parliament and open to disallowance by either house of parliament.
Finally, the bill clearly communicates the requirements for explanatory statements that accompany legislative instruments. It is these statements that help businesses and individuals understand the effect of legislative instruments.
But too often in the past these materials have been confusing or apparently contradictory, forcing business to spend time and money obtaining advice on their legal obligations. By setting out clear requirements for explanatory statements, the government will reduce the effort necessary to understand what steps are necessary to comply with the law.
Although this bill may be largely technical it will support efficient and effective consultation processes applying to all delegated legislation—much of which has a direct and significant affect on individuals, business and the community.
This government is determined to keep our economy strong, and recognises the essential contribution of hardworking individuals in our small business sector in keeping us the envy of the developed world.
This bill is yet another example of government working with the community to create a clear, understandable and fair framework for doing business in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms ROXON (Gellibrand—Attorney-General and Minister for Emergency Management) (09:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 is one of the most significant developments in privacy reform since Labor introduced the act in 1988.
With this bill, the Gillard Labor government has implemented more than half of the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations in the 2008 For your information report.
This bill will bring Australia's privacy protection framework into the modern era. Labor is protecting the privacy of working families.
In an online world, we are increasingly sharing our personal information on social networking sites and paying our bills and buying footy tickets over the internet.
While these technological changes bring immense benefits to working families, there are risks. That's why Labor is tightening up the rules around how companies and organisations can collect, use and disclose personal information.
For the first time, new Australian Privacy Principles will apply to both the private and public sectors. The principles will continue to deal with the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure, access and correction of personal information.
But we are introducing a new privacy principle for direct marketing and stronger protections for consumers when companies disclose personal information overseas. The new direct marketing privacy principle will more tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing.
Put simply, it will give working families more power to opt out of receiving direct marketing materials. The onus will be on companies to provide a clear and simple way of opting out of receiving direct marketing materials.
Labor is also extending privacy protections to unsolicited information and introducing stronger and clearer rules around data quality and data protection.
There will be a new requirement in the Privacy Principles for organisations and companies to develop detailed privacy policies—and make them clear and easily accessible to consumers. Labor is shifting power away from big companies—back to individuals and working families.
There will be stricter rules about sending a family's personal information outside of Australia. Specifically, privacy policies will need to include whether a company or agency is likely to disclose information to overseas recipients and, if so, which countries the information is likely to go to.
In addition, before a company or government agency discloses personal information to an overseas recipient, the company must take reasonable steps to make sure the overseas recipient does not breach the Australian Privacy Principles. Privacy entities will continue to be accountable for information that is sent overseas.
The Australian Privacy Principles will also require a higher standard of protection to be afforded to 'sensitive information'—which includes health related information, DNA and biometric data.
The government is aware that senators and members receive numerous letters and emails about credit reports. Australia's complex and often confusing credit reporting system is being reformed.
In addition to the Gillard government's responsible lending reforms in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, we are making it easier for consumers to access and correct their personal credit information.
It is the first major reform since Labor introduced credit reporting in 1990. This bill modernises credit reporting provisions and will make the credit reporting regime more flexible and less prescriptive by emphasising industry-led complaint resolution.
Banks and financial institutions will be able to see more accurate and positive information about:
(1) the types of accounts that families have and when they were opened and closed;
(2) the current credit limits of each account (but obviously not the day-to-day balance, to protect privacy); and
(3) positive information about repayment history—for example, when a credit card was paid off on time, not just information about overdue payments.
These reforms will mean more families can access credit. And it will mean the banks can assess credit risks more accurately.
These reforms will be good for business. The finance and credit industry have been heavily involved in developing these reforms. They know—as does this Labor government—that these reforms will enhance responsible lending in Australia.
It was Labor who supported Australia's economy through the global financial crisis. We supported small business and created three-quarters of a million jobs.
These reforms will give the Australian finance and credit industry more information—with the appropriate privacy protections—so that they can make more accurate risk assessments. More information—which will need to be more up to date and accurate under this bill—will assist both consumers and the credit reporting industry.
It is expected that these reforms will lead to decreased levels of over-indebtedness and then lower credit default rates.
For Australian businesses and the credit industry more comprehensive credit reporting will enable better management of capital and growth targets, improve credit decisions and enhance the effectiveness of how credit reporting agencies collect data.
It is also expected to lead to more competition and efficiency in the credit market, which may in turn lead to more affordable credit and mortgage insurance for families and first home buyers.
Credit providers will now have positive obligations to help consumers correct their credit information. It will be easier to make complaints about incorrect credit reporting information. The bill will also prohibit the collection of credit reporting information about individuals reasonably known to be under the age of 18.
Businesses will get more information, particularly in relation to repayment history—but Labor will protect the privacy of this information. For example, given the sensitive nature of repayment history information, this information will only be available to credit providers who are subject to responsible lending obligations under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.
In addition, repayment history information can only be retained for a rolling two-year period, rather than five years like most of the other information in the credit reporting system.
For families to fully utilise these new powers, they need to be able to get an enforceable remedy. That's why the Gillard Labor government is enhancing the powers of the Australian Privacy Commissioner to improve the commissioner's ability to resolve complaints, conduct investigations and promote privacy compliance.
Under this bill, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to make a determination to direct an organisation to take specific steps to stop certain conduct, or take reasonable action to redress any loss or damage suffered.
The commissioner will also be able to obtain enforceable undertakings from an organisation. A court can then make appropriate orders, including orders for compensation.
The commissioner will also be able to apply to the court for a civil penalty order against organisations. Penalties range from 200 penalty units—$22,000 for an individual and $110,000 for a company—to 2,000 penalty units, which is $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for a company. For serious and repeated breaches of privacy, the penalty will be 2,000 penalty units. This is another remedy for consumers and will encourage compliance with the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Commissioner will also be able to direct agencies to perform a privacy impact assessment, and will be able to conduct privacy performance assessments to check that agencies and organisations are complying with the Australian Privacy Principles.
This bill will make dispute resolution simpler, quicker and cheaper. The commissioner will have a new power to recognise and approve an external dispute resolution scheme for credit reporting disputes. There are new conciliation provisions, so that conciliation can be a dispute resolution option.
In essence, the Australian Privacy Commissioner will have new powers, including the power to seek enforceable remedies for consumers who have had their privacy breached. These are major reforms.
They are major reforms which will help working Australians in practical ways—from correcting their credit information when they apply for a loan, to making a complaint against a bank or telecommunications company. Labor is giving more power to individuals and to working families.
The government is allowing industry and government agencies nine months to review and update their privacy policies and practices. That's why the bill will commence nine months after royal assent.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the stakeholders who have worked so hard on these reforms since 2008. The government is looking forward to continuing to work with them on the regulations and the credit reporting code. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Gillard government has passed historic reforms to build a clean energy future which will strengthen the economy and protect our environment.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a key part of the government's plan. It will encourage private investment and help overcome financial barriers to commercialising and deploying cleaner energy technologies.
There is global recognition of the importance of moving to cleaner energy sources. Due to its endowment and use of low-cost fossil fuels, Australia is a late starter in the transformation to clean technology.
The clean energy future plan, along with the Renewable Energy Target, will cut carbon pollution and drive investment and innovation in clean energy technologies. This will ensure our economy and industries remain competitive in a world that is becoming carbon constrained.
The transformation of our economy will be most evident in the electricity sector. It is expected that the sector will over time move away from coal fired generation to more renewable generation, with renewable energy growing from 10 per cent to 40 per cent of the generation mix by 2050, and conventional coal fired generation falling from 70 per cent to below 10 per cent; however, this will be a gradual transition.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will facilitate increased flows of finance into the clean energy sector to support this transformation, removing barriers that would otherwise prevent the financing of projects.
Several factors can inhibit the financing of clean energy projects, including the current global financial conditions, the complex nature of Australia ' s electricity markets, the cost of renewable energy, the preference of investment institutions for listed assets and a limited track record of returns.
Given the complexities involved, the Gillard government appointed an expert review panel to design the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The review was chaired by Ms Jillian Broadbent, an eminent Australian with extensive experience in the financial sector.
The review recommended a framework for how the corporation should operate. The government is implementing the recommendations through this bill.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be independent from government, with no ability for the government to direct the c orporation in relation to specific projects for investment. This will ensure an independent decision - making process.
The corporation will operate based on three principles.
Firstly, th e c orporation is a mechanism to help mobilise private investment in renewable energy, low-emission s and energy efficiency projects and technologies in this country. The c orporation will also invest in manufacturing businesses that provide inputs to the clean energy sector.
The c orporation will focus on catalysing private finance into Australia ' s clean energy sector. It will provide financial products and structures that address the financial barriers currently inhibiting private investment. Such facilitation is critical in transitioning the Australian energy market.
To ensure the effectiveness of this capital mobilisation the c orporation is expected to require private co-investment in projects. It is unlikely ever t o be a sole financier. This approach will build investor experience and confidence in the clean energy sector.
The c orporation will invest at least half of its funds in renewable energy technologies. The other half will be available to fund energy efficiency and low-emissions technologies.
Secondly, t he c orporation will apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions. It will focus on projects and technologies at the later stages of development, consistent with the r eport of the expert review panel.
The commercial filter will apply priva te- sector skills and disciplines to investment selection. Having a public policy purpose, the c orporation has different financial risk and return requirements and values any positive externalities from investments. For a given financial return, the c orporation may take on higher risk and, for a given level of risk, due to positive externalities, may accept a lower financial return.
Thirdly, the corporation has the capacity to offer concessional finance and directly influence financial barriers that inhibit the financing of this sector. The individuality of each project necessitates a case-by-case approach.
The corporation can tailor concessionality in each case and apply it through availability, tenor or cost of finance. In setting the terms, the corporation will provide only the least generous terms required for a proposal to go ahead.
Guaranteed funding
The funding that the corporation will receive for making investments is set out in this bill. This will provide long-term support and continuity to the clean energy sector.
The corporation will receive $2 billion per year for five years from 2013-14 through the special appropriation in this bill. The corporation will also be provided three years of funding through the annual appropriation bills to assist with the establishment and operations of the corporation.
The corporation is intended to be self-sustaining once mature—that is, it will not require further assistance from the budget. Rather, the corporation's profits and funds returned from its investments will be available for reinvestment.
To allow the corporation to focus on its primary function of investing in the clean energy sector, a special account is being created to manage surplus funds and limit the corporation's need to undertake a cash management function.
This b ill establishes mechanisms for flows of payments between the special account and the c orporation that guarantees access to funds as needed to undertake its investment function.
Board
This bill establishes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as a Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
The c orporation will be managed by an independent board comprised of experts in areas such as banking, finance, economics and energy markets to ensure a robust and rigorous organisation.
The board will be appointed by the g overnment and will be responsible for the management, operational and investment decisions of the c orporation.
The board will be responsible for appointing the chief executive officer, who will take on the day-to-day administration of the corporation under the directions of the board.
The staff of the corporation will be well experienced to provide the necessary support to the board and CEO to determine the best investments and manage taxpayers' money appropriately.
Investment mandate
The g overnment will also provide the b oard with an investment mandate that, when combined with the legislation, will set the parameters for its management of investments. This allows the b oard to develop its own investment strategy, in line with the g overnment ' s broad directions. S imilar to the Future Fund, this b ill ensures the b oard is consulted on the investment mandate and its response tabled in parliament.
The government expects the corporation to apply a commercial filter when making its investment decisions. Investments will focus on projects beyond the research and development stage, have a positive rate of return and have the capacity to repay capital. This approach will ensure the corporation invests responsibly and manages risk to achieve a targeted rate of return and ultimately be financially self-sufficient.
Technologies with a track record have generally had fewer problems accessing finance as the financial market has experience with their risk/return metrics. As such the corporation is not expected to fund these projects. One example of this would be conventional gas which may technically be eligible for funding as a low-emissions technology.
The g overnment also intends on requiring the c orporation to apply Australian industry participation plans through the investment mandate. Industry participation plans ensure Australian industry is afforded full, fair and reasonable opportunity to participate in projects.
As a part of the clean energy future plan, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation will complement other Australian g overnment policies and programs. This includes the Renewable Energy Target, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), the Clean Technology Investment Program and the Clean Technology Innovation Program.
It will be particularly important for the corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to maintain an active ongoing dialogue as projects funded by ARENA provide a potential pipeline of projects for the corporation.
The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will bring to bear the utmost rigour in assessing its investments, but will also give effect to its important public policy objectives by facilitating transactions where financial barriers are inhibiting the mobilisation of private sector funds.
Passing the legislation in this sitting will enable the c orporation to undertake the necessary preparations to commence its investment operations from 1 July 2013.
I commend the b ill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
These amendments support the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They also address commitments made by the government during the passage of the original legislation or are minor and technical amendments designed to improve the operation of the carbon pricing mechanism.
Gaseous fuels
During passage of the Clean Energy Act in 2011 the government, following consultation with industry, committed to consider the coverage of gaseous fuels—which include liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas—in a similar way to how large liquid fuel users may be able to opt into the carbon price mechanism.
This commitment responded to representations by the gaseous fuels sector and to a recommendation made by the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.
Today, following those consultations and the committee's recommendations, the government honours the commitment that we made, which provides the gaseous fuels sector with the flexibility it sought to meet its carbon price liabilities. The gaseous fuels sector has expressed a strong preference to be able to access the carbon market and be part of the emissions trading scheme that we have legislated. This is a similar preference that companies like Qantas and Virgin expressed to the government last year about their ability to be covered by the Clean Energy Act 2011.
The government has consulted extensively with participants in the gaseous fuels sector to develop the approach proposed in this bill.
From 1 July 2012, compressed natural gas, CNG, will be covered by the carbon pricing mechanism, rather than the fuel tax system. This bill, together with the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 and the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012, which I will address and introduce shortly, give effect to that change.
Furthermore, from 1 July 2013, LPG, liquefied petroleum gas, and LNG, liquefied natural gas, will be covered by the mechanism. A transitional period will allow the required administrative changes to be made by the industry, as well as within the Australian Taxation Office and the Clean Energy Regulator.
The government has been working with industry on arrangements to streamline and reduce costs during this transitional period.
CNG is covered from 2012, as I said, as it may be treated as natural gas for the purposes of the carbon price mechanism.
These measures were notified to stakeholders and then announced in the 2012-13 budget.
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007
The bill also amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to enhance its operation for reporting entities.
A person with 'operational control' of a facility is generally responsible for carbon price liability and associated reporting obligations. Where operational control is not clear, a nomination may be made. The bill streamlines the requirements for nomination. Annual nominations will no longer be required and nominations may last for as long as required.
The bill provides that the regulator only needs to publish a 'net energy consumption'. An additional requirement to publish 'total energy consumption' is removed. The 'net energy consumption' requirement is more appropriate because it does not include the transformation of one energy commodity into another.
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011
The bill also makes technical amendments to the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 to ensure the robustness of the processes supporting the Carbon Farming Initiative.
The bill maintains the integrity of the Carbon Farming Initiative by requiring that projects have secured all required regulatory approvals before they receive any credits. It simplifies the process of finalising methodology determinations by clarifying the material to be used by the Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee in making determinations.
The bill provides more time to approve methodologies for existing projects to facilitate the transition of these projects into the CFI. Methodologies submitted for assessment by the middle of 2012, and approved by the middle of 2013, can be backdated to the middle of 2010 and that will improve the operation of the Carbon Farming Initiative for project proponents.
Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011
The bill amends the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011 to enhance the security of the registry.
The bill increases the amount of time during which the Clean Energy Regulator may defer giving effect to a transfer instruction from 48 hours to five business days, giving the regulator time to make decisions about deferral and deal with suspicious transactions.
The bill also provides for conditions restricting or limiting the operation of certain accounts to apply in prescribed circumstances.
Clean Energy Finance Corporation
As I indicated earlier, the bill amends legislation establishing the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Regulator to provide for the appropriate sharing of information between those agencies and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
These amendments will enhance the operation of the carbon pricing mechanism and support the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, whose establishing bill I previously introduced to the House. I commend this amendment bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:47): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is part of a package of bills amending certain aspects of the Clean Energy Future plan that I referred to in the two previous matters on notice. As announced in the 2012-13 budget, compressed natural gas (CNG) used for non-transport purposes will be now included in the carbon pricing mechanism from 1 July 2012.
This changes the originally proposed treatment of compressed natural gas, which was to be subject to the effective carbon price using the fuel tax system. This bill will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to achieve the same outcome as amendments to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 made by the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 but for imported compressed natural gas. This will ensure non-transport use of compressed natural gas is exempt from customs duty.
Full details of the Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2012 are contained in the explanatory memorandum that I have already submitted. I commend this bill also to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (09:49): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill is also part of a package of bills amending certain aspects of the Clean Energy Future plan. As announced in the 2012-13 budget, compressed natural gas used for non-transport purposes will be now included in the carbon pricing mechanism from 1 July 2012.
This changes the originally proposed treatment of compressed natural gas, which was to be subject to the effective carbon price using the fuel tax system. This bill will amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 by repealing amendments made by the original Clean Energy legislation package. This will ensure non-transport use of compressed natural gas is exempt from excise duty.
Full details of the Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2012 are contained in the explanatory memorandum I have submitted. I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Plibersek.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Minister for Health) (09:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2012 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to support the operation of a more efficient Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
The PBS is a major government health program with expenditure expected to reach $9.7 billion in 2012-13. The bill reflects the Gillard government's commitment to ongoing improvement of Australia's health system to ensure that every health dollar continues to be used as effectively as possible.
The bill is also in keeping with the statement of principles signed by the government with industry and consumer organisations in September 2011. The main amendments in this bill relate to the pricing structure for PBS medicines. From 1 October 2012, PBS prices will be expressed at ex manufacturer level based on one price for each pharmaceutical item. This is instead of pricing at approved price to pharmacists which includes the ex manufacturer price and a wholesale margin. This will create uniform pricing for all brands of a medicine across different PBS programs and mechanisms of supply.
The new pricing structure will be carried through to all functions involving PBS prices, including calculating the Commonwealth price for subsidies, provisions for price disclosure, and applying price reductions.
Current arrangements — nature of the problem
Under the current legislation, the price of a PBS medicine includes a margin for the wholesaler, but this margin varies depending on the price of the medicine. A percentage rate applies for less expensive items and changes to a flat fee for very expensive items over $1,000. The margin also varies depending on where a medicine is supplied. For example, the margin is different for supply of a medicine through a community pharmacy or a hospital. For some PBS supplies there is no wholesale margin. In this circumstance, a notional approved price to pharmacists is used to satisfy the requirement to price at that level.
This is further confused by different PBS pricing calculations applying at different points in the pricing process. For example, statutory price reductions apply to the approved price to pharmacists, but price disclosure calculations take place at manufacturer price level.
In essence, the difficulties arise because the approved price to pharmacists is not at the beginning of the pricing sequence and is no longer suitable as the core PBS pricing level.
This means that pricing amounts continually need to be converted administratively between the two pricing levels. This is cumbersome. It can create inconsistencies due to rounding and it increases the risk of error in PBS listing and pricing processes.
Amendments
The amendments in the bill remove the concept of approved price to pharmacists, as the level at which pricing agreements are made, and replace it with approved ex manufacturer price—the price set at the beginning of the process.
In doing so, only one ex manufacturer price will need to be agreed or determined for a brand of pharmaceutical item—by reference to the quantity in the lowest PBS pack size for any brand of the item. The price for different pack sizes of any brand will then be calculated from the approved ex manufacturer price as a proportional ex manufacturer price.
There are many provisions and functions in the act that currently rely on approved price to pharmacists. They will work equally well, or better, using ex manufacturer prices.
For example, the bill also amends provisions for calculating the Commonwealth price, the 16 per cent price reductions for new brand listings, and price disclosure, so they operate using ex manufacturer prices. However, the processes for undertaking those calculations remain effectively the same.
The Commonwealth price includes the manufacturer price, wholesale margin, pharmacy or hospital mark-ups, and pharmacy dispensing and other fees. It is the amount which determines the government subsidy and the safety net amount for the patient.
Wholesale mark-ups will continue to be based on the pricing provisions in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. They will be included in the existing legislative instrument that determines the manner for calculating the Commonwealth price. In moving from approved price to pharmacists to approved ex manufacturer price, the pharmacy level price, which includes the wholesale mark-up, will now be referred to as the price to pharmacists or PTP.
The new pricing arrangements will still allow for a premium or special patient contribution to be claimed by companies in addition to the amount the Commonwealth is willing to agree for a subsidy. As is currently the case, this becomes the additional amount payable by the patient for higher priced brands.
Transitional — convert to ex manufacturer prices
Transitional provisions in the bill set out the method for converting current PBS prices to an ex manufacturer amount. This involves the applicable wholesale margin being subtracted from each price in force on the day before the commencement date.
For over 98 per cent of the 2,400 pharmaceutical items on the PBS, the conversion calculation will result in a single ex manufacturer price for the quantity in the lowest pack size. For those items, the converted price is expected to become the approved ex manufacturer price.
Indicative ex manufacturer prices calculated using this method will be made available publicly on the PBS website by the end of May, with notice of this being provided to all companies and other stakeholders. This gives companies over six weeks to review prices and discuss them with the department before they need to be finalised for 1 October 2012.
A small number of conversion calculations from current prices will result in multiple prices, so adjustments will be necessary to achieve a uniform ex manufacturer price. This will occur for around 40 pharmaceutical items, which is less than two per cent of total PBS items. For many of those 40 items, the difference in price will be only one or two cents.
The legislation provides that, where a price change is required, the new price may be negotiated with companies or, failing this, a default price will apply.
All pharmaceutical companies with a listed brand of an item requiring any price adjustment will be contacted by the department and invited to negotiate a new price on a case-by-case basis.
The transitional arrangements are designed to achieve new prices that are as close to equivalent to current prices as possible, either directly or through new agreements.
There are no savings associated with this proposal. The intention is that the move to the new pricing structure will have a neutral effect on PBS prices overall, and no impact on PBS expenditure.
For the vast majority of negotiations, the Commonwealth will advise companies of a weighted average price for the item based on prices and volumes of supply of different pack sizes or supply via different PBS programs. Once a new price is agreed it will apply for all brands.
The weighted price has not been legislated as the new price for these items because it would not produce the best result in all situations. Importantly, it would not provide the necessary flexibility for negotiating based on individual circumstances where appropriate. The aim is not to get a price reduction, but to arrive at an average across existing prices that is most representative of the effective PBS price and, thus, give the most neutral pricing impact.
However, for the PBS to operate, all listed products must have a known price. In the event that a price is not negotiated for an item, a default price which is the lowest of the converted ex manufacturer prices for the item will apply.
In a very small number of cases, about 11 items, the method in the bill does not arrive at the current lowest ex manufacturer price. For these items, the default will be set in the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations.
Reliance on a default price is not the government's preferred method. The bill makes clear that a negotiated price will always take precedence over a converted default price. Nonetheless, the default provision is important and necessary to ensure continuity for the PBS.
Once an approved ex manufacturer price is in place, prices for different pack sizes of those items will be calculated proportionally. For all brands, the price for the same quantity is the same.
Premiums on transition
Where brands currently have claimed prices resulting in premiums or special patient contributions, those premiums are expected to remain very similar to current amounts. Claimed prices will be converted to ex manufacturer level by applying a change equivalent to the change in the approved price.
This is the same approach used for premiums affected by statutory price reductions and price disclosure. Companies can discuss with the department any impact on a premium resulting from a converted price.
If a new ex manufacturer price is negotiated for an item, the existing premium for a brand can also be adjusted.
Single brand combination pharmaceutical items will need new price agreements as there are special considerations when pricing these medicines. The new prices will be negotiated taking into account the converted ex manufacturer portion of the component drug prices.
In keeping with agreements
The government understands the importance of the agreements it has with pharmaceutical industry, consumer, wholesaler and pharmacy bodies.
When the expanded price disclosure arrangements were put in place, it was as a result of the policies negotiated with industry in the 2010 memorandum of understanding between the government and Medicines Australia.
Consistent with this government's approach to partnering with industry, the amendments in this bill formed part of the 2011 statement of principles of commitment between stakeholders. This was signed by the government, the Consumers Health Forum, the Generic Medicines Industry Association and Medicines Australia.
The amendments in this bill are in keeping with those agreements and honour commitments made in good faith. The transitional arrangements regarding negotiation of prices are true to the method described in the statement of principles.
Timing
Each year there are generally three price change dates—in April, August and December.
Transitioning to the new structure in October, a month that is not normally subject to pricing changes, will reduce complexity for industry and provide transparency for any price differences.
In the event that a company wishes to pursue a price that is different from the 1 October pricing outcome, they will of course be able to use the usual price change processes for 1 December 2012.
Relevance of the changes—a better more efficient PBS
This bill recognises that pricing practices that have grown up with the PBS and served us well in the past are no longer the best fit for the many different subsidy and supply arrangements in use now.
The changes will support improved pricing practices generally, and more efficient application of price disclosure across an increasing number of PBS medicines.
The bill also contains a technical change which will improve the efficiency of listing medicines on the PBS for supply only via PBS prescriber bags.
Industry cooperation and acknowledgement
This legislation is due in no small part to the commitment shown by the pharmaceutical industry to support pricing changes needed to improve the efficiency of the PBS pricing structure. It also reflects the support of consumer, wholesaler and pharmacy groups.
Implementation will rely on government and industry working together to achieve the outcomes needed to fulfil the undertakings given on both sides in the agreements.
I have asked my department to work with pharmaceutical companies so that, in the relatively small number of cases where prices need to change, the effects are shared between companies, and with government, as evenly as possible.
Summary—efficiency and benefits
Sound pricing arrangements are vital to the PBS. In effect, the pharmaceutical industry has always used ex manufacturer prices. There are benefits for the government and users if the PBS does the same.
The new pricing structure will improve the application of current PBS policies with no change to the operation of the scheme for patients, pharmacies and suppliers. There is no effect on PBS funding, on the medicines listed on the scheme, nor access to them.
However, the benefits from better, more efficient PBS practices will flow on indirectly to all users of the PBS—and that is a good outcome for everyone.
I am confident that, based on the goodwill shown thus far, that result will be delivered. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Clare.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CLARE (Blaxland—Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Justice and Minister for Defence Materiel) (10:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of the passenger movement charge by $8 to $55 per passenger. This will take effect from 1 July 2012.
The charge will also be indexed annually by movements in the consumer price index from 1 July 2013.
This increase was announced by the Treasurer in the 2012-13 budget.
The increase will fund the establishment of the Asia Marketing Fund that was also announced in the budget.
Sixty-one million dollars will be allocated to the fund, which is aimed at supporting the promotion of Australia to growing markets in Asia as a premium holiday and business travel destination.
It is estimated that, in less than a decade, there will be 100 million outbound travellers per annum from China alone. This fund will help promote Australia as a touring and business destination in this important market.
The passenger movement charge was increased in 1999, 2001 and 2008. Annual indexation of the charge will ensure the charge maintains pace with inflation. This is in line with a number of other charges levied by the Commonwealth. It will also provide certainty to the tourism industry about future increases.
The charge is mostly collected by airlines and shipping companies at the same time a ticket is sold, and remitted to the Commonwealth. The increase and future CPI increases will only apply to tickets sold on or after 1 July 2012.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Scheme Enhancements) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tony Burke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr BURKE (Watson—Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) (10:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005. It implements the response of the Standing Council on Environment and Water, comprising environment ministers from the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, to the 2010 independent review of the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme. This independent review, which considered the first five years of the scheme's operation, was a requirement under the act.
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards, or WELS, scheme was established by the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 as part of the Council of Australian Governments' National Water Initiative. The WELS scheme is also supported by complementary state and territory legislation to ensure comprehensive national coverage.
The WELS scheme's objectives are to conserve water supplies by reducing water consumption, to provide information for purchasers of water use and water saving products, and to promote the adoption of efficient and effective water use and water saving technologies.
Products currently in the scheme include clothes washing machines, dishwashers, showers, toilets and tap equipment. All of these products must be registered and labelled with a water efficiency rating. The rating is zero to six stars, with six stars indicating the most water efficient products. The labels inform consumer purchasing decisions in the same way as energy rating labels on electrical appliances. The scheme currently also sets minimum water efficiency standards for toilets and clothes washing machines.
A number of state and territory programs reference WELS water efficiency ratings, which provide a convenient and authoritative source for setting rebates and prescribing water efficiency requirements.
The independent review considered the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme. Consultation was undertaken with state and territory governments, water utilities, industry and consumer representatives. The review concluded that the WELS scheme is a good policy and that its objectives are appropriate. The review cited research estimating that the scheme would reduce national water consumption by a total of 800 gigalitres by 2021.
The review made 41 recommendations, including recommendations concerning governance, compliance, administration and funding arrangements.
In November 2011, the Standing Council on Environment and Water endorsed the bulk of the recommendations. It also approved a new three-year strategic plan for the scheme and determined that 80 per cent of the scheme's costs between 2012 and 2015 should be recovered from industry, with the remaining 20 per cent to be provided by governments. As shown in the review, this level of cost recovery is consistent with the ratio set for the scheme at its commencement in 2005.
This bill will provide the basis to implement the decisions by the standing council. It also makes some other refinements to the bill to improve the scheme's efficiency and effectiveness.
The bill will enable the Commonwealth minister, through a disallowable ministerial determination, to determine more of the detailed arrangements for the scheme than previously. This differs from the current position in that some aspects of the scheme, such as the five-year period for product registration, are entrenched in the act and corresponding state and territory legislation. Under the amended act, it will be easier to adjust matters of this kind without the need to amend nine sets of legislation. Agreement from a majority of state and territory governments will be required before the determination can be made.
Once this bill is enacted, a new ministerial determination will be developed. It will include revised registration and fee arrangements, and other changes such as removing the requirement for gazettal of registration decisions and instead specifying that the decisions will be published on the WELS website. The changes will deliver improvements not only for the scheme's administration, but also for industry. The improvements include simplifying and streamlining product registration processes so that these are easier for registrants, and providing a common expiry date for all registrations so that retailers will know when the registrations of products they supply are due to expire.
The bill will also introduce a broader range of compliance and enforcement options. Consistent with the recommendations from the 2010 independent review, it introduces civil penalties to match existing criminal offences and remakes some of the existing criminal offences for clarity.
The bill also provides for orders to be given to persons that they remedy their non-compliance with the act. An example would be to order the replacement of an inaccurate WELS rating label with the correct label. In this way the act's objective of providing information for purchasers of water using products can be better achieved.
WELS labelling plays an important role in consumer purchasing decisions. The scheme also receives widespread support from the industries affected by it. This bill has been developed taking into account extensive consultations with stakeholders as to the nature of the changes proposed. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Bird.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms BIRD (Cunningham—Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) (10:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to increase the maximum student contribution amount for units of study in mathematics, statistics and science from 1 January 2013.
The bill removes eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the Higher Education Loan Program schemes for Australian citizens who would not be resident in Australia.
To support continued growth in the higher education sector, the government is increasing the maximum student contribution amount for units of study in mathematics, statistics and science from 2013.
All students will pay the same student contribution amount for maths and science units of study regardless of when they commenced their course of study. The government believes the reduction in student contributions for maths and science that commenced for students starting a course of study from 1 January 2009 was not delivering value for money.
The majority of students undertaking maths and science units in 2009 and 2010 were not enrolled in a maths or science course of study, nor were they studying an education course. It is clear the policy was not substantially increasing the number of maths and science graduates in the workforce as intended and it was not improving the supply of quality maths and science teachers.
In 2011, the Prime Minister asked the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb AC, to advise on ways to encourage increased enrolments in mathematics, statistics and science courses at university and school.
The government considered the Chief Scientist's advice and announced a $54 million response as part of the 2012-13 budget to improve student engagement in maths and science.
To improve the supply of qualified graduates entering maths and science teaching at school, the government will fund projects and courses that improve the quality of teacher training.
To ensure the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute (AMSI) continues to provide support to mathematics researchers and students, the government will fund AMSI to provide scholarships and a range of intensive short courses for later year university maths students.
The government will also fund innovative partnerships between universities and schools that are experiencing difficulty in engaging students in science and maths, have poor outcomes in maths and science, or have low numbers of students going on to further study in these disciplines.
These initiatives ensure universities receive more money to support the teaching of maths and science so Australia has people highly skilled in these disciplines. This will be critical to developing a knowledge based economy and ensuring future generations are also equipped with these skills.
The government is removing eligibility for Commonwealth supported places and the HELP schemes for Australian citizens who do not reside in Australia.
The government believes its funding priority should be to support those students who are most likely to pursue careers in Australia, repay their HELP debts and use their education to benefit Australia's workforce and economic needs.
Students undertaking study as part of a formal exchange or who are engaged in a study abroad program for some of the units in their course, including those students receiving assistance through the OS HELP scheme, will not be affected by this change.
The estimated number of people who may be affected by this change is relatively small. However, with the removal of all limits on the number of undergraduate places in bachelor level courses and growth in online delivery of courses, it is important to clarify the eligibility conditions for Commonwealth support before there is further growth in the number of students who do not live in Australia and are being assisted by the government.
There are around three-quarters of a million Australians living overseas permanently or long term. In the last three years over 120,000 Australians left the country with the intention of permanently residing overseas. The government does not believe it is appropriate that they continue to receive large subsidies toward obtaining a higher education degree from an Australian university while they are overseas.
The small number of students who are not resident in Australia and are currently enrolled in Commonwealth supported places or are accessing HELP will continue to be eligible for the schemes for the duration of their current course.
This amendment complements last year's changes to the act clarifying that Australian citizens are not entitled to Commonwealth support or to access HELP when they are undertaking courses of study primarily at an overseas campus.
Debate adjourned.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham—Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) (10:19): I take this opportunity firstly to thank the members who spoke on the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012. This government fully recognises the critical role the VET sector plays in building our nation and our society. The challenge is for the VET sector to be responsive to the need for economic growth and increase productivity through skills and the need for a more mobile workforce ready to adapt to changing economic needs across state boundaries.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority began operations on 1 July 2011 as the national regulator for the VET sector. The commencement of ASQA is a great achievement and represents one of the most significant reforms of the VET sector in the past two decades. It has come about through the cooperative effort of state and territory governments and the Australian government as well as real commitment from the VET sector for this reform.
This bill is the final piece of establishing legislation for ASQA and will enable ASQA to implement part of the cost-recovery model recommended by the Council of Australian Governments in December 2009. The cost-recovery arrangements were subject to extensive consultation in 2011, and the proposed fee and charge structure, including the consultation process, is explained in a cost-recovery impact statement which has been publicly available since the commencement of ASQA.
Under the risk assessment process used by ASQA, high-risk registered training organisations assessed as having a greater risk of noncompliance will be monitored more closely. This bill enables ASQA to recover reasonable costs and expenses associated with additional monitoring activities of these organisations, as well as the costs of investigating substantiated complaints. It is important that ASQA is adequately resourced and appropriate that the costs of ensuring a quality VET system are borne by the organisations that benefit from the system.
I note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee tabled its report on the bill on 10 May 2012 and, having examined the provisions of the bill and the submissions made to the inquiry, recommends that the bill should be passed in its current form. The committee's report raised a couple of issues around the need to ensure transparency and clarity of charges and that regional and rural training providers are not disadvantaged by the charges.
The cost-recovery impact statement clearly articulated the design of the charges and makes it clear that regional and rural providers will not be disadvantaged when compared to their metropolitan counterparts. This bill reflects the government's continued commitment to working with governments and stakeholders to continually improve the quality and consistency of training across the VET sector. A strong, nationally consistent regulatory framework is a key step in achieving this, and I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [10:26]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
Third Reading
Ms BIRD (Cunningham—Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) (10:31): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP (Mackellar) (10:32): I rise on this occasion to speak on this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012, to follow up the excellent speeches, particularly that given by the member for Bradfield, regarding the concerns that people have about trade union members being appointed by their trade unions to serve on the board of superannuation industry funds. Particular attention was paid by several members to one Mr Wally Curran. We are very much indebted to Mr Hedley Thomas from the Australian and his report of 18 May, and also to Mr David Crowe ofthe Financial Review, for both dealing with the question of what occurred with the meatworkers union, a union of relatively low-paid union members—which does seem to be a track record in this parliament, where lowly paid members are sustaining a very high lifestyle of senior union operatives.
In this case, Mr Curran was on the board of the superannuation fund for the meatworkers union and they had a total of $350 million invested, which meant that individual members of that union only had a super fund worth about $18,000. What occurred is that over the years Mr Curran took tens of thousands of undisclosed dollars from one Austcorp, a company to which that superannuation fund then lent $30 million. Mr Hedley Thomas, in two excellent articles, outlines what a risky venture it was. The article said:
The meatworkers' superannuation fund was one of the biggest losers after Austcorp's failure because most of the $30m invested could not be recovered.
Indeed, their total assets are said now to be something like $50,000 and are pieces of artwork. The creditors are likely to get less than half of one cent in the dollar.
Mr Curran, in the usual way that trade members seem to act when they have been caught out, said he had done nothing improper. He had taken tens of thousands of dollars from this Austcorp corporation, and then lent it $30 million out of a total of the $350 million they had invested. These are lowly paid meat workers, who had their money lent to risky ventures. These articles go on to say:
… while the payments were not disclosed to the 30,000-strong membership of the superannuation fund, the board was—
apparently—
aware of the arrangement.
There was another person identified in the article, a Mr Jon Addison, who said yesterday there was nothing untoward in him or Mr Curran receiving payments from Austcorp—the corporation to which they paid the $30 million by way of loans. And they have lost the lot.
We then go to this bill itself. We are, again, obliged to Mr David Crowe of the Financial Review, who writes about yet another trade union heavy who is now a member of parliament and who is now the minister concerned. He writes that the proposals for dealing with recalcitrant trade union members of the trust of the superannuation fund go as follows:
The proposed measures would also require directors to face renewal every three years, acting on concerns that some trustees, nominated by unions or employer groups, can sit on the same funds for decades without facing a vote.
Yet the new rules may not impose tough sanctions on trustees who fail to disclose their conflicts, relying instead on the persuasion of the regulator to rectify a situation after it has been identified.
Trustees will be asked to reveal any payments they receive on a conflicts register held by the super fund, the new rules state. A breach of the rules, such as the failure to disclose remuneration or shareholdings, would not lead APRA to levy a fine or other penalty on a trustee. Instead, the regulator would instruct the trustee to meet the original obligations. If the instructions were ignored, APRA could seek fines or other penalties.
In other words, there would be a slap over the wrist from a minister with a heavy background in the trade union movement. He is now the minister in charge of superannuation and is looking after his union mates sitting as trustees on superannuation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): I remind the member for Mackellar that she has been in this place long enough to know standing order 90, which says that imputations of improper motives to a member and personal reflections on members are highly disorderly.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sorry if you think saying someone is a trade union heavy is a reflection on them.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not what I was referring to. The member will return to the bill.
Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP: The article goes on:
Severe cases could lead the regulator to ask the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to consider charges.
The ACTU said the arrangements reported at the meat industry fund were "highly unusual"—
'Highly unusual'! Isn't that interesting. The meat workers, 30,000 of them, lost $30 million, and it is 'highly unusual'—
but would be stamped out under the new governance regime.
But it will not be. The important thing we have to see here is that there seems to be one rule for people who are engaged in industry funds with trade union appointees and another rule for people engaged in retail funds. I think that the need to have far greater scrutiny of trade unions is starting to manifest itself. The Labor Party and the government like to tell us that the HSU is a single rotten apple in the barrel. But it is not. We have seen what has gone on with the HSU because of the FWA report. We have seen what has happened with Mr Wally Curran and the meatworkers union, and for this we are grateful to some journalists who are usually attacked by the Australian Labor Party and the government because they write for the Australian. And then there were the actions, which were never pursued either, of Mr Bruce Wilson of the AWU. So the suggestion that the HSU is a single rotten apple in the barrel is just not true. There are clearly systemic problems, and we are going to have to have far more penetrating legislation to try to clean up the mess.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (10:40): I thank most of the members who participated in the debate on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012. Trust and transparency are critical to the maintenance of confidence in our superannuation system. The Labor government has made and will make long-term decisions to improve transparency in the governance of superannuation and financial services. These long-term decisions include banning the payment of sales commissions to financial advisers.
The recent inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into the Trio collapse noted that hefty commissions were paid to an adviser who recommended Trio products and that some of the advice provided may contravene the government's new best interests hurdle. Yet those opposite, including the member for North Sydney and the member for Mackellar, did nothing to stamp out conflicts of interest in financial planning when they had the chance. Why did they not, as part of the Financial Services Reform Act of 2001, ban commissions? Why did those opposite, when they were in government, fail to introduce a new duty for advisers to put the interests of investors first?
The same goes for governance and superannuation. Those opposite, when they were in government, had ample opportunity to improve governance standards for superannuation. But the record shows that those opposite, whilst they talk about governance and superannuation, failed to act time and time again. In fact, some of the governance examples cited by the member for Mayo in his attack on funds in his speech on this bill appear to have happened on the Howard government's watch. It was disappointing to read the speeches on this bill by the member for Mayo, the member for Forde and the member for Bradfield—and I suspect that, when I read the Hansard of the member for Mackellar's speech, it will fall into the same disappointing category.
The divisive and extreme views put forward in these speeches echo the extreme and divisive views held by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems that the standard tactic of those opposite is to fill speeches with extreme rhetoric in an attempt to disguise their lack of policy. They have no policy to boost superannuation savings and create wealth for millions of Australians, no policy to help better management of people's savings when they enter retirement and no policy to boost Australia as a financial services centre. Too much time is spent, I am afraid, on the attack rather than on looking for the positives. Their negative rhetoric shows how out of touch some of those opposite are with the concerns of fund members and those who work in the financial services industry. The all-out assault by those opposite on a legitimate segment of the industry funds market ignores a statistic that is at the heart of members concerns—long-term investment performance. That is how little some of those opposite understand superannuation.
This government has plans, which it will continue to deliver on, to boost the superannuation wealth of Australians, to make the superannuation system more efficient and transparent and to create jobs and growth in our financial services sector. These plans include the measures in this bill as well as future legislation. The measures contained in this bill implement changes recommended by the Cooper review into the governance, efficiency, structure and operation of Australia's superannuation system. They impact 216 registrable superannuation entity licensees. New requirements for trustees and directors will improve trustee decisions and fund efficiency and effectiveness, thereby helping to grow the superannuation entitlements of members and confidence in the system.
I thank Paul Costello, who chaired the consultation panel that has advised the government on how best to implement the Stronger Super package of which these reforms are an important part. I also thank the hardworking team from APRA and Treasury which has been involved in the development of this important legislation.
The amendments in schedule 1 of the bill apply new duties to trustees, including: exercising the same degree of care, skill and diligence as a prudent superannuation trustee; acting fairly in dealing with classes of beneficiaries and beneficiaries within a class; and, where a conflict exists, giving priority to the duties to and the interests of beneficiaries over other persons. Trustees will have expanded requirements in relation to their investment strategies. They will have a new requirement to develop an insurance strategy and a risk management strategy for members of their fund and to maintain financial resources either as trustee capital or as fund reserves to cover the operational risks of the funds they manage.
In most cases trustees are corporations that have a board of directors. The Cooper review of the super system was concerned that there are difficulties for the directors of corporate trustees in understanding what is expected of them and that, as the industry consolidates, conflicts of interests and duty may arise more regularly. Importantly, the bill identifies clearly the duties that apply to individuals who are directors or corporate trustees of superannuation funds, including acting honestly and in the best interests of members. This is an important new requirement: a new duty is being applied to individual directors to act honestly and to have members' interests at the forefront of their minds.
Trustees who are authorised by APRA to offer a MySuper product will also have additional obligations, reflecting that members have effectively delegated all decisions for their superannuation to the trustee. There will be a primary obligation to promote the financial interests of members of the MySuper product—in particular, returns after the deduction of fees, costs and taxes.
The bill contains an obligation for trustees to determine that there is sufficient scale. Where a trustee determines that assets or member numbers are insufficient, the trustee will need to take appropriate action to rectify the insufficiency so that they continue to meet their general obligation to promote the financial interests of beneficiaries. APRA will consult with industry to provide prudential guidance on processes trustees could adopt to form a determination and relevant considerations for trustees in rectifying insufficient scale.
It is not intended that trustees will be required to make detailed comparisons of their performance against every other fund in the market. It is expected that many large funds will be able to determine quickly that scale is not a problem for them. It is expected that many well-performing funds will also be able to determine readily that the members are not being disadvantaged due to insufficient scale. However, small poorly-performing funds will need to consider actively whether insufficient scale is a factor impeding their performance.
Schedule 2 to the bill will provide APRA with the ability to make prudential standards. APRA already has this ability in banking and insurance. Prudential standards will provide APRA with greater flexibility to adapt effectively to industry developments in superannuation and the ability to provide regulated entities with clearer and more tailored legal requirements. APRA released draft prudential standards on 27 April and is consulting on them until 20 July this year. The provisions introducing the power to make prudential standards will apply from the date of royal assent. Duties for trustees and directors, including those offering MySuper products, will apply from 1 July 2013.
I am committed to reforming the governance and supervision of our superannuation system and will be bringing further changes before the parliament. These will include additional disclosure requirements for trustees, enhanced data collection and publication powers for APRA and also rules for financial advice charges deducted from members' accounts and charging for intrafund advice.
The government has a strong track record in improved transparency, including in relation to the future of financial advice reforms, implementing MySuper and the Productivity Commission inquiry into the selection and ongoing assessment of default superannuation funds in modern awards. The Productivity Commission will develop transparent and objective criteria against which funds wishing to be eligible for default fund status in modern awards can be assessed on an ongoing basis to ensure that the best interests of members are met if their superannuation contributions are allocated to a default fund under the modern award.
I will continue to work with industry and people of goodwill to ensure that superannuation trustees adopt best practice in terms of governance and transparency. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (10:49): I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (lines 1 to 20), omit paragraphs 29VN(b) and (c).
[obligations of trustee]
This amendment was foreshadowed by my friend and colleague the shadow Treasurer and member for North Sydney, I reflect on the fact that a key issue raised by the coalition in the second reading debate was not addressed adequately in the minister's summation. I am hopeful that he may be able to provide some small insight into the government's thinking.
Our amendment relates to the scale test for MySuper funds that is contained in new sections 29VN(b) and (c). This requires trustees to determine on an annual basis that there is sufficient scale in terms of assets and beneficiaries such as not to disadvantage the financial interests of beneficiaries relative to the financial interests of beneficiaries in MySuper products held and operated by other funds. Just to explain our thinking here, an otherwise perfectly acceptable fund that satisfies all of APRA's requirements in terms of prudential standards— its governance, its investment performance, its commitment to the best interests of beneficiaries, its fees and its returns—must now pass an additional scale test in order to be an acceptable provider of a MySuper product where they can be authorised by APRA to be one of the default funds that the minister talked about.
Essentially what is happening here in the opposition's view is that the government is seeking to legislate to provide for an unsubstantiated presumption that, when it comes to super, bigger is best. This is the only policy rationale that seems to be driving the government's actions—that somehow bigger is best and that, invariably, larger funds provide for lower fees and higher returns. Sadly, there is no evidence to substantiate that assumption, yet that presumption is now being legislated in what the government is providing. So here we have a presumption, with no basis of evidence, being injected into this framework.
It is clear that a number of smaller funds, as the shadow Treasurer outlined, can be more nimble and better able to exploit market opportunities and in this way actually provide returns superior to those that are offered by larger, less flexible and less agile funds. At best, we think this provision seems redundant because the minister outlined all of the new requirements and touched on the best interests of members and how those are enshrined and then the prudential framework that APRA would be putting in place. But now there is this additional test, a scale test. We are concerned that that may confer an advantage on larger industry superannuation funds that is simply not substantiated and not justified by the facts and that these larger funds simply get a head start because they are large, not reflecting on any of the performance criteria or governance or prudential requirements that the minister spent a few moments talking about. We are concerned that this would have an adverse impact on competition and would represent a new, unjustified barrier to new entrants, and interestingly the coalition is not alone. It should come as no surprise to the minister that these are concerns shared right across the sector by stakeholders.
The minister spoke about being prepared to work with people of goodwill to further develop this framework, yet clearly he has not been listening to the input he has been getting, and in fact this input should come as no surprise. It was input that was provided when there was draft legislation prepared and it is input that has been reflected in the parliamentary joint committee. Even the union-controlled Industry Super Network commented, 'We agree that the scale test is problematic.' We then saw the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia concur with that view: 'We believe the current wording of the scale test is problematic.' They urge that the scale test be reviewed. Mercer, one of the larger funds, which might have thought it would be advantaged by this, itself identified that 'the scale test is not needed if the trustees have the responsibility to act in the member's best interest'. If all of the safeguards that the minister alluded to are to have any value and utility at all, the scale test becomes completely redundant. The Financial Services Council identified that the scale test should not be in the law. It said:
Not only is it a barrier to entry but the test, as suggested in the current drafting, is very subjective, very open.
There is nobody we can find who actually thinks this scale test adds anything whatsoever.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr BILLSON: Sorry, I stand corrected. The minister put his hand up and said there is one person who thinks it is a good idea: it is the minister. We are blessed that he has such wisdom and foresight to share when everyone else active in the sector—all those people he urges to be consulted—do not think so. So we think this is redundant and should be removed. (Time expired)
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (10:54): I thank the member for Dunkley for his contribution, but I want to reassure him that, by having a test about scale, we do not assume that big is automatically best. I also want to assure him that small, well-performing funds will be able to demonstrate that size is not impeding their performance. So I hope that puts some of his concerns to rest.
I also heard him say that he felt that the government was not listening to the contribution of those opposite. When we talk about scale and the problems that they say there are with scale, I might go to what the member for Bradfield specifically said:
Secondly, the scale test, which is one of the centrepieces of this reform, does not make good sense in economic logic or day-to-day practice.
He said it was a bad idea. He has also unfairly accused me of being slow to act on the Cooper review, when in fact that is not the case. We responded to the Cooper review in December 2010, within a few—
Mr Billson interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: No, the member for Bradfield mentioned that. Thank you, Member for Dunkley. He said that we had failed to respond comprehensively to the Cooper review. Let me say that the scale test is a classic example of detail contradicting the rhetoric of those opposite. In the Cooper review it was recommendation 1.6(b). So the Cooper review, which the government has been accused of not following, explicitly called for the scale test. In fact, I wonder if some of those opposite have even read the full Cooper review.
They also showed this lack of attention to detail when they argued that the opt-in arrangement in our financial reforms was an industry fund plot. I think it is fair to say of the contemporary opposition that, whereas they can no longer find any reds under the beds and are still looking for the Greens under the beds, they are certainly convinced that industry funds are under the beds engaging in some sort of takeover of Australia, which is unfair. I think the attack on industry funds is also terribly unfair to many of the trustee directors who serve on industry funds. I would point out that Peter Collins, former Liberal leader in New South Wales, is a director of an industry. fund. I think that when those opposite attack industry funds—be it in the bilious attack by the member for Mackellar or the comments of the member for Dunkley, or indeed others—they are attacking a lot of hardworking employer reps, union reps and, indeed, former leaders of the Liberal Party. I for one do not believe that the people who serve on industry funds with the equal representation model are cat's paws for one point of view or another. I believe that they are motivated to serve in the best interests of their members.
There have also been concerns in terms of this scale proposition that somehow, by requiring trustees to consider scale, this will cause unforeseen and inappropriate outcomes. We believe that talking about scale does not mean that it will be necessary for funds to make detailed comparisons of performance against every other fund. Certainly many funds will be able to determine very quickly that scale is not an issue for them. Also, we have said in this bill that we will send a signal to smaller, poorly performing funds that they need to actively and regularly consider whether scale is an issue. APRA will consult with industry on processes that trustees could adopt to form a determination about scale and relative considerations for trustees in rectifying insufficient scale.
I think it is about time that this parliament tried to be constructive and work on the issues we agree on. If the opposition, but for this issue of scale, would support the rest of the matters and is willing to put itself into that difficult ground, I am interested to see whether, if it cannot win its amendment on scale, it will oppose improvements to the governance of superannuation funds and trustees.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (10:58): It was curious that the minister failed to directly address the points that we were making in support of our amendment. I suspect he might have had pre-prepared remarks that went to a bit of a slap-around of the opposition, which seems to be his combative nature. But he failed to turn his mind in any way to the points that were raised in support of our amendment. He did say that APRA would give some guidance to poorly performing smaller funds. I would hope that, as he has suggested elsewhere, APRA would give guidance to poorly performing funds full stop. The issue about whether the fund is performing well or not should stand in its own right. The issue about its size is being introduced as another variable. As he launched into attacks on me for comments relating to industry super funds, none of which were actually made in my contribution—which was a curious line of attack—I was actually pointing out that the Association of Superannuation Funds was actually supporting—
Mr Shorten: Far be it from me to attribute something to the member for Dunkley which was not in his contribution. I was confusing his contribution with the other four contributions. I withdraw that.
Mr BILLSON: A gracious moment, Sir. The point I was making was that the union controlled industry superannuation network actually concurred with the coalition's view that there are problems with the scale test. We have been listening to stakeholders. All the stakeholders that have come forward and made a submission see no great utility and, in fact, some risks with a scale test which seems to belie all the other measures in the bill relating to proper governance, the best interests of members, the returns for the fund and the level of fees. All of a sudden all the things that are performance related in the bill run into this idea that size is a fundamental determinant of whether a fund product should be authorised as a default fund under MySuper.
I again urge the minister to turn his mind to the chorus of concern about this particular issue and the direct input that has been provided through the inquiry process around his draft legislation, all of which points to the simple fact that this scale test is problematic, confusing and redundant. It is an uncharted area where there is inadequate guidance and it seems to displace the very purpose behind some of the amendments that the minister spoke strongly in favour of which go to the performance of the funds: the prudential standards, the best interests of those participating in the funds, and fees and returns. That should be what really matters. That is about performance and outcomes for members' money and the scale contribution adds nothing whatsoever.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (11:01): I am pleased to rise to make a contribution as we consider in detail the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 and, in particular, the amendment moved by the opposition to remove the specific provisions that give effect to the scale test, which we on this side of the House think is ill considered.
There is no dispute from this side of the House with the central proposition that what we all ought to be concerned about is the optimal and efficient operation of superannuation funds and making sure that trustees and others charged with the operation and management of superannuation funds do so in a conscientious and effective way. We on this side of the House have difficulty with the issue that the relevant provision—proposed section 29VN—would have the effect of baking into the law of the land an assumption which we consider is contentious and not well made out—that is, the assumption that bigger is always better when it comes to the size of a superannuation fund. The minister told the House earlier that there was no assumption that bigger is somehow better behind this new provision. If there is no such presumption it is very simple: take the provision out—because, by putting into black-letter law an obligation upon trustees to consider the scale of the fund every year, what you are doing is imposing upon them the obligation to consider the merits of the proposition that a bigger fund is better. If that is not a proven, well-made-out assumption—if finance theory, among other things, does not provide a good basis for that assumption—then you should not be legislating on the basis of that assumption.
That brings up the obvious question: why is the government legislating on the basis of this assumption? What are the merits behind this idea? Why is it reflected in this piece of legislation that the House is considering today? It is very instructive that the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, which represents all superannuation trustees including trustees operating in industry funds as well as every other kind of superannuation fund, had this to say to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
While accepting that scale may provide benefits to members, AIST confirms the position we put before the Committee. That is, the pursuit of optimal net returns to members having regard to risk considerations and the safe stewardship of members’ benefits should [be] the overwhelming obligation upon trustees of MySuper products, and this obligation should not be clouded, diminished or distracted by other considerations including scale.
The body which speaks for trustees of superannuation funds is saying that as a matter of black-letter law, drafting and policy it is a bad idea to put into law a formal obligation upon trustees of superannuation funds to give consideration specifically to the question of scale.
Of course superannuation trustees must always have regard to delivering the best outcomes for members of the fund—that is not in contention. What is in contention before the House today is whether it is good policy and good law to impose a specific obligation upon superannuation trustees to have regard, on an annual basis, to the matter of scale. On this side of the House we say that is a bad idea. That is not a good element of this piece of legislation and that is why we are moving this amendment. There is a host of good policy reasons to argue against it, and if I have time in another contribution I will make some broader observations, but I want make very clear this specific point: we do not contest that superannuation trustees have an obligation to fund members. Of course they do. What we contest is the legislative drafting stratagem of putting this specific duty in the bill. We say that is a bad idea.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (11:06): I appreciate the attention that the member for Bradfield pays to the topic of superannuation, but I cannot agree with some of the assertions he made and I feel compelled to set the record straight.
It has been put by him and others that there is no support for a scale test. I challenged that when I said, 'What about the Cooper review's explicit recommendation?' We know the number, don't we, Mr Fletcher? Recommendation 1.6(b) explicitly says that a scale test is a good idea. How is it that those opposite can say that we have not followed the Cooper review enough? Yet when it comes to the test, when there is a specific measure in the Cooper review, which we are implementing, the opposition is strangely struck silent. But it was not just the Cooper review that found that a scale is central to a trustee optimising performance for members; it was the Costello report. Again, the Costello report had input from a whole lot of people from all points of the compass in terms of superannuation policy in Australia and they supported the scale test.
Certainly industry said that they wanted to be reassured as to how the test would operate in practice. That is why APRA has made it clear that it will consult and provide guidance. So we do need to make clear to all those trustees who are being made nervous by some of the assertions of those opposite that APRA will consult about the practical implementation of scale. Furthermore, the policy behind the scale requirement in the legislation is that it sends an important signal to small, poor-performing funds that they need to actively and regularly consider scale as an issue. The member for Dunkley said that somehow small poor-performing funds were receiving more attention than poor-performing funds generally. That is not right. One issue that may need to be considered with respect to small poor-performing funds is their size.
Where a fund conclude that scale is a factor in their poor performance, APRA will be able to ask trustees how they intend to continue to promote the best financial interests of their MySuper members. This may result, for example, in trustees having to proactively seek merger opportunities. My concern is that if those opposite were successful with their amendment, saying that trustees of small funds do not need to consider the context of scale—whether or not having a small fund adds to greater operating costs—then giving people a leave pass on that question sends a signal to funds that they do not have to worry about this matter at all.
Furthermore, we believe APRA would find it difficult to explicitly pursue scale issues through either prudential standards or general supervision of funds if there were a decision to remove the scale requirement from the legislation. That is why we do not support removing the scale test.
If the opposition think that a requirement for funds to look at scale is so important and if they are unsuccessful on that amendment, will they turn their back on better governance in superannuation funds because of one proposition for which there is legitimate, steep support for and interest in the government's position? We await with interest.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield) (11:09): I think we should focus very carefully on what the minister has just said, because it reveals the fundamental flaw in logic which underpins proposed section 29VN, which the opposition's amendment proposes to remove from the bill. What the minister said to the House just now is that this provision sends a clear signal to small poor-performing funds. Note very carefully the way he put together two different concepts: small and poor performing. If you listen to the minister, you hear that 'small' and 'poor performing' are effectively the same thing. But of course they are not. The difficulty with what the minister proposes and the difficulty with the bill, which the minister has brought into the House, is that this provision will not just send a signal to small poor-performing funds; it will send a signal to all small funds—well-performing small funds and poor-performing small funds. The policy problem with that is that a consequence of this provision is that funds which are small and which perform well may end up finding themselves pushed into a course of action which, arguably, is not in the interests of fund members. It is hard to avoid noting the kind of language which is used in the explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 1.27, where the author refers to the obligation on trustees:
… to rectify the insufficiency so they continue to meet their general obligation to promote the financial interests of beneficiaries.
If you are putting a provision into legislation, if you are making it part of the black-letter law of this country and if you are imposing formal legal obligations on trustees with all the consequences that go with that, you need to be sure that the policy basis for imposing that obligation is a good one. We have heard no argument from the minister as to why the policy basis for imposing this obligation is a good one. We heard from the minister that the scale test is a good idea because the Cooper review says it is a good idea. There is much in the Cooper review which contains merit, but it is surely not appropriate for this House of Representatives—the people's house—to abdicate its function of bringing to bear an independent judgment, an independent exercise of weighing up the merits and the disadvantages of pieces of legislation which are brought to the House. That, in effect, is what the minister is asking us to do this morning, because he is arguing: 'The scale test is a good idea because the Cooper review says it's a good idea.'
I do not find that argument persuasive. I believe that our obligation in the House of Representatives is to consider the merits of the idea. Let us just remind ourselves of the idea which is embodied in this provision, which the opposition's amendment seeks to remove. The idea is that bigger is better. The idea is that scale in superannuation funds is a good thing. If that were not the underpinning idea, this provision would not be here. The reason the opposition object to baking this in to black-letter law is that that idea is deeply contentious.
There are advantages to scale but there are also advantages to being small and nimble. Smaller investment funds can take advantage of investment opportunities which are not available to very large funds. Smaller funds have the capacity to invest, for example, in small companies which may produce better returns. However, it is a well-known problem in investment management that very big funds are, in practical terms, precluded from investing in small companies because the minimum size of investment they need to make for it to make a difference to their members is so big that it is impractical for them to take a stake of that size in a small company. So there are good arguments in economic theory and policy as to why scale is not an unmitigated advantage, and that is why we say the idea underpinning this provision is a bad one.
Mr SHORTEN: Sometimes in this place the opposition twist what the government says and you let it go through to the keeper because that is their DNA. But in this case I cannot allow that to be so. I accept that the member for Bradfield was not here to hear my second reading speech so he may be unaware that I made it very clear that small funds are not automatically worse than big funds. Indeed, in response to the contribution from the member for Dunkley, I made it very clear and I used the term 'small, well-performing funds'. We will be able to demonstrate that size is not impeding them. But despite the verballing by the opposition and the incorrect portrayal of what the government said in the speech, what I also know to be the case is that the Cooper review, which was an independent review—far more independent than the Liberal member for Bradfield—came to the conclusion that scale can be a factor in operating costs and economies of scale do exist. That is not to say that small funds should not be present in the market. I accept that small funds do provide some of the opportunities the member for Bradfield enunciated. What I do not accept is that we can simply dismiss this review and say, 'We're the people's house and we do not have to follow an independent review because it is being conducted.' That is true. That is very true.
What I also know to be the case is that it was put by members opposite that somehow the government is going in a different direction from what the industry believes. Clearly the Cooper review, which represents a lot of points of view in the industry, did have a distinct view which is in alignment with the government. Therefore, when we talk about the government acting on its own, that is not correct. People say that, if you have a requirement for trustees to periodically consider scale, that is somehow an assault on small funds. That is not correct. It is put to us that we say big funds are better than small funds. That is not what the government has said. What we do recognise is that we have an obligation to constantly and relentlessly seek the cheapest possible costs in the administration of superannuation and exert downward pressure on the fees and charges. I also note that, despite the reservations expressed by those opposite, I have not yet heard their position. Do they regard this requirement to consider scale as sufficiently important that, if they are unsuccessful in that amendment, they will turn their backs on the rest of the propositions on trustee governance? I sincerely hope not.
Mr FLETCHER: There is a curious logical contradiction in what the minister is saying to the House this morning. He has just told us that the government do not say big is better than small. Well, if you do not say that, do not put a provision to that effect into the legislation. It is very simple. Let us be clear. Trustees of superannuation funds have an extremely comprehensive and extensive range of duties. There can be no question that superannuation fund trustees today have extensive legal duties to act in the best interests of members of the fund. The proposition from the minister that what we need to do on this specific point is buttress the existing law by adding in a specific obligation to consider scale is one that we should therefore test very carefully. We should only expand upon the existing black letter law duties of trustees of superannuation funds if a very good case is made out for that change.
When you look at the merits of the argument, it is clear that scale has pros and cons. Yet we have an amendment put by the government, a provision in the bill, which assumes that scale is an absolute good. It asks the trustees of small funds to consider each year whether they are big enough and, if not, to consider whether they should merge. The policy case for that has not been made out. But it is clear that there is one segment of the industry whose interests are very well served by such an amendment, and that is the existing larger funds, particularly the larger industry funds. If you are in charge of, for example, the $43 billion Australian Super, this probably looks like a great idea. If you are the Industry Super Network, representing a range of industry funds including a number of the very large funds, this probably looks a good idea.
But I can tell you that' if an argument of this kind were being made in other industries, you can only imagine the howls of protest that would result. If it were put to the House that there should be a duty every year on the directors of Virgin to determine whether their company was as big as Qantas and, if it was not, to change its business structure accordingly, you can only imagine the howls of protest. If there were a duty imposed every year upon the directors of Bendigo Bank to ask whether their company was as big as Westpac and, if it was not, to pursue a change in business structure accordingly, you can only imagine the howls of protest. And looking at the industry from which I came before I came into the parliament, the telecommunications industry, if it were put into the legislation that there was a duty every year on the directors of AAPT, Primus, Internode and iiNet to ask themselves whether they are as big as Telstra and, if they were not, to pursue a change in their business structure, you can only imagine the howls of protest. You can only imagine the arguments which would be put saying this is a change to the law which suits the interest of the big end of town and the case has not been made out on policy grounds. But that is exactly the position we are in when it comes to this provision of this bill which the government is seeking to have this House pass. This is a bill which suits the interests of the big end of town in the superannuation industry, and that is not a good thing when the policy case for what is being proposed has not been made out. We have nowhere heard from the minister, from the government, a convincing policy case as to why scale is an absolute good. That is why on this side of the House we have moved an amendment which would remove these contentious provisions from the bill. We would remove the contentious proposed section 29VN because it is based on an underlying policy idea the case for which has not been made out. When the peak body representing superannuation trustees has expressly put the view that it is misconceived and it is based on an improper prioritisation of the objectives which ought to be motivating superannuation trustees, then we on this side of the House have very profound reservations and it is those reservations which underpin the amendment we have put.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:22): In addressing this matter I want to say that I fully realise that the intentions of the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation are good and we very much admire work done by the minister in many areas. But in this area I have a lot of specialist trainers in my electorate, particularly in the field of the first Australians and in the field of rural activities, and we have a very big organisation called RITE that works out of Charters Towers and is probably the leading trainer of people going onto cattle stations in Australia. But, of course, what is most relevant to us is the 40,000 jobs and I can serve notice here that neither the ALP nor the LNP are going to be flying workers in from overseas. Those 40,000 jobs will belong to Australians. Addressing the actual amendment that has come before us—
Mr Shorten: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, this is a debate about superannuation trustees. I am not sure if Mr Katter is referring to this or another bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The minister is correct, the House is debating an amendment moved by the member for Dunkley to omit two paragraphs from the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill.
Mr KATTER: I apologise, it was something I wanted to raise, but I will move back onto the superannuation issue.
In North Queensland we have the great treasure troves of Australia that need to be opened up. They need superannuation moneys; I do not think they can be opened up without superannuation moneys. We have 40 per cent of Australia's coal reserves in the Galilee Basin—40 per cent of the nation's entire coal reserves. They need probably $1,000 million or $2,000 million worth of railway line to go in there, Minister. That money can only come from superannuation funds. In the whole history of Australia this infrastructure has been built by government, except for in the last 25 years.
There was a 60-40 rule which existed in superannuation, Minister, which is very relevant to the amendment being moved by the opposition here. That 60-40 rule said 60 per cent of all superannuation moneys went into government securities. That money was used to build a canal to get our phosphate and our iron ore out from north-west Queensland, so instead of coming 1,200 kilometres back to Townsville it goes 300 kilometres on water up to the gulf.
We need electricity, and God bless your government, Minister, for already having committed $350 million—which is more than I can say for the incoming LNP government, who have knocked it on the head. They are not going to have any infrastructure at all, those stupid people. And, as I said, we need railway lines and we need one into the Galilee Basin.
So, Minister, the amendment, yes, but we would plead with you to look at the issue of superannuation moneys simply going into shares and inflating share prices, and into property and inflating property prices, and none of it going into nation building, where it has traditionally gone in the past. If it is government managed then it is secured by the government and you can safely return 7½ per cent, 9½ per cent, to the investors, which they will not get in the long term out of inflated share prices and inflated property prices. We applaud the opposition on this initiative, but we also applaud the minister and his work and we plead with him to address this problem, which I think is the greatest problem facing Australia today in our way forward.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr KJ Thomson ): The question is that the amendment be agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [11:31]
Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke
Third Reading
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (11:35): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (11:36): I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, which implements a number of amendments to support the introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports. It should be acknowledged that the introduction of body scanners at these airports is of concern to some Australians and this is understandable. When considering the implementation of this new technology at our international airports, the community will need to be assured that the scans are safe and that their privacy is absolutely protected. Legitimate concerns have also been raised about the level of inconvenience and delays travellers will face at airports and the value that body scanners will add to our overall national security regime.
As Minister Albanese outlined in his second reading speech, the government determined to implement body scanners at Australian international airports after an incident on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009. A passenger on Northwest flight 253 attempted to detonate an improvised explosive device as the flight descended into Detroit airport. The man had successfully concealed an improvised explosive device in his underwear through security screening in Amsterdam and Yemen. The bomb contained no metallic parts and was made from two highly explosive substances. The man was able to walk through a metal detector without causing any alarm to sound. Thankfully in this instance the passenger was not successful. He was detained, and last year pleaded guilty in a US court. The thwarting of a bomb plot using an explosive device similar to that used in Detroit in 2009 by US officials earlier this year indicates that the use of non-metallic explosives is a current threat.
It is understandable that the community would have reservations about the introduction of this new technology at Australian international airports. The coalition referred the bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications to obtain assurances that appropriate health and safety privacy standards are met and that the machines are effective and add to our national security framework. The committee has recommended that the bill be passed. A Senate committee inquiry report has been twice delayed but is expected later this month. The coalition would have preferred this debate to be held after the Senate report was tabled. It is possible that the Senate may propose some amendments to the bill.
This is an ongoing issue which I need to raise on almost every bill that comes before this parliament. The committee processes are truncated, there is no opportunity for committees to effectively look at the issues and frequently a bill is brought on for debate in the parliament before the committees have even reported on it. In this case, the House of Representatives committee has reported but the Senate committee, which has been dealing with some other issues, has not reported. So the House has its only opportunity to deal with this bill before the Senate committee of inquiry has been completed. This has been happening too often particularly in the transport portfolio, but I know it has been happening in other places as well. If the government needs to have this legislation passed by a particular date, do not rush it in at the last moment and expect the whole parliament to blindly debate it without having had any proper scrutiny.
The member for Lyne has made much of the need to improve parliamentary scrutiny and to have a committee system that looks more effectively at the bills. The reality is that the committee system is working worse now than at any other time that I can remember in parliament. The government uses its numbers to push these debates through and get bills to the stage where they come into the parliament even though there may be significant issues that have not been properly resolved. I think that is unsatisfactory process.
Having been critical of the way in which the government manages the legislation in that regard, can I thank the minister for taking up the suggestion I made that the scanners be brought into parliament so people could actually see for themselves how they work. I think that was a useful exercise and I know a number of members did take the opportunity to put themselves through the scanner to see how it worked.
Mr Crean: Did you do it?
Mr TRUSS: Yes, I did, and I notice that all of us are still alive. To our knowledge, it certainly did not have any adverse effect on those who were involved. The health impacts are one of the issues that are being raised quite extensively in the community. I have certainly been made aware—and I am sure other members will have been as well—of people in the public who have concerns about the health impact of these scanners. Employees at airports who may have to use the scanners many times a day, international business and leisure travellers, and airline employees as well as the operators of the machines need to be assured that they are safe.
There are two primary methods of body scanning technology: millimetre wave and backscatter technology. They operate differently. The millimetre waves are a part of the radiofrequency spectrum which is used by a number of different devices such as mobile phones and wireless devices. Backscatter technology is an advanced form of X-ray imaging technology. The government has determined to implement millimetre wave technology. I am advised that the power density exposure for a person undertaking a scan is thousands of times lower than that of a single mobile phone call and is comparable to the passive exposure from a mobile phone used several metres away. The US Transport Security Administration has stated that the technology emits 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone call. The exposure is also much lower than that which passengers routinely experience during a flight. I think this is a particularly important point. Anyone worried about these body scanners should not be flying as they will be exposed to more waves on board the aircraft than they will experience passing through these scanners.
The millimetre wave scans are within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. The waves emitted by the scan are directed inwards so the exposure of security staff who operate the machines is considered insignificant. The coalition has been assured by the government and the Office of Transport Security that the machines are safe. It should also be noted that active implanted medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators are designed to meet a series of standards which require the devices to be protected from interference by mobile phones and other similar devices. The power levels for the scanners are lower than many of these other sources, including mobile phones, and as such there are no known safety concerns in relation to people with these devices undergoing the scan. Additionally, unlike walk-through metal detectors, people with internal metal implants, such as false hips and pacemakers, will be undetected by the machines and this will address the inconvenience these passengers regularly experience when travelling.
The Office of Transport Security has advised that a person with any illness, injury or disability that would prevent them raising their hands above their heads and standing still will be screened using alternative methods, as will infants and small children.
Perhaps the most prevalent concern in the community about the new scanners relates to personal privacy. It is important in this respect to note that section 44(3)(3B) of the bill states that any image produced by a body scanner:
... must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attribute of that person are revealed.
As I mentioned by way of response to the interjection from the minister at the table, early this year I undertook a scan in one of the machines that this bill will allow to be introduced at international airports. I can vouch for the fact that the image it produces is indeed a generic outline with a yellow box highlighting the area of your body which the machine detects as potentially having something concealed. Of course, there are examples of these kinds of screens available to members. Without wanting to offend the standing orders, Deputy Speaker Georganas, I think this picture gives a clear example that in fact there is nothing offensive about the image and that it is done in a way which should avoid public concern.
This is unlike some technology that has been used overseas, which saw graphic images of passengers produced, stored and transmitted. Not only must these machines produce a generic image but the machines are also unable to transmit or store images. I understand that as a result of the committee inquiry the government intends to propose an amendment to the bill to ensure that any technology that may be implemented in the future also cannot store or transmit images. This will further protect the privacy of Australians.
In introducing body scanners at our international airports, the bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act, which currently allows a person to choose an alternative screening method over a selected screening procedure. This means that, where a person is randomly selected to undertake a body scanner, they may not choose an alternative method of screening such as a frisk search. If a person refuses a scan they will be unable to pass through the screening point and will not be able to fly. This is a pretty drastic action and the fact that there is no alternative available means that people are going to have to make up their minds whether they are prepared to be scanned and if they are not prepared to be scanned then they simply will not be able to travel on that flight. I understand that this is the same approach that is adopted in the United Kingdom, though not in the US and some other countries.
The department has advised that this decision has been made primarily because the scanner is designed to detect items that are by their nature difficult or impossible to detect by other means. The only alternative to the body scanner which may achieve the same security outcome would be an extensive and invasive frisk search. It is the Commonwealth's belief that this would not meet Australian security standards. But I think also that it is reasonable to comment that those undergoing the frisk search may well find it more offensive, more intrusive than going through the scanner.
Additionally, the department has advised that the significant investment they have made in the new technology will only be justified by having a compulsory scheme. I have to say that I think that is something of a weak argument. It simply raises the question: why make the investment at all if it cannot stand on its merits? Finally, the department believes that the type of technology to be implemented in Australia mitigates the privacy and health concerns to such an extent that the optional system is not required.
As I have mentioned earlier, there is no evidence—and it is almost difficult to conceive that there could be any evidence—that going through this scanner is damaging. The concerns about privacy it seems to me have been strongly addressed through the use of the type of technology that is proposed in Australia. So the department's observation that this technology is such that it mitigates the privacy and health concerns to such an extent that an optional system is not required is a reasonable argument.
The fact that children and those who cannot raise their arms above their head will not be required to go through the scanners creates, however, some significant holes in the security net. The scanners will only add incrementally to aviation safety. Only a handful of countries are actually using this technology. Indeed, it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the few countries that does use scanners is the Netherlands, yet the Northwest Airlines flight which carried the passenger that has been the reason for this legislation coming into the parliament actually went through the security in Amsterdam. That demonstrates that this system, like all the other systems of security, at least to some extent, is not entirely foolproof.
The only total solution is to stamp out terrorism and suppress any ideology which compels people to carry out attacks on civilian travellers. That involves a determination to win the war on terror and strike at the heart of those of ill will towards our country. Evidence of a lack of commitment to stamping out terrorism or exhaustion in the fight will encourage more evil behaviour. We must work to encourage better understanding in our community and a universal commitment to renounce terrorism and attacks on innocent travellers. Scanners can help identify those of ill intent, but only a complete global end to terrorism can make us completely safe.
Finally, I would like to make some comments on the efficacy of the machines. The trial at the Sydney and Melbourne international airports last year saw 23,577 scans undertaken over approximately three weeks. An analysis of the trial indicated that 57 per cent of passengers were able to proceed immediately through the screening point. This represents a much higher alarm rate than walk-through metal detectors. The Office of Transport Security has advised that this higher than usual alarm rate was caused by passengers not being clear on what items they had to divest themselves of prior to scanning. According to the analysis conducted after the trial, alarms were commonly caused by high boots with buckles, currency, hair clips, watches, jewellery, pockets on cargo pants, and additional zips and studs on jeans and pants. As awareness increases as to what items are required to be removed prior to a scan, the proportion of alarms from these sorts of items should decline.
It will take some time for people to realise that the kinds of things that are likely to be picked up in a scanner are different from those picked up through conventional metal detectors. Bear in mind, this scanner does not work on detecting metal or some other kind of material; it works on comparing images with standard profiles within the computer technology. So it is a different kind of system, and different kinds of things will trigger it. That is what makes it obviously worthwhile—it is able to detect some things that cannot be detected by current technology. It should also be noted, however, that the alarm resolution is much quicker than with a walk-through metal detector, as the general location of the article that caused the alarm is identified by the scanners.
These new machines are costly and, like all the additions we have had to security in this country, will add to the cost of boarding aircraft in this country. The government is providing up to $28.5 million to help with the capital cost, but airports will be responsible for the ongoing operational costs, which will add further to the cost of air travel around Australia.
We have just been listening in the Senate estimates to some of the impacts on passengers of the costs of the recent round of security measures in regional airports which are coming online and expected to be operational by 1 July. These measures, which will have absolutely minimal effect on improving the security at our airports, are going to add very substantially to the cost of passengers boarding, particularly in small regional airports with relatively small throughput.
The machinery in itself is expensive, but operating the machinery will be an ongoing permanent cost. The department has admitted in estimates today that costs of up to $50 per passenger will result from these new government regulations, which are effectively imposing a new level of security in regional airports that is difficult to justify. Indeed, I think the $50 figure is conservative, and—when you have the situation where you are going to have to put teams of staff on to check luggage and passengers, sometimes with only one flight every day or two, and with the minimum wages that will have to be paid—the costs will be very substantial. Unless concessions are made or sensible ways found to deliver this level of security, the cost will amount to hundreds of dollars per passenger and not just $20, $30 or $50.
It is also worth noting that the recent federal budget has provided further cost impositions on Australian aviation, and they are just making it so much harder for our tourist industries to be competitive. There is the budget increase in the passenger movement charge, taking it to $55 per passenger from 1 July 2012. The budget has also announced that that charge is going to be indexed annually thereafter. The increase is going to see the government raise an extra $610 million over four years—at the expense of our struggling tourism industry. And by 2015-16 the passenger movement charge alone will collect over $1 billion. This departure tax was originally designed as a cost recovery measure for border services, but now it is just a new tax—a new tax that the government is imposing on our tourism industry and at a time when it is struggling to be competitive internationally.
In addition, the government is now going to charge airports for the cost of AFP officers being present on their site. This is a part of the security regime that people just take for granted: we do not expect to pay our local policeman when he patrols our street. But now when the Australian Federal Police do their job at the airport a bill is going to be sent to the airport operator. The impact of that is clearly going to be, again, higher airport user charges because the airports have got to recover these costs, and inevitably, therefore, yet another cost is going to be imposed on our airport users. It will be a $40-million-a-year charge on airports to partly recover airport policing costs.
At the same time as the government has cut funding to customs and the budget for passenger processing at airports, it has put up the charges. Indeed, one of the distressing things about this legislation is that it demonstrates the government's double standards: more machinery, more scanning equipment et cetera, but, at the same time, in almost every budget it has cut expenditure for customs and quarantine, reduced the numbers of inspections of cargo and reduced the numbers of passengers whose luggage is being inspected at the airports. This is adopting a very slack approach towards security at our airports. Instead, the government is going to impose new charges—a much higher passenger movement charge, and now these extra scanners which will add to the cost of the system—while, at the same time, turning its back on customs and quarantine inspections. If all of this is not bad enough, we have got the carbon tax also adding to the cost of travel in our country. These measures are on top of the carbon tax, which will cost Qantas at least $110 million in 2012-13 and will add $45 million to Virgin Australia's costs. Australia is becoming an unattractive place to visit because of the cost being imposed upon it by the taxes that this government invents. The carbon tax is clearly going to be the worst of them all.
These machines, for which this legislation will provide authorisation, are a further intrusion into our lifestyle. They will slow down passenger movements at international airports and they will test our patience. They are not perfect and trigger many false alarms. I wish they were not necessary. But the coalition notes the advice of the Office of Transport Security and the government that these machines are necessary to improve our national security framework. No responsible government or opposition can fail to heed such professional advice on a matter of security. The coalition is assured that the Commonwealth has taken all possible steps to ensure that the machines are safe and that the privacy of Australians will be upheld. For these reasons the coalition will not be opposing the bill and, in doing so, will not oppose the introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports.
Mr MITCHELL (McEwen) (12:01): It is always a pleasure to follow the shadow minister for transport in one of the rare moments when he is up there talking about transport issues. I thought it was a pretty good speech until we got to the 16 minute mark and it just fell down very quickly from there. Trying to blame the carbon tax is just absolutely ridiculous. It is ridiculous coming from the leader of a party that is shutting country TAFEs in Victoria—he is shutting country kids out of education and he sits there and smiles. I guess that says a lot about them.
I am very pleased to be speaking on the Gillard government's Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 because the Labor government understands the vital importance of maintaining safe and secure methods of travel and the risks posed with international flights—risks posed by the more sophisticated and elaborate ways in which unseemly characters are trying to stop Australian travellers from enjoying the freedoms of air travel. The minister reminded us in his second reading speech:
On 25 December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit.
This would-be bomber successfully smuggled a viable improvised explosive device through aviation security screening and onto the aircraft without being detected.
The device, which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear, contained no metallic components and was therefore able to be carried through a walk-through metal detector without triggering any alarm.
This event highlighted a significant vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including in Australia.
Body scanners will be introduced at international departure and transit points in Australian airports later this year. I think that is a very telling thing. When Australians get on aeroplanes they want to know they are safe. What that tells us is that these unsavoury characters are using more sophisticated and elaborate ways with which to inflict harm on the innocent lives of people who are quietly going about their business and using air travel. That is why protecting Australians against the threat of any kind of violence, including terrorism, is an imperative for this government, particularly when examining the security methods of aviation transport, as the bad guys find new and more dangerous ways of practicing their trade.
The bill will ensure that Australian airport security is strengthened, with minimal impact or delay to passengers and, really, the impact will be small and become the new normal for the thousands of travellers who will use this technology in the years to come. I am proud to be part of a government that has introduced this bill—a bill that protects Australian travellers from harm and does so in a non-intrusive and safe way. The fact is we are not introducing the same scanners as used in the US and Europe. The concerns stemming from the American and European models cannot be accurately transferred to the Australian model. Comparing these new scanners to the American and European models is like comparing apples to oranges, and it is contributing to a growing scare campaign as part of the ugly exploitation of the fears of Australian travellers by those opposite. We on this side of the House are choosing to sift through the nonsense, to take the facts and to leave out the scaremongering and the mistruths.
Our policies are based on what is real and relevant to Australians. That is why we have taken heed of the concerns about the backscatter scanners used in America and have chosen not to use them here. We understand that there is a difference, and that millimetre wave technology is the safe body scanning alternative. The Gillard government recognises Australians have legitimate concerns for their health—that is important and is why the government has acted accordingly.
We are not introducing the backscatter scanners to Australian airports; we are instead introducing body scanners that use millimetre wave technology, because emissions from these scanners are negligible. You would actually receive more radio frequency energy as you go about your everyday life. Whereas a single backscatter X-ray emits the equivalent of two minutes in an aeroplane, the millimetre wave scanners we are introducing use ten thousand times less radio frequency energy than your average mobile phone call. That is like standing in the kitchen while someone is using a mobile in the lounge room at home. There are no conclusive studies to suggest that there is any health risk posed by the millimetre wave scanners that will be introduced to Australian airports; the studies dispel the misconception that millimetre wave technology is somehow bad for Australians. I am proud to be part of a government that is delivering a safe and harmless method of protecting our aviation industry, protecting Australian travellers and protecting Australian jobs.
It is important to note that scans taken by these machines will not be intrusive or breach the privacy of our citizens. The government understands every person likes their right to privacy, and for this reason privacy enhancements to the scanners will be made mandatory in Australia. There have been instances in the US where we have seen genuine concerns for the so-called 'pornographic pictures' taken and stored by body scanners, but we are not using the American model. The privacy enhancements this government has made compulsory prevent any image from being stored, transmitted, displayed or even created. No-one travelling through Australia's international airports will ever have to worry whether their image could be displayed on some sort of body scanner dotcom website or something. The protection is there that no image is created in the first place.
This bill will ensure that the closest thing to raw images that will come from these scanners will be some sort of resemblance to the kids' character Gumby. The picture of the head might be a little bit more symmetrical—like the little green animation figure—but the images that come from body scanners will be humanoid, and rightly so. That is about as far as it goes. These are generic human shapes, unidentifiable, non-specific, genderless stick figures, which are used to highlight areas of concern. The purpose of these stick figures is to highlight areas of a person which warrant further investigation by highly trained security staff—inspections which could save the lives of passengers and crews on international flights. Security will be able to go directly to the point of concern and immediately clarify any concerns.
We understand that airport security can sometimes appear cumbersome. I am sure we have all queued up in those lines at the airport to put our bags through the scanners, and waited and waited and waited as big long queues form because someone has left a deodorant in their bag. But that is what we have to deal with. Standing in front of the metal detectors with your arms out can also be very slow and awkward. The process of body scanners will help ease that strain, with a direct approach to security points of interest.
The bill will ensure that, whilst the safety of Australians is protected, the effects of the security processes do not heavily impinge on the every-day commuter's trips. Technology is changing and it is vital that our security systems change with it. Too often we hear 'back in my day'. Nostalgia may be comforting when we remember those days, when Pluto was a planet and the daily paper was about 20c but that sepia-tone haze cannot protect us any more from the evolving technology of those who wish to do us harm. Yes, there was a time when we did not have these body scanners, but there was also a time when we did not need them.
That time is the past, and it does not do well to dwell on it. We must learn from the past and we must not remain in it. When we see a hole in the system, when technology has evolved that can be a threat to our safety, we must act. When the bad guys see an opening, we have to block it. The Gillard government understands that metal detectors alone are no longer enough. We have seen in recent years how terrorism is evolving and we need to ensure that our bases are covered. Metal detectors will not be replaced by body scanners and will still be used by airlines. However, it is important that our aviation industry is also protected against alternatives to metallic methods of terrorism.
Those such as the 'shoe bomber' and, more recently, the 'underwear bomber' have already successfully bypassed current security systems. It was only three Christmases ago that the underwear bomber was able to smuggle plastic explosives on board an international flight. That person was able to successfully pass through security checkpoints onto the plane, smuggling non-metallic explosives in their underwear. Thankfully, the explosives failed. But it would be irresponsible for us to let this happen again. Labor' response to this failed attack was very swift. Body scanners are just another way in which we continue to enhance Australia's aviation security.
These body scanners will prevent terrorists like the underwear bomber from making it onto that plane. The government is making it clear that those who think they can get through Australia's security are wrong and will be caught. It is also for this reason the bill will deliver a no-opt-out policy. This means passengers must go through whichever primary screening procedure is used at that e airport, with the exception of those who have a serious physical or mental reason to use an alternative. No screen: no fly. Being able to opt out for an alternative method means being able to choose which security procedure may best be exploited. The Gillard Labor government is removing the gaming from aviation security. If a person will not undergo the nominated screening process, they cannot choose which alternative best suits them and they cannot fly. It is vital that we do all that is possible to prevent those who intend to do us harm from getting the upper hand.
Here on this side of the House we say 'yes' to protecting Australians' right to privacy, to be healthy and safe from threats of harm by extremists. I am proud to say that the Gillard Labor government is delivering on this goal.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (12:12): I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 and to support this bill, but I do so with some reservations about this government's policies and the effect they are having on the tourism and aviation industry. This bill seeks to introduce body scanners at international airports and remove section 95A opt-out provisions that allow a person to choose a frisk search rather than being scanned. We support that entirely.
We all want to be secure when we travel. On its own it would be hard to quibble with the notion that Australians be afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. Neither would the coalition argue with the aspiration for new security technology, such as body scanners, to be used in such a way that give travellers the greatest protection with the minimal inconvenience.
The need for greater security was brought home to us back in 2009 when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. What was unique about this man was that, unbeknown to security officials, he had a 15-centimetre explosive device sewn into his underwear. The device was not detectable, despite the stringent security measures in place—as anyone who has travelled to the United States can testify—as it did not contain metallic elements. Had the so-called underwear bomber been successful, 290 people would have perished in the air—not to mention the collateral damage on the ground.
The coalition welcomed the government's announcement of a package of measures in February 2010 to ensure a similar incident does not occur here in Australia. We believe it is important to follow the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the Netherlands in introducing body scanner technology. We will therefore not oppose the repeal of section 95A, particularly as body scanners were successful in thwarting a device similar to that worn by the underwear bomber in the US last month.
Now that there has been a voluntary trial, where some 20,000 scans were undertaken at Sydney and Melbourne international airports in August and September last year, we see no reason to delay their use any further. Putting the requisite safeguards in place, where body-scanning equipment is used—that the image must be gender neutral and non-identifiable—is extremely important, as is the provision that machines not be able to store or transmit any information or data. With the power density exposure for a person undergoing a scan less than a thousand times that which emanates from a mobile phone, according to the USA Transport Security Administration, any health concerns in this regard would appear to be slight. This brings me to some reservations I have as the shadow minister for tourism and regional development. Our tourism industry contributes $73.3 billion share to Australia's GDP, and along with the hospitality sector provides almost one million Australians with employment. As I have said in many forums, the industry has been doing it very tough in recent years due to a number of factors. These include: the anaemic growth in many of our largest markets for inbound visitors, exacerbated by our strong dollar; competition from new and highly-competitive destinations in our region; the impact of natural disasters such as the Victorian floods, Western Australian bushfires and Cyclone Yasi; and, of course, short-sighted, ill-conceived and economically counterproductive policies introduced by this government.
The latter has been responsible for Australia falling in the World Economic Forum's Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index from fourth in 2008 to 13th last year. The coalition is determined to ensure the industry's global competitiveness. With the phenomenal growth in China, which has seen Chinese visitors surpass those from the United States to become our third-largest market for international visitors, and the growth from other Asian markets, we are excited by the further prospects our Asian neighbours can generate for Australian tourism.
However, for that to occur it is important for Australia to make a good first impression. The government therefore needs to understand that there are no second chances at first impressions, and must ensure that measures in this bill are administered with the least inconvenience to the travelling public. Although we want our nation to continue to be seen as a very safe destination to travel to, there must be a recognition that airports are usually the first experience many of our international guests have of Australia, and the last impression they have of us when they depart. It is important that their experience of travelling from our airports is not perceived as an unpleasant one due to unnecessarily overzealous, inefficient or unfriendly security measures.
I must say that previous experience of this government's policy does not provide me with a lot of confidence. For only in the last budget this Labor government has cut the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service funding as part of its forward estimates, and cut its capital expenditure by $19.5 million during the same period. This leaves open the real likelihood that despite more international arrivals there will be fewer officers and services to process them, leading to lengthier queues and longer waiting times.
After the dramatic failures of their border protection policies at sea, it is strange that this government thinks it is a good idea now to make cuts at airports: impressions, impressions. Not only will queues lengthen due to Customs and Border Protection cuts but our international guests will now only be able to bring in two packets of their favourite smokes. On the face of it, this may seem a very minor hindrance. However, what the government has not considered is that this will require a wholesale printing of landing cards which currently state that you can bring in a carton. I can just see an elderly Chinese couple arriving on QF130 from Shanghai at 8.30 in the morning. Despite the hospitable service of our national carrier, they are tired after an 11-hour flight and wearily they disembark the aircraft with a carton of 'Double Happiness' ciggies for a friend who had specially requested them. They join the lengthening queues at Sydney Airport to be processed by a reduced number of customs officers who now have to spend additional time charging duty or confiscating cartons from passengers. As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker: impressions, impressions.
In any case what plans has the government to put in place to update international duty-free schedules around the world? What monies have they set aside to let our international visitors know of these changes? When in the next month is it going to happen, and where is the estimated $10 million cost of an emergency reprint going to come from? It certainly will not come from any surplus revenue the government is expecting because, as Steven Clarke from the Australian Duty Free Association highlighted in his media release last week, the government has seriously overestimated its receipts from this policy.
Tourism is a price-point sensitive product in what is an increasingly competitive global marketplace. But this government has not only increased the likelihood of waiting times at our airports; it has made it more expensive for visitors to arrive in this country. From its 45 per cent hike in the passenger movement charge since 2008, with a 17 per cent increase in the recent budget alone, and increases in visa fees, tourism has simply been a cash cow to plunder for this government. Despite employing more people than those working at the country's federal and state governments and the private agricultural, finance and insurance sectors, tourism was seen as less deserving than the Australian steel workers. They received $300 million in carbon tax assistance, but the tourism sector did not receive a cent—not one cent in direct industry-specific assistance.
Australia is one of the most, if not the most, urbanised nations on earth. Of our nearly 23 million people, 80 per cent live in three per cent of land mass and in just six cities. This fact, coupled with our relatively small population, creates a range of policy challenges for policymakers and regulators. There is the age-old problem of communications: we all expect first-world services when we are as a people early adopters of technology, including smooth and clear phone calls. Yet the costs of these services spread over few people means that as individuals we pay dearly for them.
Although an urban people, we identify strongly with rural, regional and remote areas and their populations. While many of our regional locations in Western Australia and Queensland are doing well out of the mining boom with increased economic activity and air services, I also want to bring to the attention of the House the significant challenges facing many other regional, remote and rural places that have not been so fortunate. They have not been helped by the significant cost imposts imposed by this government. When the Wheeler review—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! Can I remind the member that we are debating the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill, and that you are skirting over the borders of that debate? I ask the member to come back to the bill.
Mr BALDWIN: As I was saying, when the Wheeler review of airport security and policing was released in 2005, it called for security costs at airports to be shared by governments, industry and the general public. It also stated:
It is neither practical nor desirable to expect 100 per cent security at regional airports. The sheer diversity of Australia’s regional airports makes the challenge of common standards of security an impossibility. Any protective security enhancements should be undertaken in accordance with a local threat and risk assessment and not instituted on the basis of what is sometimes media-driven scaremongering.
I am concerned that there are a handful of our smaller remote airports that may not meet the deadline imposed by this government to be security-screening compliant. I hope that we show them some flexibility and afford them some latitude in meeting this challenge. We want to aid rural areas by encouraging tourists, particularly international tourists visiting the outback, yet we face the same cost challenges in making this affordable. Similarly, we want our population to be distributed and remote Australia to have the same access to services that urban Australians enjoy. We have been innovative in dealing with these challenges. For example, the School of the Air and the Royal Flying Doctor Service are ways for remote Australians to receive decent education services and life-saving health services. The wonderful thing about technology is that it creates solutions to the tyranny of distance.
From listening to regional airline operators at the RAAA Summit held in Parliament House on 19 March this year, however, it is clear that they are facing a disproportionate economic challenge. From 1 July this year, regional carriers are facing what the Australian newspaper called a 'triple whammy' of imposts from the Gillard government. After the carbon tax, the second of these imposts will be the costs of the new fees they will be charged to cover these new airport security measures. If this was not enough, they are also facing the loss of the $6 million en-route subsidy scheme. Brindabella's Jeff Boyd has said that all these imposts will do is increase the costs of an air ticket because the companies have already introduced all of the environmental cost-saving measures they possibly can and new, more fuel-efficient aircraft are not currently available. The 'triple whammy' will therefore simply have the effect of reducing regional aviation's competitiveness against the automobile in what is also a price-point-sensitive market. New fees to cover airport security could lead to a $12 to $20 levy per passenger on Brindabella to cover the $4 million cost that Tamworth Regional Council may impose for building new baggage-screening facilities. Factor in the loss of the en-route subsidy scheme and the airline's recruitment levy to sponsor new pilots from South Africa, and flying begins to look much less attractive to travellers. It will not be long before demand is affected by the growing cost of a ticket, putting regional aviation businesses and employees' jobs at risk.
Regional, rural and remote areas are often heavily dependent on their regional air links for visitation, access to services only available in the cities, and tourism and economic development. Without such links these areas could be left condemned to isolation and economic stagnation. In 1997 there were 54 regional carriers operating 237 regional routes, and today I believe that figure is less than 20, flying around 125 routes.
As I said in my address to the RAAA summit, four European and two Australian carriers have gone out of business in the past six months, so we can see the effects that these cost pressures can result in, particularly at a time when the global industry as a whole is struggling with falling patronage and rising fuel costs. The costs of greater security being passed on to airports and ultimately airlines should therefore be carefully monitored and regularly reviewed.
The carbon tax will also make Australia a more expensive destination to visit, with tourism businesses being affected as disproportionately high energy users. The increased cost will not be felt just by international visitors but also by Australians wishing to holiday at home. It was Qantas's CEO, Alan Joyce, who told a Senate committee that his company estimated the cost would be as high as $115 million in the first 12 months. Virgin Australia has said their equivalent will be $45 million. Qantas said that $6.80 will be added to the cost of a flight from Perth to Sydney, and Virgin said that it will charge an average of $3 per flight to cover this Gillard tax impost. Is it any wonder, then, that there is a growing tourism trade deficit which the Transport and Tourism Forum expects to reach around $8 billion in the next financial year?
In conclusion, whilst the coalition welcomes measures that make it safer for people to travel to, from and within our country, the government should see this in the wider context of making Australia a more competitive destination to visit. Both the tourism industry and regional Australia deserve better from this government, a government that has made our nation more expensive to visit and which has been quick to take from the tourism sector, giving very little in return.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:26): The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 is about safety and confidence, without which we would not have an aviation industry and consequently we would not have a tourism industry in this island nation, because aviation lies at the heart of our economic activity as an island nation. The aviation industry underpins our economic growth and provides a gateway to the wider global economy. The sector directly employs around 50,000 people, and a further half a million people indirectly. It contributes around $7 billion to our gross national product. Australian aviation, despite the protestations that the sky is falling in, has seen solid growth for the ninth year in a row, a fact that has obviously escaped the member for Paterson in his Chicken Little deliverance on this legislation. When I listen to the member for Paterson, I am reminded of the parliamentary cliche that never are so many angry words said as in the course of agreement.
The aviation industry is seeing solid growth, and it has for the last nine years, with domestic and international flights continuing to increase, carrying record numbers of passengers in 2010-11—and it is forecast that that growth will increase into the future. The latest Avline report for 2010-11 shows that the number of people flying internationally to and from Australia continued to grow—27.6 million, up seven per cent—along with the number of people flying domestically, up six per cent to 54 million passenger flights per year. In 2030 there will be more than twice the current number of passengers travelling through our capital city airports, increasing from around 100 million passengers today to almost 235 million passengers by 2030—a fact that I will return to in my concluding statements. Right now investment in airports is forecast to be around $9 billion over the next decade, to 2021. Despite the intensely competitive nature of the aviation business and the challenges posed by the high Australian dollar, Australia's aviation sector is strong and its outlook is bright. This does not mean there are not policy challenges to deal with in this sector. In December 2009, the Australian government released an aviation white paper entitled Flight path to the future. This long-term strategy reaffirmed safety and security as the No. 1 priority for aviation. Australia has a world-class security regime but we remain vigilant to new and emerging threats. The member for Paterson recently talked about the underpants bomber and the events that have led to us commissioning the report which led to the technology and the legislation which is before the House today.
The Australian government has an obligation to all air travellers to ensure that every effort has been made to make their journey as safe as possible. Indeed, following the release of the aviation white paper, the Australian government released a $200 million aviation security package which recognised the importance of cooperation both within the Asia-Pacific region and globally.
The legislation, as I said, is about the confidence of the travelling public in the aviation industry, and body scanners are one of the technologies that are critical to providing safety and therefore confidence by the travelling public. As part of this government's investment in aviation security, we are investing in new and improved technologies, increased policing at airports and strengthened security procedures. The introduction of body scanners is one of these important measures.
Body scanners will be in place in international airports by 1 July this year. Due to the widely publicised health and safety concerns surrounding the use of backscatter X-ray body scanners overseas, only body scanners that use millimetre wave technology will be deployed at Australian airports. I make this point because there have been some comments made publicly about the health concerns raised in relation to body scanner technology. We did a parliamentary inquiry into and heard evidence on this—both expert evidence and evidence from concerned members of the public. The upshot of that inquiry is that we are confident that there are no known adverse health effects associated with the use of the adopted technology, the wave body scanners, that will be installed in our airports. As an example, one body scan emits around 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than a person could be expected to absorb during the length of an average mobile phone call. I am confident, as every member of this House should be confident, that these body scanners will present no health threat to the travelling public.
One of the things that is different, and will be made possible by this legislation, is that we will no longer have an opt-out arrangement. Currently there is the capacity for passengers to opt out of using the body scan and therefore having further and, dare I say, more invasive forms of screening accompanying their trip. But, as a result of this bill, when passed into law, there will be a no-opt-out policy. The no-opt-out policy prevents a person from refusing to undertake a body scan—or indeed any other form of primary security screening—in favour of undergoing some alternative screening procedure. This will prevent 'gaming' of the system—for example, a person having the ability to select the type of technology that they will be screened by. This has both efficiency implications and security implications.
If a person refuses to undergo a screening procedure, they will be refused clearance and prevented from boarding an aeroplane. It is important to note that allowances will be made where there is a physical or medical reason that would prevent screening by a certain screening technology. These exist at the moment—for example, a person in a wheelchair or a person unable to hold the required positioning in the body scanner will be screened by alternative methods suitable for their circumstances.
In the course of community consultation, privacy issues have been raised. I can assure the public that only body scanners with privacy enhancements will be used in Australia. These body scanners will only create and display a generic human or 'stick figure' image. For example, if I were to pass through one of the body scanners, the image that would be visible to the Customs staff or security staff would be exactly the same image as that which would appear on the screen if the member for Paterson were to pass through the screen. We are of considerably different stature but the image on the screen would be identical for those who are observing the screen as we pass through the screening technology. There will be no 'raw' or 'naked' images, and the various and wonderful different shapes that are presented at airports will not be presented on the screen, or displayed or transmitted by these scanners. Finally, on the issue of privacy, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner has been consulted on this technology and is comfortable with what is being proposed.
I would like to conclude with a couple of observations about the aviation industry. As I have said, this technology is critical to the future confidence of the travelling public. The entire white paper and the $200 million aviation security package are critical to aviation and therefore the tourism industry in this country. But there are other decisions that need to be made by governments at all levels. In March, both the federal and New South Wales governments received one of the most comprehensive independent studies ever done into Sydney's, and therefore Australia's, aviation needs. The 2012 the Joint study on aviation capacity for the Sydney region report shows that existing aviation infrastructure in Sydney will not cope with future aviation demand—which, as I have already said, is set to double over the next 20 years. It is clear that Sydney needs a second airport and it needs it sooner rather than later. All the body scanners in the world—indeed, all the permission to allow the travelling Chinese public to have a few extra packets of smokes in their duty-free luggage—will not overcome the fact that we need to expand our airport capacity in the Sydney region. Sydney airport is increasingly operating at capacity and its peak period is growing. Sydney's size and land transport problems mean that the airport cannot deal with the increases that are forecast. The need to act is clear. We need to act now by making a decision about the location of the second airport.
By the year 2035 the cost to GDP of turning away flights will be $6 billion per annum. This is something that will be condemned if we allow it to occur, because it is simply an issue about jobs and our economy. International experience shows that airports create 1,000 jobs for every one million passengers. Without action, growing congestion will hurt productivity as flights are turned away, and those that do arrive face longer and longer delays. We are already seeing the impact on one of Australia's aviation hubs, Sydney airport. Sydney Airport is of critical importance because four out of 10 flights nationally fly into and out of Sydney. Canberra—as much as we all love the place—is simply not an alternative.
I am pleased that the federal government is acting on this issue by doing a detailed investigation into the suitability of Wilton, including conducting preliminary economic, social and environmental impact studies. The development of an airport at Wilton, a area adjacent to the Illawarra and very close to my electorate of Throsby, would bring new infrastructure, economic development and, most importantly, jobs to my region. It is for this reason, notwithstanding the environmental and social concerns that have been expressed by some people—particularly in suburbs relatively more close to the Wilton area than mine—that I believe this is a critical project and one that should be supported by the people of the Illawarra.
The many constituents I have spoken to are excited about this project, and I hope to see it move ahead in the years to come. It is not something that is going to immediately turn the economic fortunes of the Illawarra around, but the approval of Wilton as a site for a second airport for the Sydney region would provide a future economic strategy for the region, which is much needed as we go through the economic restructuring which has been visited upon us by movements in the manufacturing sector, the high Australian dollar and the recent announcements by BlueScope Steel that it will be exiting the export steel market.
I am very buoyant about the future of the industry, and I am very buoyant about the capacity of our region to contribute to the future of the industry. As I said at the outset, safety and confidence are critical. The legislation before the House today, which is part of a broader $200 million aviation security package, is critical to that. I commend this legislation, and this industry that is critical to our country, to all members of the House.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:40): I rise today to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. When Prime Minister Rudd first announced a plan to introduce body scanners into Australian airports in response to the failed aeroplane terrorist attacks on Christmas Day 2009, I was immediately concerned that it might be an overstep into the personal liberty and dignity of Australians. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, almost 11 years ago, democracies across the world have had to weigh the consequences of liberty and safety against each other to find a balance such that we do our best to protect national security while respecting individual rights.
Fortunately, since September 11, our robust parliamentary democracy has ensured that these concerns have been considered, debated and negotiated to the finest detail. The concerns in relation to this bill are no exception to that tradition. The coalition supported the referral of this bill to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications in order to be absolutely sure that appropriate privacy and health standards are met and, more practically, that the machines are an effective addition to the national security framework for Australians.
During my participation in the committee process, many of the concerns I have just mentioned were assessed in detail, and I am now assured that these machines are a necessary step to enhance our national security framework. I would like to thank the 13 individuals and organisations who provided submissions to the committee, and of course I thank my colleagues who gave their time to the committee process. I note that the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee will provide further consideration and comment on this bill. I look forward to the tabling of the committee's report when the time comes.
This bill will implement four amendments to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. Firstly, the bill states that a person is assumed to have consented to any screening procedure unless otherwise expressly refused, with the exception of a frisk search. Secondly, it has provisions for dealing with people who are unable to pass through a screening point. Thirdly, and most importantly, it lists but does not limit the types of equipment which may be used for screening and also provides that any images produced using body-scanning equipment must be gender neutral and non-identifiable. Lastly, the bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act such that travellers are no longer able to opt for a frisk search vis-a-vis other types of screening procedures.
The technology we are talking about is called the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre wave body scanner—the same or similar technology used around the world, including in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The technology works in three stages. First, a beam of radio waves of a one- to two-second duration is transmitted to a person within the body scanner. Second, receiving antennae pick up the reflected energy and analyse it with software called 'automatic threat detection algorithm' that is contained within the unit. Third, if an anomaly occurs, such as those produced by items on the body or inside clothing, a generic human image is generated with a small box superimposed over the location of the anomaly.
One concern that was raised about this new technology is the potential health implications of the radio waves—a common community concern. I understand that the active millimetre wave scanners use what is called non-ionising radiation in the form of millimetre waves, very similar to the radio frequency radiation emitted by mobile phones. This non-ionising radiation produces less energy and fewer physiological effects than ionising radiation, according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. These waves are able to pass through clothing and organic material, meaning these appear to be transparent to the analysis machine.
The human eye can only respond to and see wavelengths within a very tight band. We cannot see radiation; we can only see its effects. Often, as the human condition dictates, what we cannot feel, touch, see or hear, we cannot understand, and often we fear what we cannot understand. Fortunately, with today's modern technology, scientists are able to experiment with millimetre waves and investigate their impact on humans. The technology in these body scanning machines means an individual is exposed to the radiation for less than one to two seconds, which is the equivalent of a very short mobile phone call, or the equivalent of passive exposure from a mobile phone used several metres away. It is always important to mitigate the risk of health implications when considering radiation-emitting technology and, in this case, it appears that such concerns have been addressed and that the body scanners do not pose a risk to the health of aeroplane travellers. Indeed, passengers are exposed to considerably more radiation just sitting on the aeroplane.
Many submissions address the privacy concerns that the body scanning process may create. As Civil Liberties Australia noted in their submission:
Australians are being given no choice about being forcibly subjected to the scanners, which is a complete denial of civil liberties …
… … …
… Australia must start to return … towards our traditional freedoms of movement, speech and assembly which existed before 9/11.
This is a view to which I am sympathetic. Politicians and governments of any country must always respect the fundamental importance of vigilance when looking at bills that impose restrictions on liberty. It is easy to resort to extremes. Of course, as some have suggested, if we give up our supposed liberty then the terrorists have won.
However, the privacy concerns that Civil Liberties Australia and others have raised do not address the particular details of this bill. What happens when someone undergoes security screening at an airport? As the explanatory memorandum notes in relation to proposed section 44, the ultimate image produced by the body scanner:
… must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attributes of that person are revealed.
Fortunately, as a result of the committee process, the government intends to propose an amendment which will ensure that any technology used cannot store or transmit images. This is a desirable outcome which will further protect the privacy of Australians. I have seen firsthand the types of images that this technology creates and, in fact, because this technology is able to pinpoint an anomaly to a specific part of the body, less intrusion into a person's privacy is required. This also means that cultural and religious concerns are protected, as religious items or clothing would not be required to be removed. Similarly, the selection of an individual would continue in line with the current explosives screening process—that is, someone would not be selected on the basis of their race, religion or gender, and selection would be undertaken on a purely random basis. As such, I would consider the process of going through one of the scanners to be no more onerous then going through a metal detector at the airport or putting your luggage through a scanner.
Furthermore, the bill will repeal 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act, which previously allowed a person to choose an alternative screening method. The bill proposes that when a person is randomly selected to undergo a full body scan, they may not opt out or choose an alternative method of screening, and, in the case that they refuse to be scanned, that they then may not pass through security. I am sure that the vast majority of Australians agree that they are willing to forgo one to two seconds of their time in order to protect the national security of this country.
However, I do not agree with the government's argument that because this new scanning technology is so expensive, the program must be made compulsory as a mechanism of inducing cost-effectiveness. That is an appalling line of reasoning—the exact same justification that this Labor government uses for the wasteful way they are rolling out the NBN. It is illogical to suggest that something is cost-effective because you are forcing someone to pay for it even if they do not want to do so. But we know that this government does not believe in logic or reason. However, given that the purpose of the full body scanners is to pick up items that are by their very nature difficult or impossible to detect by any other means, the only other alternative would be an extensive and extremely invasive body search. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport noted:
The only alternative method of screening that would provide a similar level of assurance to that of a body scanner is an enhanced full body frisk search.
Forcing people to go through an extensive frisk search would not be in line with community expectations and therefore an opt-out provision would be inappropriate in this case. Additionally, this screening process could be beneficial for people with disabilities and other medical conditions that would make a frisk search prohibitively intrusive. I understand the privacy concerns of many, but we must not ideologically dismiss out of hand something that, when examined in detail, is no more a deprivation of liberty than the current security process that many people go through, either at the airport or even as they enter their workplace.
The efficacy and consequent impact on passenger facilitation rates was also examined by the committee. Many submissions proposed that the body scanners would be incapable of detecting many types of possible threats. For example, the Australian Airline Pilots Association cited evidence from the United Kingdom that some types of powders, liquid or thin plastic would not show up as anomalies. Similarly, another submission proposed that the scanners would result in an excessive rate of high false positives which may be caused by certain types of footwear, a person's posture or other layers of clothing.
Fortunately, we can look at the evidence from trials conducted at Sydney and Melbourne airports last year, which saw almost 24,000 scans during a three-week period. The results from those trials indicated that 57 per cent of passengers were able to proceed immediately through security, which is a higher alarm rate than walk-through metal detectors. The trials will assist with the ultimate rollout of body scanners across Australia, as analysis conducted after the trials indicated that the higher alarm rate was caused by a lack of familiarity among passengers with the new process due to their not being aware of which items had to be removed before they undertook the scan. The resolution process itself, however, was found to be quicker than walk-through metal detectors, as the image produced indicates a specific position on the body part where the anomaly is located. The effects on passenger facilitation rates, which are similar to the effects caused by the current explosive-testing process, would, it seems, be minimal because the basis for selection is random and this is not likely to produce bottlenecks at security stations. Delays would be much more likely to be caused by screening for carry-on baggage—and, indeed, this is the case today. Every person has been through a metal detector and forgotten to take off watches, hairclips or jewellery. I expect that, as passengers become more familiar with the new process, passenger facilitation rates will improve.
There were many concerns in the community when this bill was introduced. Throughout the committee process we assessed many issues in reaching our conclusions on concerns about health, privacy, efficacy and passenger facilitation rates. I am satisfied that this bill weighs the considerations of liberty and safety and finds a balance which respects the individual rights of Australians while also protecting our national security.
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (12:53): Looking around the chamber, I see that there may be at least one or two members who, like me, recall being able to go to an airport for a domestic flight and buy a ticket over the counter and that and there was no need for identification, no screening and no bag X-ray and that you could simply walk on board the plane provided you had a seat allocation. It was a little bit more difficult on an international flight—you needed a passport, at least. In those days we did not even know about digitised imaging on passports. I hasten to say that I certainly do not include you among the one or two members I mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson.
Mr Chester: What a charmer!
Mr HAYES: I take the interjection! 9-11 changed our world a heck of a lot. It was a serious wake-up call about community safety. No government is going to be accused of being soft on terrorism on its watch; no government is going to wilfully create a window of opportunity for organised crime or terrorists. Since 9-11 things have never been the same, and they will never be the same. This is a tragedy. We all think we grew up in great times but things will never be as they were in the past—and, because of 9-11, they never will be the same. We will always be vigilant about the terrorist threat and we will always ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools, technology and support to combat the terrorist threat on behalf of our community.
Technologically, too, things will never be the same again. We have seen great advances in technology over the last few years. I am laughed at when I go to a maths class at a school these days and talk about how I was taught to use a slide rule and that we used log tables.
Mr Chester: Geoff used to use an abacus!
Mr HAYES: The member opposite is saying that the member for Bass used to use an abacus. He probably did use one in Geelong—but they are advancing too, I notice! The massive improvements in technology been great for the community. We all benefit from it—our productivity and economic advancement depend on it—but there are others who also benefit from advances in technology. Serious and organised crime has made a business out of it. We hear about people's identities being stolen, which we did not know about in the past. More importantly, we are seeing that people will exploit every window of opportunity they can to commit a crime or to terrorise—or to demonstrate that they have the capability to terrorise—our community.
We need to have equipment such as full body scanners to be able to combat these acts. This bill aims to ensure that the technology we give to the agencies which are charged with protecting our community is sufficient for them to do their job. I know that many think that what we propose to do with this bill is a serious violation of basic human rights and a gross invasion of privacy. People who say that are right: it is. Many things we do in this place very much limit the rights of members of our community but, hopefully, we do these things for very good reasons and for good purpose. When we do such things, we must balance them with the overall good of the community. I say this passes that overall for-good test, particularly when you think back to 2009—not all that long ago—when we heard of the Americans arresting the 'underpants bomber'. He had the idea that he could defeat the scanning technology by strapping an incendiary device to his underwear. Obviously a lot of advanced chemistry was involved and a whole host of other things went into planning, but this bloke's whole concept was to defeat the current technology of body scanning. He was successful in getting on board the aircraft, which flew from Amsterdam to Detroit. Fortunately, he was not so successful in properly detonating his device and the plane landed unharmed. Thankfully, he was taken into custody. He was certainly not repentant for his sins against the community. He made it very clear what he intended to do—to destroy the aircraft and everyone on board. That is a classic example of how those that wish to terrorise our community use advances in technology to defeat whatever technologies we have in place to combat these efforts. The world will never be the same in terms of the issue of terrorism, so we can never take our foot off the throat of those who would purport to harm our community.
About 2½ years ago, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—of which, I note, Madam Deputy Speaker Grierson, you are also a valued member—inquired into the security of ports and airports. You will recall that, during one of our inspections, we visited the airport in South Australia. Whilst it was not necessarily germane to what we were looking at at that time, they discussed the prospect of full-body scanners. At that stage the notion of what full-body scanners might do ranged from a full naked X-ray of a person through to what you could see under a person's underwear. A whole host of things were canvassed with the committee. But the advances that have been made in this technology mean that, with the scan, the figure is graphically shown as a stick figure. So it would not discriminate between the member for Lyons, being the fit and able person he is, and me, being a little bit more sedentary—the same stick figure would show for both of us. That at least gives me a little hope for the future! If something unusual was detected on the body, that would light up. If there was something on the hip, the scan would not show up as a firearm or a knife—that location would just be identified and lit up and security officers could then address that.
It is not invasive in terms of having naked pictures of people stored. In fact, this bill will ensure that the machinery, the technology, that is used has no capability of storing or transmitting any material or image. Therefore it is solely a piece of technology that will allow airport security to make the judgment as to whether to detain somebody for further examination on the basis of what is indicated on the image of the stick figure concerned. So, in terms of the argument about civil rights, I think all sides of the House can be assured that we have the balance right. We have arrived at a piece of technology that does not intrude on people's privacy; it is just able to scan the body to detect unusual objects associated with it.
The amendments contained in the bill will support the country adopting, if it is successful, the body scanner which is now being trialled both in Sydney and Melbourne. As I understand it, some 23,000 people have gone through that trial. By the way, they had one scanner here in Parliament House and a number of members participated in that trial, as well as, I understand, a couple of journalists. So people are now confident about the image issue, but I think that, more importantly, they see this as essential to ensure that Australian travellers are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. It actually brings Australia in line with countries such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, just to name some.
I know from my discussions with international law enforcement agencies that these technologies are now being widely looked at as being necessary to protect not only the citizenry of countries but people moving in and about their states. This will not be exclusive to the advanced countries I have just mentioned; it is something that will become more affordable for a wide range of countries. It will be implemented not simply because it is becoming synonymous with modern aviation but to protect the safety of the community. The bill will also ensure that technologies such as body scanners will be able to advance in the future. It will ensure that we will be able to upgrade, to acquire further image-processing technologies that may be seen in the future as essential to combat terrorism or those who would attempt to defeat the system.
The intention of this bill, apart from ensuring that we will have technology to protect the community, is to be ongoing, to ensure that we stay vigilant—that we do not say: 'This is the be-all and end-all. We've got to have it and that's it.' It does at least acknowledge that at the moment this is the best technology available. Down the track, the issue is going to have to be revisited, depending on how technology develops and if this system is likely to be defeated.
The bill is consistent with all elements of human rights. It provides a greater measure to strengthen Australia's aviation security. I think that the limitations, where it could be seen to limit an individual's freedom or to offend issues of privacy, are well outweighed by the intention of this bill—that is, to protect the community.
I support the bill and commend it to the House.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:07): I rise to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. The purpose of the bill is to implement a number of amendments that are to complement the introduction of body scanners in Australia's international airports. Since 11 September 2001, aviation authorities around the world have increased security measures to ensure passengers, crew and the general public are kept safe. Passengers and crew safety is paramount when regulating and administrating an aviation system, especially in a vast nation such as ours where a trip from one side of the country to the other by car can take several days compared to a few hours by plane.
Further, larger numbers of aircraft are flying around Australia than ever before. For the year ending June 2011 domestic airlines flew over 610,000 flights, which was up 6.5 per cent from the previous year, and international airlines flew over 150,000 flights during that period. If the increase in aircraft movements is not enough of an indication of the expansion of our aviation industry, the increase in passenger numbers most certainly is. Around 54.75 million passengers flew on Australian domestic airlines during the year ending June 2011, which was up 5.8 per cent from the year before. In the same year, there were 27.55 million passengers on international airlines, which was an increase of 7.5 per cent from 2010.
In my electorate of McPherson on the Gold Coast, the Gold Coast Airport saw passenger numbers rising to 5.17 million in 2009-10, representing an overall compound average growth rate of 9.6 per cent. According to the Gold Coast Airport's preliminary master plan, there will be an expected total of 16.3 million passengers by 2031-32. That number will be made up of 14 million domestic passengers and 2.3 million international passengers.
Airports, as a result of the increasing airline activity, bring a significant amount of economic benefit to their surrounding communities. The Gold Coast Airport alone provided over 1,700 individuals with employment at the end of June 2010. The economic impact of the airport precinct was $269 million, whilst facilitating $1.59 billion worth of tourism for the Gold Coast-Tweed region in the 2010 financial year. The aviation industry as a whole contributes $6.5 billion to the national GDP and employed approximately 51,000 people in November last year. Further, the industry grew by 6.3 per cent in the year ending 30 June 2011.
It is evident from these statistics that the regulation and administration of safety in the aviation industry is no trivial matter. We are dealing with millions of people every year in an industry that, if damaged significantly, can detrimentally affect the nation and the nation's economy. If flights stop, families do not see each other, businesspeople do not get to and from their meetings or where they need to be, mail and parcels do not get delivered and certain goods being transported by air remain off the shelves.
Many businesses count on the Gold Coast Airport to bring in tourists from both domestic and foreign markets. The Gold Coast tourism industry is currently fragile, due to a number of factors—including the high Australian dollar. Businesses and their employees cannot afford for an incident to occur with the transportation of visitors to the Gold Coast due to the lasting perception it would potentially create. We witnessed late last year the detrimental effects of issues occurring within the aviation industry, such as when industrial action was taken against an airline. The aviation industry facilitates trade and commerce in this country, and we witnessed the toll that stoppages could have on the country.
Although we hope that it will never come to this, it is still a sobering thought to contemplate the consequences of a successful terrorist action on board an aircraft. The September 11 attacks showed us that there are not only unnecessary and devastating losses of life but vast economic impacts. Therefore, when a man tried to detonate an explosive device he hid in his underwear on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, it sparked concern amongst the aviation industry, because the device was not picked up in preflight screenings. This was because the explosive device contained no metallic objects and was therefore not picked up by metal detectors. What was even more concerning was that the would-be bomber had smuggled the explosive device from Yemen to Amsterdam before boarding the flight to Detroit. This incident has shown that there are still those who will go to any lengths to harm innocent civilians.
It has also shown that there is vulnerability in our security-screening practices at airports and that we must continue to be constantly vigilant when it comes to protecting our national security. As a result, a trial of body-scanning technology was undertaken at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport from 2 to 19 August 2011 and at Melbourne International Airport from 5 to 30 September 2011. Volunteers standing in the main queue for screening were asked whether they would be willing to participate in the trial and then were directed randomly to go through the scanner. From the trial, in which over 23,500 passengers were scanned, 57 per cent of passengers were cleared to proceed straight after passing through the scanner.
However, the proof-of-concept trial report noted that passengers were six times more likely to alarm in the body scanner than in a walk-through metal detector. The report found that, out of every 1,000 passengers, on average 230 personal items within or under a passenger's clothing were detected, compared to 43 items per 1,000 passengers who walked through a metal detector. Many of the items detected by the scanner were hairclips, jewellery, coins and notes, watches, high boots with buckles and other miscellaneous items. Cargo pants, studs on jeans, zips and buttons, baggy clothes that create folds and sequins on shirts all caused the alarm in the scanner to go off.
In Senate estimates, the Office of Transport Security was asked about the rate of false positives during the trial period. The representatives of the office who were present at the hearing stated that the rate was somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent. That would mean that, out of the 230 items detected per 1,000 passengers, between 46 and 92 items were false positives.
Screening officers were also required to undergo training due to the high rates of officer-passenger interaction involved. According to the Office of Transport Security this should not mean any changes in the time it takes to process passengers. The average time to scan a passenger is 1.5 to 2.5 seconds, with delays in passenger facilitation rates more likely to occur when luggage is being scanned. The scanner that the government wishes to use, the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre wave body scanner, has been cleared by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as well as the Department of Health and Ageing, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and overseas authorities. The power density emitted from the scanner to the passenger passing through it is 1,000 times less than that emitted by a mobile phone call.
Although the introduction of the scanner is central to the context of this bill, the bill itself does more than allow for the introduction of the scanners. It amends the act in question to provide legislative support for methods used in the utilisation of the scanner technology. The major changes the bill will make are the assumption of passenger consent to a screening procedure other than a frisk search unless such consent is expressly not provided. The bill will also list the types of equipment that airports will be able to use for screening, as well as specifying that, when body-scanning equipment is to be used, the image used to identify anomalies must be non-gender-specific and non-identifiable. As expected—and this has been raised by previous speakers—some of the changes have raised privacy concerns for our passengers. The body scanners provide a readout on a screen that identifies where the anomalies are located on the body. The bill provides that a generic stick figure, rather than a gender-specific image, will be used to identify the areas in which an anomaly is located. Further, the scanner will not be able to store or transmit images of scans that have been taken of passengers.
Aviation security is a serious matter affecting millions of people each year as they travel around this country and overseas. As air travel becomes much more common, with greater passenger numbers and more flights, we need to ensure that we are doing all that we possibly can to protect the lives of the many people who choose to utilise air travel—as well as protecting the aviation industry and the many other industries that rely on its good health.
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (13:19): I rise in support of the government's Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 because we live in a different world to the world that we lived in before September 11, the Bali bombings and the range of other incidents that have taken place.
Aviation security is of utmost importance. If we do not have aviation security—if people do not feel confident that they can get on a plane and to their arrival point safely and securely—then the whole industry will collapse. I represent the Adelaide Airport which is smack bang in the middle of my electorate of Hindmarsh. When issues arise about security at airports, aviation noise or any of a range of other things, constituents raise these issues with me—and I have already been contacted about this particular new technology, the body scanner that will be placed in airports around Australia. So I have taken an interest in this bill, because I know a lot of people will be concerned, and it is our job here to assure them that what this government is doing is in the best interest of aviation safety and for the common good of us all.
The central elements of this bill are as follows. The bill will ensure a person at a screening point is taken to consent to any screening procedure, with the exception of a frisk search, unless the person expressly refuses to undergo a particular procedure. It will allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to prescribe the persons that must not pass through a screening point and to list, but not limit, the types of equipment—including body-scanning equipment—that can be used for screening. It will repeal section 95A of the act, which currently allows a person to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure. This will mean that an individual will be unable to select the type of technology they are screened by, noting that allowances will be made where there is a physical or medical reason that would prevent screening by a certain screening technology.
I do not believe that the content of this bill is controversial—the opposition are saying that they will be supporting the bill—although you might think it was, given some of the messages the opposition is putting out in the debate today. Nobody would dispute the need for security on our domestic and international aircraft. As I said earlier, safety is absolutely paramount; we all want to feel safe when we get on an aeroplane to go from point A to point B, whether we are travelling regionally, interstate or internationally. The aviation industry changed forever on 11 September 2001.
One of the reasons this bill has come to fruition today in this chamber is that on 25 December 2009, a passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines flight 253 en route from Amsterdam to Detroit. This particular bomber successfully smuggled some sort of explosive device through security in his underpants; had he been successful, it could have been tragic. The device which was concealed inside the passenger's underwear contained no metallic components; it could not be picked up by the normal scanners that we go through. It is very serious that these sorts of devices can get onto aeroplanes and cause enormous damage—to passengers and to those on the ground—destroy our aviation industry and highlight the terrorist's program or whatever they are planning.
It is so important that this bill is not controversial. Nobody would dispute that we need that security, and that is what this bill does. In response to the events on 25 December, when the Christmas Day passenger attempted to bomb Northwest Airlines, the government announced on 9 February, 2010, a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security. It is very important that this bill is not controversial. It is important that we have confidence in our airlines and their safety, and that we can get from point A to point B feeling safe knowing that we have done all that can possibly be done to ensure that we have a secure flight. Nobody would dispute that fact.
We know we have had people like this Christmas Day suicide bomber all around the world. Even here in Australia there have been people who have sought to do others harm. It is a very sad thing but it will continue to happen. Thankfully, we have not come to the point where such plans have materialised and been successful here on our soil, or in the air, but I do not believe we should assume a policy of optimism because it has never happened. As our primary means of defence against these harmful acts we need to have good security; that is a given. The only questions go to the detail of, for example, what passengers may take on board, either on their person or in their carry-on luggage, and the means by which people are checked.
Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were able to get on those planes without being detected. Many of us in airports get frustrated at the removal of our shoes, belts and watches, and at the loss of nail files and the occasional item from duty-free. A constituent recently contacted me because he lost a bottle of wine at a gate at an overseas terminal. But these are security measures that cannot be taken lightly, and I would rather know that these things are taking place, that I am secure on a plane, than know that people are being let on board without proper security checks.
By and large we have all learned to live with that. All of us—especially all of us in this parliament—fly regularly, and we have seen the changes over the years, but we accept them and we live with them. By and large we get on with it, and put up with the limitations of what we can and cannot take onto a flight, because safety is paramount. When you weigh up the two, I and most Australians would rather feel safe.
This bill is about the screening process and the process that passengers will have to go through. I would expect that most of the provisions of the bill would pass the common-sense test. Again, we need to ensure the security of aviation and the public. We do not have an optional screening process; people do not elect to be screened nor do they choose their methods of screening. That would be quite unreasonable. We have the means and the obligation to employ the best and most suitable screening technologies and processes that we can. It is these screening technologies and processes that should be applied wherever possible. Hence, we are removing the ability to choose frisking over a technological screen. We will proceed with the best process available. Where a person is physically unable to be screened by a deployed technology, we have an alternative process which will be used, as is currently the case. Again, this is just common sense.
I have had a couple of constituent queries about one aspect of this bill and airport security generally, especially about the introduction of the new body scanners. I want to take this moment to go over a couple of points that some of my constituents have raised with me and have considered to be of particular interest. The body scanners to which I refer have been in the public eye for almost a year. We had them up here as well, and many of us tested them out here in parliament—I am sure many of my colleagues on both sides of the House tested them out. The minister launched a trial of the body scanners in August last year at Sydney International Airport. More than 4,000 passengers volunteered to be part of the trial and were scanned, many of them taking the time to queue up to volunteer and experience that new technology.
From Sydney, the trial moved to Melbourne International Airport in September 2011. It was apparent from these trials that this technology is very effective at picking up the presence of any object being carried on passengers—wallets, keys and the like, and anything else you may have on your person. If this technology had been in place on 25 December on that Northwest Airlines flight, this particular person, the underwear bomber, would have been successfully apprehended. It is apparent from all these trials that the technology is very effective and works very well.
The other issue raised was the energy waves these particular scanners emit. They use very low-energy waves to detect items, metal and non-metal, under a passenger's clothing. The image shows the location of the item on a generic human representation on a screen. It is a stick figure, a very generic outline. The member for Paterson or someone earlier showed us a copy of that stick figure. You cannot tell who the person is, or whether they are male or female. It does not show the person. There is no portrayal of the person's physical characteristics or the characteristics of any of the clothing they are wearing. The scanners do not invade a person's privacy. Many members here trialled the scanner upstairs or in Sydney or Melbourne and would agree with me.
The scanners are safe. More radiation is emitted on an aeroplane flight than from this particular scanner. To put the energy these scanners emit into context, an average mobile phone call emits 10,000 times more radio frequency than these scanners. So for every phone call you make, the emission of energy is 10,000 times more than you would get from this scanner, so you can see that there are no dangers at all to people's health.
People should be assured that they are not being X-rayed like in a doctor's surgery or the old X-raying systems we had many years ago that did perhaps cause problems. The scanning is perfectly safe and not detrimental to a person's health. Nevertheless, there will be people who will be concerned and rightly so. It is always the way with new technology. People are concerned, they are not too sure of the technology and they do not know it too well. It is up to us, as members of parliament and as leaders of our communities, to assure people that there is no danger and no detriment to their health when they are using the scanner. The simple example of a mobile phone emitting 10,000 times the energy of the scanner is something that can put people's minds at rest.
We can assure people that the introduction of these new body scanners will serve us well as passengers and as a community and will ensure our safety. I have the Adelaide airport in my electorate. We require airports, as we heard earlier from other members opposite. They are a hub of the community. They ensure our economic stability and bring people and goods in and out, so it is important that the aviation industry thrives to ensure that we can operate effectively around the country. As I said, once these scanners are up and running, no-one will know what the fuss was all about and we will be a safer nation for having implemented them. I commend this bill to the House.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:33): I rise this afternoon to speak on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. In my electorate of Solomon we have the Darwin International Airport. My electorate and indeed the Top End of the Northern Territory is the gateway to Asia. The Northern Territory's economy relies heavily on a strong tourism industry, particularly foreign tourism. I accept the Office of Transport Security's assurances that the body scanners are necessary to enhance our national security framework and I also bear in mind that the new technologies like this will increase safety for all travellers.
However, I must note the concerns relating to the millimetre-wave body scanners expressed to me by my Solomon constituents. An issue raised with me by some is that there is a possible health risk, particularly for those who are frequent travellers. However, my understanding of the technology is that the scanner emits 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than an average mobile phone call does and also that the scans are within the limits set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.
Further to this, the government and Office of Transport Security have assured the coalition that these machines are indeed safe. Active implanted medical devices such as pacemakers and defibrillators are designed to meet a series of standards which require the devices to be protected from interference from external energy sources such as mobile phones and other electronic equipment. The power levels for the ProVision body scanners are lower than many other sources including mobile phones and, as such, there are no safety concerns. Furthermore, due to the very low power level of the body scanner, it will be unable to detect internal medical devices such as pacemakers and metal hips.
Another issue raised with me was that of privacy, particularly from those who believe that the machine projects a nude photo of the person's body. However, section 3(3B) of the bill states that any image produced by a body scanner must produce a gender neutral generic image such that the person is not identifiable and anatomical or physical attributes of the person are not revealed. The image produced by this scan is a generic outline. If the machine detects an anomaly, the scan highlights the general section of the body where the object is concealed. That image cannot be kept or transmitted elsewhere.
The bill repeals section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act which allows a person to choose an alternative screening method of other screening procedures. This means that a person who is randomly selected to undertake a scan may not choose an alternative method of screening such as a frisk search. If a person selected for a scan refuses, they will be unable to pass through the screening point.
This new approach was adopted from the United Kingdom and is based on three primary reasons. Firstly, the security outcome: the scanner is designed to detect items that are by their nature difficult or impossible to detect by other means. The only alternative to the body scanner which may achieve the same outcome would be an extensive and invasive frisk search. The government believes that this would not meet community standards, and we would have to agree. Secondly, the cost effectiveness: the government has invested in the new scanning technology and believes that this expenditure can only be justified by having a compulsory scheme. Finally, the technology type: the department believes the type of technology to be deployed in Australian international airports mitigates the health and privacy concerns to such an extent that an optional system is not necessary.
Another concern raised with me is that of efficiency and time. The trial at Sydney and Melbourne airports last year saw more than 23,000 scans undertaken over a three-week period and 57 per cent of the passengers were able to proceed immediately. This is a higher rate than with walk-through metal detectors. According to the analysis conducted after the trial, alarms were commonly caused by high boots with buckles, money, hairclips, watches, jewellery, pockets on cargo pants and additional studs or zips on jeans and pants.
I am sure my colleagues in the chamber are aware that these are often the things that set off metal walk-through detectors even here in Parliament House. The trial found that the alarm resolution was quicker than with walk-through metal detectors as the scanners indicated the area that had caused the alarm. The Office of Transport Security has advised that, as expected, the time spent in the scanner is longer than that for the walk-through metal detectors. The passengers to go through scanners will be chosen on a random basis, like for existing explosives testing. The Office of Transport Security believes that delays at screening points are more likely to be caused by screening for carry-on baggage than by body scans. This was supported by the findings of the trial.
A sensitive issue which arose out of the House Committee for Infrastructure and Communications inquiry was the notion that the machine may infringe upon a person's cultural and religious beliefs. However, passengers will not be required to remove any religious items or clothing. I have been informed that the department has engaged with religious groups through the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to ensure that the processes are culturally sensitive. It should be noted that individuals will not be selected on the basis of their race, religion or gender. As I said, body scans will be undertaken on a purely random basis.
I believe this technology does a lot for protection of the individual traveller but will also do a lot for protection of our image and reputation as a safe tourist destination. As I said earlier, in my home of the Northern Territory tourism is incredibly important to our economy. In 2011, approximately 1.2 million people visited the Northern Territory and spent approximately $1.4 billion. Darwin International Airport has approximately one million passengers walking through its doors each year. The national average for those employed by the tourism industry is around 8.2 per cent of total employment. Tourism in the Northern Territory provides approximately 19,800 jobs for Territorians, which equates to around 17 per cent of the Territory's total employment.
Measures like body scanners will uphold Australia's and the Northern Territory's reputation as a safe place to visit, despite our crocodiles. The world we live in is not the one a lot of us grew up in. In today's climate of international terrorism, measures like body scanners must be taken to ensure the safety of Australians and those visiting us. As the member for Solomon I will not be opposing this bill because I believe we should do everything we can in this parliament to provide safety and uphold Australia's reputation as a safe country for tourism.
Mr LYONS (Bass) (13:41): The Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 is one that everyone should support. We know that the safety of our aircraft is a vital part of the services that governments and the industry should provide. All members of this parliament believe in the safety of our air services. We are an island nation and air services are a vital method of getting tourists to Australia and, in particular, to my island state of Tasmania and my electorate of Bass. We know that everyone will support this bill. We probably go on too much in this place about safety in speaking about this bill, but the reality is that everyone should endorse it. This is a safe measure and we should be working with technology to get the best method of securing safe aviation.
It would be a risk for any attempted bomber to smuggle viable improvised explosives onto an aircraft coming into Australia with a device concealed in a passenger's clothing. So it is really important that we respond to the incident that occurred on 9 February 2010. The government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security and that package included $28.5 million to assist the aviation industry to introduce a range of technologies including body scanners, multiview X-ray machines, bottled liquid scanners and additional explosive trace detection units at international terminals. To allow aviation screening officers to check people who present at an aviation security point, we should be giving them all the powers they need to undertake this vital work. Our body scanners will facilitate safe air travel in this country. We know that the Liberals support this bill because they believe in safe travel in Australia and it is time they got on board to support this legislation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! It being 1.45 pm the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Petition: Robina Mail Delivery Centre
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (13:45): Today I seek to table a petition on behalf of McPherson residents, protesting against the closure, at the end of June this year, of the Robina Mail Delivery Centre on Ron Penhaligon Way.
The petition read as follows—
TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This petition of residents of McPherson
draws to the attention of the House to the announced closure of the Robina Delivery Centre, Queensland
We therefore ask the House to: urge the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to use his power under the Australia Post Act to consult with the Australia Post Board regarding the closure of the Robina Delivery Centre, located in Robina Queensland, on the grounds that:
*it is located within a retail precinct where businesses rely on its services; and
*it provides postal services to a large number of local businesses and people, particularly senior and elderly citizens.
from 300 citizens
Petition received.
Mrs ANDREWS: The petition has been assessed by the Standing Committee on Petitions as compliant with standing orders.
The closure of the mail delivery centre will affect numerous small businesses who rely on the business of local residents and also post office box holders who come to collect and drop off their mail. Residents and post office box holders, including many older Australians, will now have to travel further to pick up large mail and parcels or to collect mail from their post office box. The fact that there are 300 signatories to this petition shows that there is real concern within the community.
I also wish to place on record that local newsagent Tony Keilar also facilitated the petition and I thank him for his work and his commitment to keeping the Robina Mail Delivery Centre open.
I believe that Australia Post should have more broadly consulted with the local community to ensure that any changes to postal services in the area would not disadvantage local residents and existing small businesses. I call on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to take note of the concerns as outlined in the petition and to consult with Australia Post immediately.
13th Croquet World Championship
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:46): Between 28 April and 6 May this year, the 13th Croquet World Championship was held in Adelaide and hosted by several Adelaide based clubs. Eighty world-ranked players from 24 countries competed. Australia is the largest croquet-playing nation in the world, with some 8,000 players.
The Tea Tree Gully Croquet Club in the Makin electorate was selected as one of the host clubs. I am familiar with the Tea Tree Gully Croquet Club, having visited it on several occasions. I can vouch for the professionalism of its management committee, currently led by very hardworking locals Peter and Kaye Rostron, the well-kept facilities and the terrific team approach taken by all members to ensure that the club runs well.
On 2 May I was able to visit the club and watch a couple of the world championship matches. As I expected, the skills of the players competing lived up to what one might expect in a world championship.
As I also expected, the Tea Tree Gully Croquet Club members ensured their club made its contribution towards a successful championship, which I understand was won by Reg Bamford, of South Africa, who defeated Australia's Robert Fletcher in five games.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the South Australia Croquet Association for hosting the 2012 world championship. I particularly congratulate the Tea Tree Gully Croquet Club for being selected as a host club and, in so doing, bringing some of the world's best croquet players out to the local community.
Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:47): I take this opportunity to acknowledge the positive contribution that the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club makes in providing opportunities for young people in the Wanneroo district within the Cowan electorate. Last Sunday I visited their rally and was able to thank current and past committee members for their volunteer efforts. As we know, volunteers allow so many sports, clubs and other organisations in this country to exist. They do not do it for money; they do it because they believe that young people need the opportunities to learn good lessons and values that will make them better citizens and better community members, as well as having a lot of fun.
In the case of the Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club, the young members are supported by the volunteers that administer, instruct and assess them. The young riders learn through these volunteers to look after and work with their horses to achieve their goals. There is no room for self-centeredness; rather, they understand the requirement for responsibility and cooperation. These are good lessons for young people to learn. Therefore I have great faith that the young people in the club will be fine Australians and make great contributions to our nation in the years to come.
I particularly thank their president Juanita Brewer for the chance to meet the volunteers and hear about the great Wanneroo Horse and Pony Club. I also thank vice-president Nairiee Bager and her daughter Charm for telling me about how the club operates and about Charm's Welsh C pony. I also thank the many volunteers for their great efforts to provide young riders with the opportunities to learn and compete in such a positive environment.
Fowler Electorate: Miller Health and Family Day
Mr HAYES (Fowler) (13:49): Last week I attended the Miller Health and Family Day in my electorate of Fowler. Information stalls by local service providers allowed parents to speak directly to the providers to get useful information regarding services that are available to them and their families.
Children enjoyed a range of activities including a reptile zoo, a jumping castle and face painting. Everybody who attended was also treated to very good musical performances, including an adorable one by the young kids of Miller Cubbyhouse.
The day represented a joint effort by Mission Australia, Miller Pathways and the Inspire Church communities. I would like to praise the efforts of Leonie Green, Mission Australia's state manager; a very dedicated manager from Miller Pathways, Magdalena Liso; and Lucy Reggio, project officer with Miller Pathways.
In addition to being hardworking, Lucy is also a volunteer with many other organisations in my community, assisting individuals and families in need, particularly those families living with a disability.
Inspire Church was represented by Pastor John McMartin and his team, which greatly assisted in making the day such a success. The day was a great opportunity to celebrate family and to acknowledge the vital role that family plays in our society.
Families come in all shapes and sizes with different religious and cultural backgrounds, but they all come with a common interest: to stick together and provide children with love, care and support to help them grow into responsible adults. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) (13:51): There are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen and none so blind who refuse to see. This government has not listened to the community and it has not seen the impact of its carbon tax. Today Kurri Hydro put out a press release referring to the cancellation of work contracts, saying, '344 further jobs to go.' And further:
… the long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is going to cost the aluminium sector jobs in the Hunter. There are none so blind as the member for Charlton, the Minister for Industry and Innovation—the architect of the carbon tax. And there are none so deaf as the member for Hunter, whose electorate Kurri Hydro resides in, and none so arrogant as those who refuse to act. I am calling on those members in the Hunter to immediately move a motion to suspend the carbon tax, to have an opportunity to save those 344 jobs—and that is not counting the downstream effect that these job losses will incur. The aluminium industry is critically important to the Hunter. The flow-on effect could go through to Tomago Aluminium as well, and that means more job losses. Members opposite do not care about job losses; they care about their carbon tax. I am more interested in the people that I represent. Therefore, the carbon tax should be stopped. (Time expired)
Public Health System
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (13:52): The public health system in Tasmania was already struggling with the rising cost of modern health care and the additional costs associated with the ageing population. But add years of poor governance, a small tax base and dreadful health indicators and you have a particularly nasty situation where people are dying unnecessarily. Now compounding this is the state government's decision to try and cut $100 million from the health budget last year and to do so again in the coming financial year.
What we are seeing in Tasmania should send shock waves through governments around the country. Yes, there are unique factors in Tasmania—but just about every jurisdiction has unique challenges—meaning that much of Australia's public health system is heading for an inevitable crisis that will only be averted by a federal government taking the system or at least moving to some type of single-funding model. More cash is good, and I am grateful to the federal government for working with me on added assistance right now for the Tasmanian public health system, but that will be just the start of the solution for Tasmania or anywhere else. Ultimately real reform is what is needed now.
Carbon Pricing
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (13:53): Never have I seen someone so happy as the member for Paterson as he celebrates the loss of up to 350 jobs at Hydro Aluminium in Kurri Kurri in my electorate, a plant which has been losing literally millions of dollars every year for the past few years at least. We have not had a carbon price for the last few years, but they have been losing money. Why have they been losing money? There are three key factors: the very high Australian dollar—it is an export industry; very low prices for aluminium on the global market, on the metals exchange, an issue which is closing smelters right around the globe; and their inability to secure a long-term electricity contract with the guys from his party that run the New South Wales government. So, rather than rejoice in this event, I will be empathising and sympathising with both the firm and its workers and doing all I can to ensure that somehow Hydro might yet have a future—they have talked about mothballing—in the hope of reopening the plant, which would more than likely be in a carbon price environment. I will be working very hard—I have already started working hard—to make sure those retrenched workers have every opportunity for alternative employment. (Time expired)
Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:55): This September will mark five years since the establishment of the Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health. The centre is based at the University of Adelaide and focuses on education and research into men's health issues. The centre aims to take a cross-disciplinary approach to research and policymaking, bringing together experts from different fields to encourage collaboration in the interests of men's health. Despite only having been operational for a short time, the centre has a proud record of contribution to men's health education and research. The centre has also been highly effective in raising awareness of men's health in recruiting community leaders to speak out on men's health issues. The centre has established a board of patrons drawn from business, politics and sporting leaders. I am proud to have served on this board for most of the lifetime of the centre. It has been a privilege to serve under the leadership of Sir Eric Neal, principal patron and chair and former Governor of South Australia. I would also like to pay tribute to Professor Villis Marshall, who recently announced he would be stepping down as a director of the centre. Professor Marshall has provided great leadership in his role as director. His contribution to the success of the centre cannot be overstated. I am proud to be associated with the centre and I hope they will soon add to their achievements of raising $15 million in external funding, publishing more than 100 peer reviewed papers on men's health and administering a number of community health programs, including the highly successful GIRTH program, a community based healthy-living program for men, aimed at improving cardiovascular health.
Jenkins, Ms Amanda
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (13:56): In self-indulgence and as a tribute to children of all members and senators who have to cope with having a parent in public life, I wish my daughter Amanda a happy 21st birthday for today. As a parliamentarian, I have missed more birthdays of Amanda than I have attended, and she is a great credit to my wife Michelle who has shouldered the parenting duties. I am very proud of her achievements to this date and I wish her every success and achievement in the future.
Sidman, Ms Kay
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (13:57): I would like to pay tribute to a wonderful lady from my electorate, Kay Sidman, who will hold her 12th Biggest Morning Tea event for the Cancer Council tomorrow. So far, Kay has raised more than $193,000 for the cause, making her one of the country's top fundraisers for the Cancer Council. With the help of the Macarthur community, she hopes to crack the $200,000 mark this year. Kay holds a morning tea every year in memory of her sister Jan who died of cancer in 2004. In a recent media interview Kay said that each year she hoped the money she raised 'would help kill this dreaded thing called cancer'. Kay's Biggest Morning Tea draws huge crowds and has grown much bigger than she could ever imagine. This year guests can enjoy massages, aromatherapy, tarot card readings, food, drinks, a chocolate wheel and a fashion parade. I think it is fantastic that one lady can inspire so many people to come along and support her event.
This year the Campbelltown Lions Club will fire up the barbecue. Many locals have donated items and vouchers, including one local family who have donated hundreds of dollars in fuel vouchers for the event. Kay Sidman is a great asset to her family and the Macarthur community. Her love for her sister is now helping thousands of Australians who benefit from the work of the Cancer Council. The money she raises each year brings us one step closer to finding a cure for cancer. I would like to publicly commend Kay for her great work and her commitment to the cause. I join the Macarthur community in being very proud of her achievements and I know her sister Jan would be very proud of her efforts too.
Friendship for Life
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:59): Last Saturday I was pleased to join with the local Turkish and veterans communities in Port Kembla with a wonderful ceremony named Friendship for Life. To mark this occasion, I was joined by the Turkish Consul-General, Mrs Celik, and a wreath was laid. The ceremony marks the deep friendship between Australia and the Republic of Turkey. Our nations are forever joined through the bond of blood shed during the terrible Gallipoli campaign of 1915. Each year Australians remember what the Anzacs did in war. Each year Australians travel to Turkey and to the Gallipoli Peninsula to be a part of the ceremony there that marks the remembrance of this terrible sacrifice. When they do, they see the respect that Turkey affords to Australia at the ceremonies of Anzac Cove, Lone Pine, The Neck and so many others. The principles of Friendship for Life are based on the very moving pledge by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made to the mothers of Anzac fallen in 1934. Ataturk was not only a hero in battle; he was a hero and a leader in the peace.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members’ statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer her to the announcement today that Hydro Aluminium will close down its Kurri Kurri plant employing 344 people in part because of the impact of a carbon tax on its long-term viability. Given that the carbon tax is already a wrecking ball swinging through the aluminium industry, the coal industry, the steel industry and the aviation industry, will the Prime Minister apologise to the 344 workers whose livelihoods are now imperilled by her broken promise never to have a carbon tax?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:00): To the Leader of the Opposition's question, I am of course always concerned when I hear news of job losses. For the individual workers involved and for their families this is a very difficult time and I certainly feel for them and we will be working to support them. But I also think it is very important that in this place and beyond this place—
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Paterson!
Ms GILLARD: we are clear as to what the reasons are and what the pressures are on the aluminium industry. I am very conscious of those pressures on the industry that are happening here in Australia and overseas. The reality is that the continuing fallout from the global financial crisis, along with increased global capacity, is putting downward pressure on world aluminium prices. Aluminium prices peaked at $3,300 per tonne but are now approximately $2,000 per tonne—that is US dollars—representing a fall of 40 per cent.
This depression in global aluminium prices has resulted in numerous closures around the world of older, less competitive smelters. Hydro Aluminium has consistently identified the strong Australian dollar, low metal prices and current international—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume her seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Abbott: I asked the Prime Minister about the impact of the carbon tax on this closure and whether she would apologise. She should be directly relevant.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is not an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to spout rhetoric at the dispatch box. If he has a point of order on relevance, he simply has to say that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is answering the question. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I took the question seriously and presumed that the Leader of the Opposition was actually concerned about these job losses. Obviously these workers are just political fodder to him; the same way that the steelworkers he stood alongside have just been props, because he has not been prepared to support their jobs. I am identifying the factors that Hydro Aluminium has pointed to as relating to the news today about these jobs: the strong Australian dollar, low metal prices and current international economic conditions. Minister Combet has spoken directly to the company today, and they are very clear that their current financial pressures have nothing to do with the carbon price. So the Leader of the Opposition should not come into this place and mislead. He should not do that.
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Paterson will resume his seat. A point of order on the question has already been taken. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition—and this might be a fact that he is interested in—
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Paterson is warned!
Ms GILLARD: that the key uncertainty facing this company currently is the refusal of the New South Wales government to reach agreement over a long-term electricity supply contract. So, if the Leader of the Opposition is really concerned about these jobs as opposed to his mock political concern, then he may consider getting on the phone and speaking to his Liberal counterpart Premier O'Farrell about that matter. Beyond that, he should not come into this parliament and mislead this place or these workers about the reasons for these job losses.
Mr Pyne: The Prime Minister should withdraw that charge. If she wishes to do so, she could move it by substantive motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! The member for Robertson has the call.
Afghanistan
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on outcomes from the NATO-ISAF Chicago summit on Afghanistan?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:04): I have just returned from the NATO-ISAF summit on Afghanistan. I was accompanied by the Minister for Defence. This was a pivotal summit for outlining the future strategy in Afghanistan, building on the transition strategy agreed in Lisbon around two years ago in 2010. We had the opportunity at this summit to be briefed by General Allen on progress in Afghanistan. His brief about that progress accords with what we hear from our Australian Defence Force, and that is that progress is being made and transition is on track as a strategy.
The province in which we work, Oruzgan province, will commence its transition in coming months. That is expected to take 12 to 18 months, and at the end of the transition process the bulk of Australian forces will be able to return home. The work of transition is, of course, the work of training, but pressure needs to be maintained on the insurgents. Al-Qaeda has been hit hard, and the momentum of the insurgency has been stalled.
At the same time it is appropriate and necessary that there be progress in governance, aid and development. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries on earth, and Australia has been contributing to its aid and development. Work needs to be done as well on political reconciliation, which needs to be an Afghan led and Afghan owned process.
Beyond the days of transition in Oruzgan province and before the end of 2014, when the NATO combat mission will cease, Australia will continue to be engaged in Afghanistan. We will particularly be engaged in training in the Afghan Artillery School and training army officers in a UK led training initiative. We will also be maintaining a role for special forces during that period to deal with counterterrorism work.
Beyond 2014, the mission will change. The combat mission will be at an end. But there will be a need, as was discussed at the summit, for the international community to stay engaged with Afghanistan—to stay engaged in training, advice and assistance; to stay engaged in the provision of aid and development moneys. In Chicago I had the opportunity to sign a long-term partnership on those questions with President Karzai and, as I have made clear here and in Chicago, Australia has an open door to a continuing role for special forces, should that be necessary.
The summit achieved its outcomes as set and established, and Australians can be assured that the transition strategy in Afghanistan is on track. (Time expired)
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (14:08): I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a delegation from each of the ASEAN member state parliaments. I trust their time in Australia will be very informative. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the group.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Carbon Pricing
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm that, based on the government's own figures, household expenditure will go up by $9.90 each week due to the carbon tax, yet the government will only provide $10.10 each week in compensation? Given that the government has not got a single predicted figure right in the last five years, does the Prime Minister seriously believe 20c a week is enough margin of error to cover all the unexpected costs of the world's biggest carbon tax?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:08): I would have to say I am a little bit surprised by the shadow Treasurer's question, because the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have been going around the nation saying that the cost-of-living increases from the carbon price will be 'astronomical'. And then the shadow Treasurer comes in today and actually backs in the figures about cost-of-living increases—about a $9.90 increase rather than the wild and inaccurate figures that have been used in the Leader of the Opposition's fear campaign. So I thank the shadow Treasurer—
Mr Hockey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quoting the Prime Minister's own figures back to her, and asking her whether 20c a week is enough to cover all the other costs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. Points of order are not a time for debate.
Ms GILLARD: I thank the shadow Treasurer for bringing to an end the Leader of the Opposition's cost-of-living scare campaign. The next time the Leader of the Opposition says the cost-of-living increases will be 'astronomical', we will remind him of this moment when the shadow Treasurer pulled the rug out from under him.
To the shadow Treasurer: the figures that the government has worked on are the figures that have been modelled by Treasury. As electricity price regulators around the nation have made the determinations about the impact of carbon pricing on electricity prices, that modelling has been shown to be right—bang on the money. It has been right in Queensland and right in New South Wales—right in those places where electricity price regulators have actually sat and made a determination about the impact of carbon pricing. So the shadow Treasurer should know that the Treasury modelling done by the same people that the shadow Treasurer relied on when he was in government has been verified to date.
The shadow Treasurer should also acknowledge that, for the lowest income Australian families, we have provided a buffer of more compensation. They will come out better off. That is something that the shadow Treasurer wants to rip away from them. He wants to make them worse off. Millions of Australian families will receive enough compensation for the flow-through impact of carbon pricing. The real risk to the cost-of-living pressures for these families actually arises from the shadow Treasurer and his $70-billion plan to rip away the services that Australians rely on, his plan to take away their tax cuts, his plan to take away their pension increases, his plan to rip away their family payments, his plan to even rip away family payments not at all associated with carbon pricing, and his direct refusal to assist families with the cost of getting the kids to school.
Mr Hockey: How is this related?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will return to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: That is the real set of cost-of-living pressures on Australian families flowing from the reckless policies of the Leader of the Opposition and his friends. (Time expired)
Afghanistan
Mr MELHAM (Banks) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Defence. What are the implications for Australia's commitment in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan as a result of the outcomes of the NATO-ISAF leaders summit held in Chicago?
Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth—Minister for Defence and Deputy Leader of the House) (14:12): I thank the member for Banks for his question. Over the weekend and on Monday I accompanied the Prime Minister at the NATO International Security Assistance Force summit in Chicago. In the course of those two days, I had the opportunity of exchanging views with a number of my counterparts, including Secretary of Defense for the United States, Leon Panetta; my United Kingdom colleague Philip Hammond; my Canadian colleague Peter MacKay; our New Zealand colleagues, foreign minister Murray McCully, who was representing John Key, and also the defence minister, Jonathan Coleman; and of course defence minister Wardak of Afghanistan.
As the Prime Minister indicated, the agreement reached in Chicago on the future of Afghanistan and transition is very important. As the Prime Minister has said, we are on track for transition by the end of 2014. The agreement over the weekend also means that, by the middle of next year, by the middle of 2013, the so-called Lisbon milestone will have been met and all of Afghanistan will have commenced transition.
The member for Banks asked me what implications this has for Oruzgan. Members might be aware that, shortly before the Chicago summit, President Karzai announced the third tranche of transition of provinces and districts in Afghanistan, and Oruzgan province as a whole was included in that tranche.
Transition in Oruzgan we expect to occur over a 12- to 18-month period, with the transition process to commence in the next couple of months. As to Australian forces, our Mentoring Task Force is making steady and good progress in training and mentoring the 4th Battalion of the Afghan National Army, and our advice continues to be that, in the course of the 12- to 18-month period that the Prime Minister and I have referred to, the Kandaks of the 4th Brigade as a whole will be able to take lead responsibility for security in Oruzgan province and be operationally viable. Later this month, our Mentoring Task Force 5 will travel to Afghanistan and take over from Mentoring Task Force 4. This will be the first of our task forces to be involved or engaged in the transition process. In Townsville on Saturday before our departure to Chicago, the Prime Minister and I had the opportunity of meeting with members of that task force and being briefed by the Chief of Army and by the commanding officer of Mentoring Task Force 5. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister and I made this important point: the conference was a very good success, but Afghanistan continues to be difficult and dangerous. It is difficult and dangerous for our troops deployed there and as we now commence this current, northern fighting season, I know that the thoughts of all members of the House will be with our forces in Oruzgan and Afghanistan.
Carbon Pricing
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Leader of The Nationals) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that her $23 a tonne carbon tax will result in a tax of $75,000 a tonne on refrigerant gas, and that this will cost a large meatworks an extra $55,000 a year, and a supermarket $17,000 a year; and that the cost of servicing a home refrigerator will be an extra $300? Does the Prime Minister expect those extra costs to be passed on to consumers?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:16): To the question by the Leader of the National Party, I would say that, as usual, what we are seeing is an attempt by the opposition to make wild claims and cause fear in the Australian community. We have seen it consistently with the claims about astronomical increases in the cost of living. We have seen it consistently with the Leader of the Opposition saying the coal industry would close. We have seen it consistently with the Leader of the Opposition saying Whyalla would be wiped off the map. We have seen it as the Leader of the Opposition has used working people as if they were props in a drama or a play that he was directing—standing next to a steelworker whose job he was not prepared to vote to support, or standing next to a car worker whose job he was not prepared to support. We have seen all of these tricks from the opposition as part of their fear campaign. To the opposition I say this: on 1 July we will see the truth, and the reckless claims of the opposition will crash to the ground at that time. The Leader of the Opposition will then have to explain to the Australian people why he spent month after month after month after month making such wildly inaccurate claims about carbon pricing, whilst doing absolutely no work on the policies that would make a difference to the nation's future.
Mr Truss: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The question is about refrigerant gas and the Prime Minister has not even approached the subject.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the Prime Minister to be relevant to the question before the chair.
Ms GILLARD: The point I was making was, like with the many other wild claims by the opposition, we will the truth on the 1 July.
Education Funding
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm the $5 billion as recommended in the Gonski review is available if required, and that decisions taken over the coming three months in response to the Gonski review will put long-term national educational and standard-of-living outcomes above any short-term political strategy around the budget?
Mr Schultz: No, no and no!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hume might be no, no and no in a minute too, if he is not careful. The Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the member for his question and I know that he has a keen interest in the Gonski review reforms. I understand from the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth that both he and the member for Lyne attended a forum at Port Macquarie High School on 3 May, and that there was a very good discussion amongst local community members there about the Gonski recommendations.
To the member, can I say this about the way in which we are approaching the Gonski review: what David Gonski and his very eminent review team did was produce a comprehensive report about a new way of approaching school funding including a school resources standard, and loadings on top for things like educational disadvantage and for students with disabilities. They did produce a figure of $5 billion, that is true, but they themselves indicated in their report that that was working with older data, and they also indicated that there were some things that we needed to do for education which were very important reforms for which they did not have the tools to do any modelling.
To take one example of that, they indicated that there is no common assessment, or definition, of students with disabilities and so, if—as the Gonski review recommends—we were to put a loading on top for students with disabilities, we currently have no national platform or data sets which would enable us to do that. A lot of work is now happening through very collaborative working groups between the federal government, state and territory governments, the Catholic education system and the independent schools. It is only when we see the outcome of that work that we can start to make a set of decisions about how the government will resource school funding.
Of course, the government's objective is for the budget to be in surplus and we will hold to that, but we also believe people can judge us on our record about school education. We as a government have almost doubled the amount of money going into school education, because it was so shamefully neglected by the Howard government. Questions of educational disadvantage, for example, were not even considered or debated by the Howard government. We have acted to remedy that and, of course, we will take that set of Labor values into consideration in making the next decisions, following the work being done now on the Gonski review.
Mr OAKESHOTT (Lyne) (14:21): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have a supplementary question. In light of the answer, and to be as clear as possible for the House—and for the many in school uniform in the gallery—will the Prime Minister agree that responding to the Gonski review is the leading issue for the Commonwealth right now, is an issue that she as Prime Minister must lead on, and is the most important issue this 43rd Parliament will deal with?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:22): The member would be aware that there is nothing dearer to my heart than making sure we have the best schools in this nation and that I am very concerned that, as a result of a decade of neglect by the Howard government, in international testing we are seeing ourselves starting to slip behind the standards of the world.
Mr Simpkins interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Cowan is warned.
Ms GILLARD: But, as the member would also be aware, this government has a series of objectives that are important: bringing the budget to surplus, building the future economy, investing in Australian schools, continuing to invest in health care services and, of course, creating the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We will continue to make the difficult choices in the government's budget to help us reach those objectives while making sure that we bring the budget to surplus. None of this is easy, but if you are clearly guided by your values as to what is important then your set of priorities becomes clear. People know that this government's priorities are about supporting and creating jobs and creating the economy of the future which will bring us more prosperity whilst giving working families the services and support they need—and, of course, great quality schools for their kids to go to are pivotal to the services and support they need and pivotal to our nation's economic future.
Carbon Pricing
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Minister for Industry and Innovation. What have recent price determinations across Australia shown about the projected impact of the carbon price on electricity prices? How does this reality compare with the commentary on electricity prices over the last year, and what is the government doing to assist households with it?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:24): I thank the member for Chifley for his question. When the government announced its Clean Energy Future package last July, we released comprehensive modelling by Treasury on the impacts of carbon pricing. That modelling showed very clearly that the carbon price would add about 10 per cent to electricity prices, which is around $3.30 a week per household on average—and, of course, the government is delivering assistance to the extent of an average of $10.10 per household per week.
Price regulators in different jurisdictions are now confirming Treasury's modelling and showing a lesser impact in some states and territories than the modelling suggested. For example: in New South Wales, IPART, the independent price regulator, has issued a draft determination with a carbon price impact on the average household in New South Wales of $3.27 per week; Western Australia's regulator has found an impact around $2.45 week; in the Northern Territory it is around $2.48 a week; in Tasmania is around $3 a week. All these figures are under the Treasury-modelled cost impact.
The government's household assistance package will provide, as I indicated, an average of $10.10 per week per household. It will do this through permanent tax cuts—by trebling the tax-free threshold, which also releases one million taxpayers from having to file a tax return. It will also deliver it through permanent increases in the pension and through payments to many self-funded retirees. It will also deliver it through permanent increases in family tax benefits and many other Commonwealth payments. This is contrary to much of the commentary that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
These are the facts: electricity prices are bang-on or a bit less than the Treasury modelling as the regulators bring in their determinations and the government is providing comprehensive assistance to households—it will reach nine out of 10 households—yet for the last 12 months the Leader of the Opposition has run around making false claims designed to engender fear that the carbon price will increase electricity prices by 20 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent. That is specifically what he has claimed—just last week, the Leader of the Opposition went on a hysterical rant claiming that the carbon price will certainly force up electricity prices by 20 per cent. But, now that the facts are coming in, what they will show is that the Leader of the Opposition is nothing but a shallow political con man.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (14:27): Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. The minister in his response made reference to household assistance. What would that mean for local communities in my area and others across Western Sydney?
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:27): I thank the member for Chifley once again. He represents the area where I grew up—Rooty Hill—and I am very proud, having grown up in Western Sydney, that the government is providing very strong assistance to households in Western Sydney.
In the seat of Chifley 58,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut, 19,000 families will receive an increase in payments—that is, family tax benefit payments—and 24,400 pensioners will receive an increase in the pension. In the seat of Parramatta, in Western Sydney, 55,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut, 43,300 families will receive family tax benefit increases and 22,100 pensioners will receive an increase in the pension. In the seat of Greenway, in Western Sydney, 55,000 taxpayers will get a tax cut, 13,500 families will receive an increase in family tax benefits and 17,000 pensioners will receive a pension increase.
These are the facts: this is a Labor government, and we are introducing an extremely important environmental and economic reform in a socially equitable, socially fair manner that looks after the people of Western Sydney, and we are proud to do it.
Carbon Pricing
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. How does the minister reconcile his statement in a press release that job losses at Kurri Kurri are 'unrelated to the carbon price' with the company's statement issued today which says 'long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including the carbon tax'? Will the minister please stop misleading this House and explain that contradiction?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The last part of his question was out of order.
Mr COMBET (Charlton—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) (14:29): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that was very selective quoting indeed by the Leader of the Opposition—something we have become completely accustomed to. As has been made clear by Hydro Aluminium over a considerable period of time, there are a number of factors that are influencing this decision and the financial losses that they are incurring—essentially, the effects of growth in global supply in aluminium, the strong value of the Australian dollar over a period of time, the ongoing effects of the global financial crisis, and in fact nothing less than a 40 per cent depreciation—
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
Mr COMBET: in the price of aluminium on the London Metals Exchange. I have met the company—it is in my region—discussed these issues and discussed the pressures on the company. I spoke to a company representative again today in relation to this issue who emphasised to me that the announcement today is not driven by the implications of the carbon price; it is driven by the current pressures leading to the current financial losses that the company is incurring. You should not misrepresent this.
Mr Baldwin interjecting—
Mr COMBET: The member for Paterson, before question time, took glee in the pressure that these workers and their families are experiencing. You should be ashamed—you should be ashamed of the position that you articulated, and the Leader of the Opposition should represent the facts.
Mr Baldwin: You wouldn't know fact if it bit you on the backside!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Paterson will leave the chamber under 94(a).
The member for Paterson then left the chamber —
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has the call and will return to the question before the chair.
Mr COMBET: I have concluded my answer; thank you.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): Mr Speaker, I seek leave—
A government member: It's Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr ABBOTT: to table the statement of the company stating that the viability of this business has been impacted by the carbon tax.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Leave is not granted. I am not precious about what everybody calls me. It is a very difficult situation, so please do not correct someone if they get my title wrong, especially in the middle of question time. I think it is more appropriate we get on with question time.
Economy
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how strongly Australia's economy is performing on the global stage?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:32): I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. I had the opportunity whilst in Chicago at the NATO/ISAF Summit to talk to a number of leaders about circumstances in the global economy and particularly current circumstances in the European economy. I had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of Germany and the newly elected President of France. As members of the House would be aware, concern has been sparked yet again about circumstances in Europe arising from the inconclusive elections in Greece, and Greece is to go to another election. Indeed, that election will be resolved very shortly, before the forthcoming G20 meeting, and I anticipate that, just like the G8 meeting had a discussion about circumstances in the global economy, the G20 meeting will be very focused on the global economy and the circumstances of the eurozone.
As Australians watch these reports on their TV screens, it is understandable that people would be concerned. Some of the footage, particularly from Greece, has been particularly startling, with people feeling the economic pressures there. The Greek economy has undergone a very sizeable contraction, and circumstances for many of the people of Greece are very dire indeed, with unemployment at simply staggering levels. So it is understandable that Australians watching all of this would be concerned.
The Australian economy is not immune from international events, but Australians can be reassured that the Australian economy is in a very different circumstance from economies like Greece , like many others in Europe and even like the United States that people see on their TV screens. The fundamentals of our economy are strong. We have a AAA rating from all three credit agencies for the first time in our nation's history, strong public finances, economic growth, low unemployment and inflation within the Reserve Bank band. Consequently, that means that Australians can look on the Australian economy with confidence.
That does not mean that there are not some pressures in the Australian economy, particularly arising from the strength of the Australian dollar, with the pressures that puts on manufacturing, tourism and other sections of the economy. But Australians can be reassured about the fundamental strengths of our economy and they can also be reassured that this government will always put jobs first, the way we did during the global financial crisis. We will continue to do so.
Member for Dobell
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): My question is to the Prime Minister. What did the Prime Minister mean when she said, in relation to the member for Dobell, that she thought a line had been crossed?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:35): I dealt with that on the day that I made the announcement about the member for Dobell. I dealt with it on the basis of my view about respect for the parliament. I made it clear then, as I make it clear now, that I do not believe it is appropriate for this parliament to be judge and jury about these matters.
Economy
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (14:36): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the OECD Economic Outlook, released overnight, and what does this say about the government's economic management?
Mr SWAN (Lilley—Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer) (14:36): I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question, because the OECD Economic Outlook, which was released overnight, puts Australia up in lights as the standout developed economy in the global economy. It shows Australia is the standout developed economy if you look at this report. The OECD basically says that the Australian economy is going to grow faster than any other major developed economy, not only this year but next year as well. We have heard nothing positive from the opposition about this today. The Leader of the Opposition has been out and talked about everything that could be negative but nothing that is positive for Australia. This report is a very positive report on the strength of the Australian economy. Our unemployment is low, we have very good public finances, we have a strong investment pipeline and we are growing substantially faster than most other developed OECD economies.
We are beginning to see why the rest of the world is waking up to the pro-growth, pro-jobs approach of this government. You can see it written all the way through the OECD report. The correct decision that this government took to support demand, to support Australian employment, to support small business at the height of the global financial crisis is one of the reasons Australia is now so strong compared to other developed economies. If other developed economies had followed our course, they would be in far better shape today. We have a pro-growth, pro-jobs approach which supports all of our people. We know that the opposition at the height of the global financial crisis and the global recession opposed all of those measures which would have sent unemployment through the roof and seen the closure of tens of thousands of small businesses in this country.
It is pleasing to see such a strong endorsement from the OECD and, in particular, such a strong endorsement from the OECD which supports coming back to surplus. This is what the OECD has to say:
… restoring fiscal leeway while macroeconomic conditions are still favourable, and the terms of trade high, is welcome.
Too right it is welcome. This is the correct decision for Australia; to support employment, to support growth and to give maximum flexibility to the Reserve Bank to take decisions on interest rates should they decide to do so. It gives us the capacity to put new incentives in the tax system to support small business in terms of loss carryback and to put in place the instant asset write-off which is also going to support investment in small business. There will be 2.7 million businesses eligible to use the instant asset write-off. This is very important for future investment.
We on this side of the House understand what must be done to manage our economy. We understand what has to be done to bring the budget back to surplus, unlike those opposite. (Time expired)
Member for Dobell
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of the member for Dobell, given on Monday. Does the member for Dobell's statement cause her to change her view that the member for Dobell has failed to meet the standards of conduct and behaviour that she would expect of a member of the Labor caucus?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The question is in order and the Prime Minister has the call.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:40): My judgment about the member for Dobell sitting in the Labor caucus has been made and is clear. I have publicly explained it. It was about respect for the parliament. I think as a matter of common sense people would understand that there is a difference between which party rooms members of this parliament sit in and the question of being entitled to sit in this parliament itself. There is a difference in those things. Clearly sitting in this parliament itself, being here representing an electorate, is a different matter. Obviously there are exceptional circumstances in which someone can be excluded from voting, but people are entitled to vote on behalf of their constituency.
Mr Andrews: What are they?
Ms GILLARD: I am referring for example to the constitutional circumstances. I suggest if the member does not know them he ought to acquaint himself with those circumstances.
I have been concerned throughout this matter about the presumption of innocence and prejudgment. I would refer the member for Sturt, who asked the question, to the words which I think are important: 'The irony is that the Leader of the Opposition thinks he should be judge and jury in these matters.' Those words were said by Premier O'Farrell in the New South Wales parliament. Of course, the opposition are full of hypocrisy, not consistency; nothing to do with standards, everything to do with their political interests. (Time expired)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:41): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in which she described issues to do with being judge and jury. If, as the Prime Minister has said, the parliament should be judge and jury, why won't the Prime Minister invite the member for Dobell back into the caucus?
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:42): I refer the member for Sturt to my statement at the time that I announced that the member for Dobell would not participate in Labor caucus and suggest he reads it. He will see when he reads that statement that I was not prejudging the matters being dealt with by Fair Work Australia. I explained my view about respect for the parliament. I continue to believe that it is inappropriate for this parliament to prejudge matters which will ultimately be dealt with by the courts.
I also note, in terms of the opposition's approach to these matters, that they have one standard when people are members of the Liberal Party or the National Party and a different standard for everyone else. How can they come into this place and claim any consistency, given the matters involving, for example, Senator Fisher from South Australia, now Senator Heffernan and the like? If you are in the Liberal Party everything is apparently okay. That is the standard of the publicity of this opposition.
For me, I believe it is important that people have, if they are to be the subject of legal proceedings, their entitlements to their day in court and to put their defence as they choose to do so.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:43): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to ask a second supplementary question.
Mr Albanese interjecting—A second supplementary?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Sturt is correct; the previous Speaker had allowed a second supplementary question on previous occasions. The member for Sturt has the call.
Mr PYNE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. In her previous answer she said that she was not prejudging the member for Dobell—
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, my recollection is that the Leader of the Opposition asked a supplementary before and the Manager of Opposition Business did as well.
Ms Julie Bishop: Get with the program!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may get with the program outside the chamber very shortly if she does not desist from providing ongoing advice to the chair. The member for Sturt has the call.
Mr PYNE: In the Prime Minister's previous answer she referred to how she was not prejudging the member for Dobell and, therefore, I ask her how it is that the member for Dobell is not fit to sit in the caucus but is fit to sit with the Labor Party in all votes of this House?
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: this is exactly the same as the previous questions that have been asked by the Manager of Opposition Business and it has been fully answered.
Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:45): I refer the member to my other two answers—that is the explanation; and, on the continuing campaign by the opposition and its hypocrisy, I note that the shadow Treasurer stated for the opposition that they would cheerfully accept the member for Dobell's vote so I do not see the point of this questioning.
MOTIONS
Member for Dobell
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:45): I seek leave to move a motion calling on the Prime Minister to speak immediately for up to 15 minutes to explain the following, amongst other things: whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the Fair Work Australia findings or in the statement given to this House by the member for Dobell, given that they cannot both be right. I seek leave to move that motion now.
Leave not granted.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: given that this matter has now been referred to the Privileges Committee, is it appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to move a suspension of standing orders—which he does, predictably, every single day—
An opposition member: Why don't you take one?
Mr ALBANESE: I have said no to leave—he does it every day. Is it in order for a suspension to be moved?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Having predicted that this may occur today, I refer to page 540 of the House of Representatives Practice:
Questions must not refer to proceedings of a committee not reported to the House. However, no exception has been taken to questions merely coinciding in subject matter with current committee inquiries. The following private ruling of President Cormack has equal relevance to the House ...
In respect to this issue, questions must not refer to proceedings not reported to the House; however, questions merely coinciding can be debated in the chamber.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): I move:
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately—That this House calls on the Prime Minister to speak immediately for up to 15 minutes to explain the following:
(1) what the Prime Minister meant when she said that a "line had been crossed" after months of expressing full confidence in the Member for Dobell;
(2) what the Prime Minister meant when she said she was "disgusted" by an unnamed MP who had worked for an unnamed union;
(3) what the Prime Minister means when she says that the Member for Dobell is entitled to a presumption of innocence even though she’s excluded him from the Caucus; and
(4) whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the Fair Work Australia findings or in the statement to this Parliament by the Member for Dobell given that they can’t both be right.
A Labor member of parliament has been found to have misused $500,000 of union members' money—
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer to my previous point of order and seek clarification of your ruling because it is not quite clear to me what that means now that the Leader of the Opposition has actually moved a suspension. Because the government has not been provided with the words that are in that motion to suspend, it is hard for us to make a determination on it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): I have not sought to make a ruling. I have gone to the only reference I can find in House of Representatives Practice to the issue and I will advise the Leader of the Opposition not to go too directly to the matters that are currently before the Privileges Committee.
Mr Albanese: On that basis, Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to get a ruling from you, I raise a point of order: that this resolution is out of order given that this matter is now being considered by the Privileges Committee. It is not in order for us now to debate the substance of issues that are before the Privileges Committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: With everyone's slight indulgence I am now going to talk to the clerk. The clock will stop in this instance. Again I am loathe to make a ruling with respect to the issue, and the difficulty before the chair is that there is absolutely no precedent in House of Representatives Practice that I can refer to. But this is a suspension of standing orders and I ask you to deal with the suspension of standing orders and not to traverse the issues that are before the Privileges Committee.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on this issue—the Manager of Opposition Business, when he was asked today why he withdrew a motion from the Notice Paper, indicated in a press conference that that motion was superfluous given that the Privileges Committee was set to look at the matter.
An opposition member: This is ridiculous!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is not ridiculous. It is a very serious matter, and I think everybody in this parliament should treat it with the due respect it deserves.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is a very important matter, and I will simply read from House of Representatives Practice:
Questions must not refer to proceedings of a committee not reported to the House. However, no exception has been taken—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat—
Mr Pyne: He is being false.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: and he will withdraw that last statement.
Mr Pyne: Which statement?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The 'false'.
Mr Pyne: That he was being false?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr Pyne: I withdraw that he was being false.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I am trying to assist the Manager of Opposition Business. My difficulty is the House of Representatives Practice refers to a question. We are not dealing with a question. We are dealing with a substantive motion. The substantive motion must be dealt with, and I caution the Leader of the Opposition not to traverse the matters before the Privileges Committee.
Mr ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, as you would expect I am speaking to my motion to suspend standing orders. Standing orders ought to be suspended because the most important business before this House right now ought to be getting a prime ministerial explanation. Who does she believe? Does she believe the findings of fact, of Fair Work Australia, or does she believe—
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has gone precisely to the matter that the Manager of Opposition Business has referred to the Privileges Committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will go to the suspension before the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: Indeed, and one of the reasons standing orders should be suspended is that it is obvious from the conduct of the Leader of the House that this government is still determined to run a protection racket for the member for Dobell. And every time this jack-in-the-box gets up—
Mr Brendan O'Connor: You are a disgrace!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The parliamentary secretary is warned.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I ask that the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that statement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition knows I objected to those statements just yesterday. He can withdraw and proceed with his motion before the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: Madam Deputy Speaker, to assist you and out of respect for the House, I withdraw. But it is very important—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has withdrawn and he will continue on the substantive motion before the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: Standing orders must be suspended because the great drama before this parliament this week has been the statement of the member for Dobell and the obvious contradictions between what was said in this parliament by the member for Dobell and the Fair Work Australia—
Mrs Mirabella: You can't handle the truth!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Indi is warned.
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has gone again to precisely the issue that has been referred to the Privileges Committee. The Manager of Opposition Business has just given it up because he says it does not matter. It does.
Mr Pyne: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this is a very important matter, and I will tell you why. The advice the House has received from the Clerk through me as Manager of Opposition Business is that by referring this matter to the Privileges Committee there was no basis for restricting debate in the House, and the only matter that could not be traversed was the proceedings of the Privileges Committee itself. This is the subject we are debating; the member for Dobell's veracity, not the proceedings of the Privileges Committee.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is a very difficult decision for anyone to determine what the matters in the Privileges Committee will be.
Opposition members: The proceedings!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! What proceedings? They have not met yet. You are predetermining the proceedings and I am trying to avoid that. The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will refer to the substantive motion before the chair.
Mr ABBOTT: That is precisely what I am doing. I am explaining to the House that the most important matter before this House right now ought to be who this Prime Minister believes. She should explain herself. Fair Work Australia or the member for Dobell: who does she believe? This is why the standing orders of this parliament should be suspended.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (14:57): Given the Leader of the Opposition's inability to do anything resembling sticking to standing orders, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no longer heard.
A division having been called and the bells being rung—
Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar should be aware of the issues when the doors are open during a division. I should not have to remind her.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Is the motion seconded?
The House divided [15:02]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:10): I second the motion. This is a desperate government, desperate to do anything to stay in power to protect the member for Dobell and, more importantly, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's ducking, weaving, obfuscation, weasel words and outright failure to answer questions in question time today or even stay in the chamber confirm what we already knew, that the Labor Party is a mates club who will do anything to protect the member for Dobell to cling to power.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. This is a motion for suspension of standing orders and I would bring him back to that question.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:11): On that basis, and to show my lack of faith in the ability of the Manager of Opposition Business to come back to the question, I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The question is that the member be no longer heard.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): The time for debate on the motion has expired.
Ms Gillard: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
The House divided. [15:15]
(The Deputy Speaker—Ms AE Burke)
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Member for Dobell
Mr ABBOTT ( Warringah — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 15:22 ): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a question for you. Given that the tactics employed by the government are shutting down debate on the statement by the member of Dobell, will you undertake to stop the clock when points of order are taken and gag motions are moved, trying to facilitate proper debate in this House and to allow democracy in this parliament to work?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:22): Order! Whilst I think the answer will be no, I will refer the actual question to the Speaker as it is not within my authority to take questions on administration in the chair at this point of time.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (15:23): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr WILKIE: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr WILKIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been misrepresented most grievously. Yesterday in the Tasmanian House of Assembly, the Greens health spokesperson asked Premier Lara Giddings to detail how much of the $340 million I secured for the Royal Hobart Hospital would be deducted from Tasmania's future GST allocation. The Premier is reported as saying $88 million will be clawed back each year for three years, which would amount to a total of $264 million. This figure is a fantasy, apparently concocted by the Tasmanian Labor government to shift blame to me for the dreadful state of the Tasmanian budget, a fantasy perpetuated by the Greens who do not want the hospital to be rebuilt and are prepared to play political games with public health policy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Denison must go to where he has been misrepresented.
Mr WILKIE: Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that the Commonwealth Grants Commission, not the Premier of Tasmania, is the authority on this matter and in its report this year the commission identified a GST clawback of $59 million. Future figures are unknown although the federal Treasury advises most of the $340 million will be new money.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Denison is now debating the issue.
Mr WILKIE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
Parliament
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Leader of the Opposition) (15:24): I have another question to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the referral of the budget to a committee of this House mean that the parliament cannot debate the budget in this chamber?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:24): I can answer that question and the answer is no. Just to clarify, the reason I am not seeking to make a ruling is that I am not the Speaker.
Questions in Writing
Mr MORRISON (Cook) (15:24): In accordance with standing order 105B—replies to unanswered written questions that have been on the Notice Paper for more than 60 days—I ask that you write to the following ministers seeking reasons for the delay in answering questions in writing: to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship about question Nos 872, 887, 888 and 889; to the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice about question Nos 939, 940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 947, 948, 949, 956 and 954; to the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband Communications and the Digital Economy about question Nos 958, 950, 951, 952, 953; and to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport about question No. 955.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:25): I am so impressed that the member for Cook has been so busy.
Parliament
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:25): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a question to you. It goes to the answer you gave to the Leader of the Opposition. It is about the question of who can or cannot make rulings in this place.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:26): The Manager of Opposition is right. Anyone in the chair can make a ruling, but given the circumstances of what was happening I was loath to make one as I am not the Speaker. Given the debate that was happening, it would normally be the Speaker who was the occupier of the chair. Any person in the chair has the right and the authority to make a ruling. I just think, given the circumstances I find myself in, I was loath to do it. But I did not rule out of order the question that the opposition put before the chair.
Parliament
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:26): Madam Deputy Speaker, can I ask a question to clarify?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr PYNE: He is still running interference!
Mr Albanese: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Speaker of the House of Representatives has made it clear and has enforced that questions such as that will not be asked after question time. That is the view that he has put before this chamber so as to avoid this tit for tat, so we do not have questions I could ask such as: is the budget before the Privileges Committee? That is just as absurd as the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business has an administrative question.
Mr PYNE: Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is: if you are loath to make a ruling and the opposition disagrees with the position you have taken, how can we move dissent in your ruling?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:27): I am not obliged to give advisory rulings. There is no obligation for the chair to do it.
Parliament House: Security
Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (15:28): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I ask my question can I compliment the Presiding Officers for the wonderful way in which they have made this place more secure with the new gates that have been operating in the car park for some time now. Having said that, I ask you, as the Acting Speaker, to ask the Speaker whether he can investigate to see how many, if any, staff members are using the members' car park. I have noticed a number of strange people—and I mean strange people—using the car park from time to time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:28): I can reliably inform the member for Hume that numerous people have raised this issue and that I think it is being investigated.
Parliamentary Behaviour
Mr SECKER (Barker—Opposition Whip) (15:29): Madam Deputy Speaker, would it be possible for you or the Speaker—I am not sure which under the present situation—to investigate the possible disorderly behaviour of the member for Eden-Monaro standing in front of the camera when the Leader of the Opposition was at the dispatch box.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ) (15:30): I can reliably inform the member for Barker that the two screens on the desk have the vision of what goes out at all times. So at all times I can see if someone is walking in front of the cameras and can recognise whether someone is blocking them. I will refer the question to the Speaker but I can reliably inform the House that I have not seen the vision being cut during this time. That is one of the reasons the cameras have been here.
Going back to the Manager of Opposition Business, he has the authority to rule dissent in the chair at any time.
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 document:
Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee—2011-12 Regional telecommunications review—Regional communications: Empowering digital communities.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Mr Ruddock to be a member of the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests in place of Mr Alexander.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (15:30): I ask leave of the House to move a motion for the appointment of a member to serve on the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests.
Leave granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That Mr Alexander be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests and that, in his place, Mr Ruddock be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter—Chief Government Whip) (15:31): by leave—I move:
That the bill be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Government Spending
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The urgent need for the Government to rein in spending in the face of events unfolding in Europe.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney) (15:32): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for allowing us to debate this issue, because this is a very important issue which does go to the heart of good governance. You would have thought that other issues such as the debt ceiling should be properly debated in this place, but the government has closed down that debate just as it has chosen to close down any debate about the member for Dobell's one-hour, uninterrupted statement to the House.
When it comes to an issue such as the government's need to rein in spending there is a simple fact that Australians need to remind themselves of each day. The Labor Party has accumulated the four largest budget deficits in Australian history, totalling $174 billion. At the same time, the Labor Party is today spending $100 billion a year more than the last year of the coalition government just 4½ years ago. One of the reasons why this is a significant number is because it was at that time that the now Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said:
If the government pretend that interest rates are low then they do not have to admit that it is their policies that are putting pressure on the rates. What is putting pressure on the rates? What is partially responsible for this? It is the big spending, high taxing government.
He went on to accuse the then Treasurer, the member for Higgins, Peter Costello. He said:
... the member for Higgins, a man acutely embarrassed by his record of taking the proceeds of the mining boom—
Get a load of that! Acutely embarrassed about his record!
spending like a drunken sailor and building nothing that lasts for the Australian people.
I will tell you what we built. We built a surplus of $20 billion a year. We built a Future Fund, with $70 billion in it. We built a government that was $100 billion a year smaller in expenditure than what Labor is today. We built in an economy that had an unemployment rate with a four in front of it on a permanent basis. We built an economy with strong economic growth. We built an economy that was resilient and was able to withstand the worst of the Asian financial crisis. But when it comes to this government, which picks and chooses its measurements, I would say to you that it is the government's own spending that continues to put pressure on the economy and put pressure on the budget, because, when you set the benchmark of expenditure, you would say to yourself that what the now Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said at the time was 'a big spending government'—$100 billion a year less in expenditure; it represented, at that time, 23.1 per cent of GDP. In 2008-09, the government jumped it to 25.2, then 26 per cent, then 24.7 and then 25.1 per cent. Next year, miraculously, somehow it is going to drop to 23.5—and that is because of the money shuffle that we all know about—and then 23.7, 23.5 and 23.6 per cent. The net outcome of that is that, in no year of all the time of Labor in government, nor in the years that it promises to deliver a future budget, will it ever reach the low levels of expenditure of the last year of the Howard government, which they said was 'a big spending government'—a big spending government that was $100 billion a year smaller in expenditure that this current government.
But we know why Labor should not be trusted with money, and it comes back to waste. There is a conga line of example of initiatives, from $900 cheques going to dead people and people living overseas, to pink batts going into homes and causing the homes to be burnt down, to the massively overpriced Building the Education Revolution school halls program, particularly in New South Wales.
Even today we hear of new initiatives. This week we found out in Senate estimates that Senator Conroy spent $526,000 on selecting 11 ABC and SBS directors. He spent $50,000 on each directorship, on finding a director. And, in that situation, he appointed a very respectable but long-standing Labor icon, Jim Spigelman, as the chairman. So he spent $50,000 going through the parade of trying to identify directors. And then they appointed someone that they were extremely familiar with.
On 14 May, Labor allocated $36 million more for carbon tax advertising—and it does not mention the carbon tax. Surely you don't need to be John Singleton to work out that if you are going to spend $36 million on an advertising program you should mention what the product is. That is kind of obvious, isn't it? We do not have to go to the 'Where do you get it?' ads—do you remember those ads in the 70s? 'Where do you get it?' Where do you get the carbon tax? From the Labor Party. Where do get the carbon tax? From Julia Gillard. Where do you get the carbon tax? You get the carbon tax in your bills. That is a pretty simple ad, and you just got it for free. You didn't have to spend $36 million. But I tell you what—what a great use of taxpayers' money: $36 million to tell people that they are advertising a carbon tax and the ad does not even mention the tax itself! But wait—there's more!
The Gillard government is spending $20 million promoting the National Broadband Network, which is a now-$50-billion program that the government thinks people should know about. So, just in case you have not noticed the excavator out the front of your house, they are going to take out ads on your TV to tell you that you should be signing up to the National Broadband Network.
But there is, of course, more. The one that most Australians would be most angry about is the blow-out of $1.7 billion for Australian taxpayers in the costs of managing the asylum seekers arriving on illegal boats—$1.7 billion. This is the latest blow-out. It includes a blow-out of $424 million on this year's figures and it will add a debt cost to taxpayers of an extra $1.1 million a day. So, for so long as you can see, taxpayers are going to have to pay $1.1 million a day just on the interest for the debt that has accumulated because the Labor Party does not know how to control the borders.
But, of all the examples they continue to roll out, the ones that are most on people's minds are the ones where better management could deliver a better outcome. Take Labor's digital set top boxes installation program—an average of $350 per installation per box. Harvey Norman is offering them for $168, and Gerry Harvey would discount that too; he might give you five years interest free on that as well—might toss that in. The Australian reports now that the average installation cost of the set top boxes has risen to $700 a unit. You could buy the whole TV—you could probably get 52 inches for $700, couldn't you?
The Australia Network tender—what a great tender that was! Labor's bungling of the Australia Network tender has cost at least $2 million. It was recommend to the government that Sky News should receive approval to continue with the Australia Network, and then there was an internal struggle—remember that?—between the then Minister for Foreign Affairs and the minister for communications, and they were swapping responsibility between departments. The net result was that compensation is now being paid to Sky News for winning the tender but not getting it.
And of course there are others. The Australian Research Council is spending millions of dollars on questionable research projects, such as on climate change emotion. I will tell you, there is plenty of emotion in here about that. Here is another one: ancient economic life in Italy. Well, we are watching what is happening overseas quite carefully, and I think contemporary Italy is more interesting than ancient Rome. Other projects include: $578,792 to the University of Western Australia for a study of 'an ignored credit instrument in Florentine economic, social and religious life from 1570 to 1790'—
Mr Tony Smith: It's the missing piece!
Mr HOCKEY: That is! How did Niall Ferguson miss that one? There was $197,302 for 'sending and responding to messages about climate change: the role of emotion and morality', and $314,000 for a study to determine if birds are shrinking. Just ring up Inghams! Find out about their chickens. They are getting bigger and bigger. In fact, I remember the late Bing Lee saying to me that the birds at Inghams are getting too large for his freezers when he was selling the freezers at Christmas; the turkeys were too large. And they are spending $314,000 on identifying it. Hang on—there was $145,000 for a study of sleeping snails, to determine 'factors that aid life extension'! There was $210,000 to study the early history of the moon. You can imagine Tim staring out longingly from the window at the Lodge at the moon and thinking, 'You know what, Julie? We should have a good look at that. Why don't we spend $210,000 to work out what happened before Neil Armstrong got there?'—as if no-one has ever thought about it for years.
If it were not taxpayers' money it would be laughable. If they were not the hard-earned dollars of so many good, diligent, committed Australians, it would be laughable. But, unfortunately, the Treasurer keeps saying: 'We're doing well; we're living within our means. Let's compare ourselves to some other countries.' Australia's general government expenditure in 2012 was 36.3 per cent of GDP. Let us compare. Switzerland was less: 34.7 per cent of GDP. New Zealand was less: 33% of GDP. Hong Kong, 21.1%; Korea, 21.6%; Singapore, just 17.4%.
The Treasurer is always keen to compare us to the worst. He is always keen to compare us to the nations that are in deep trouble, as if being ahead of those nations is somehow a great achievement, as if being ahead of those nations somehow lays down the foundations for future growth. But our competition is coming from our region and the Labor Party just does not get it. They mouth the words about it being the Asian century, but they do not understand that the competition for our children, and our grandchildren and beyond, is going to be in our region, in our sphere of influence. They are the people who are highly competitive.
We must benchmark our nation against the best, and not the worst. That is what we must do. We must aspire to run faster than anyone else, to do better than anyone else, to put in greater effort and to be more productive and more innovative than anyone else. That is the great legacy we can leave our children, not money being spent on reviews into snails, birds drinking or the history of the moon. We need to spend money on our people—our greatest investment—to give them the opportunity to hope for a better life without the dead hand of a Labor government being laid upon their back at every moment. The great legacy of this Labor Party, apart from incompetent and, dare I say it, corrupt government, is the debt it is leaving Australians. That is the pain it is leaving the next generation of Australians.
Mr Perrett: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order: it is offensive to suggest that this government is corrupt and I ask that the member for North Sydney withdraw.
Mr HOCKEY: I withdraw. In that case I say to the honourable member: stop running a protection racket for the member for Dobell. Let the parliament debate the issues that go to the integrity of the parliament and let the nation get on with the job of building a better future for our children based on hope, reward and opportunity for effort.
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (15:47): I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on a matter of public importance relating to the economy and to add just a few facts to the debate—a few facts that were missing from the contribution from the member for North Sydney. Members will note that at no stage during the member for North Sydney's contribution did we hear anything about the OECD economic outlook that was released overnight. It is an important document that provides a snapshot of where the various economies across the globe are placed at this point in time. It is an important document because it gave a very big tick to the economic management of the Australian economy. In fact, that document reported:
Restoring fiscal leeway while macroeconomic conditions are still favourable, and the terms of trade high, is welcome.
It gave a big tick to our return-to-surplus strategy and it noted the fact that the Australian economy is the standout performer of all OECD economies. In terms of growth, the Australian economy will grow faster than any of the other advanced economies over the coming two years.
In addition to that we have returned our budget to surplus. This is no trivial matter considering what is going on across the globe at the moment. It is worth reflecting on this point. If we have a look at the budget position here in Australia compared to other nations, what we see is that in 2011-12 in Australia we will be delivering a $1.5 billion surplus. That is 0.1 per cent of GDP—a surplus. Let us look at other economies in the OECD. Let us look at the United States. They will still be running deficits; their deficit will be 8.1 per cent of their GDP. The United Kingdom will be running a deficit at eight per cent of their GDP. Japan will be at 10 per cent of their GDP and Canada, another country that is resource rich, will still be in deficit to the tune of about 3.7 per cent of GDP.
Mr Buchholz: What about Brazil and Norway?
Mr BRADBURY: Well, you come in here and quote Brazil and Norway. The reality is that if you compare Australia to comparable economies we are the standout performer. We are growing at a rate that demonstrates that this economy today is seven per cent larger than it was pre-GFC. That is a very significant point to make.
It is well worth having a look at what has been happening in other parts of the world. We have been growing 7.3 per cent today on that base pre-GFC. By mid-2014 we would have grown by about 16 per cent on that pre-GFC level. Look around the world: most of the advanced economies have not even returned their growth levels to the levels that they were at before the GFC. We are seven per cent larger. All of these indicators point to the underlying strength of the Australian economy, but the point that has been bought forward, the question for this MPI, goes to the issue of fiscal restraint and reining in government spending. I think it is important that we make a few points and point out a few facts about government spending under this government compared to government spending under previous governments. With regard to government spending as a percentage of GDP—the member for North Sydney comes in here and plucks out figures. He hits us with a volume figure and he does that to mislead the House. I think even the member for North Sydney realises that in a growing economy, if you maintain spending at the same percentage of the economy, then as the economy grows, overall levels of spending will increase.
Mr Burke: No, he would not understand that.
Mr BRADBURY: The minister points out that perhaps that is too complex. It has troubled the member for North Sydney to come to an appreciation of that. The real figure that we need to look at is expenditure as a percentage of the economy, as a percentage of GDP. In 2012-13, spending as a percentage of GDP will be 23.5 per cent. Across the forward estimates, we will be containing expenditure to below 24 per cent of GDP.
That represents the longest sustained period of maintaining expenditure below 24 per cent of GDP at any time since the early 1980s.
Compare the record of the Howard-Costello government with what we are doing now and what we are proposing to do for the coming four years. They were big spenders. They spent a lot more as a percentage of the economy than what we are doing. Perhaps the best indication of how tight a fiscal operation this government is running is that the opposition has not been able to propose a single savings measure. The Leader of the Opposition came in for his budget in reply speech—not a single savings measure. The shadow Treasurer went to the National Press Club—not a single savings measure.
If the government was as bloated as these people would have you believe—if there was so much fat to cut—surely they could come forward with a single measure. Instead of coming forward with spending cuts, all they tell the Australian people is that they will take away some of those revenue sources. It is worth also having a look at the other side of the budgetary equation. It is one thing to look at what you are spending. We have already established that. Look at what we are spending as a percentage of the economy. We are spending less today than at any time through that previous government. Over a sustained period we have not been able to contain expenditure growth to the extent that we are doing now, not since the early 1980s.
If you have a look at what is happening on the tax front, we are collecting tax at a lower percentage of GDP today than at any time under the previous government. Tax is 22.1 per cent of GDP. The amount of tax we are collecting is less today than at any time under the previous Howard-Costello governments. That is a fact you do not often hear, but it is a fact. They say that they want to repeal certain revenue sources such as the mining tax. When we first proposed a mining tax they said, 'We're opposed to the mining tax so we're opposed to every single one of the expenditure measures connected to it.' That is what they said. They came in here and they said to the 2.7 million small businesses in Australia, 'You don't deserve a tax cut. We'll vote against a tax cut for you.' And they did vote against tax relief for the 2.7 million small businesses in this country. Fancy that—a Liberal opposition. Menzies would roll in his grave. The party of business—that is what they would like to pretend. They came into this place and they said to 2.7 million small businesses around Australia, 'We're not going to give you tax relief. We'll vote against it.' And they did. When it came to a company tax cut, they said, 'We're against that as well.'
They said back then that they were against the expenditure measures that were connected to the mining tax. We went into the budget and said, 'There's no point persisting with this company tax cut until we can secure a consensus in the parliament. We'll work through the business tax working group to deliver a cut to the company tax rate, but we won't keep pushing this one if we can't get the support in the parliament. If the Liberal Party want to stand side by side with the Greens and deny businesses a tax cut then we'll find a better way to spread the benefits of the mining boom.' So we have.
We continue to invest in superannuation. I am not sure what the latest is on that side. They came out and said they would support retaining the increases in superannuation, but they have been a bit quiet on that recently. They are still opposed to investing in infrastructure, presumably, even though that money will be spent. On investing in small business tax relief, they came into the parliament and voted against the instant asset write-off. Yet small businesses all around the country will be lining up to take advantage of it from 1 July. When we announced that we would spread the benefits of the mining boom to families right across this country through an increase in family tax benefit part A and a supplementary allowance, they came forward and said they would support it. At least, that is what they said in the first instance.
We heard so much about this principled position that they could not support cuts to the company tax rate or the instant asset write-off because they did not support the tax that funded it. Now, all of a sudden, they support the expenditure but do not support the tax. So how are they going to pay for it? They have a $70 billion black hole and it just keeps getting bigger. The only announcement you could remotely describe as having any substance in the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech was a spending measure. He did not have a price tag but it was a spending measure. The $70 billion crater—he is out there with his shovel digging it—is getting bigger and bigger. The capacity to dig craters of this nature could only add to our efforts as far as fielding the mining boom and extracting more resources in parts of this country.
This is a government that is low taxing—22.1 per cent of GDP—lower than at any time under the previous government. This is a government that, when it comes to expenditure as a percentage of GDP, will be containing expenditure over a sustained period at lower levels than in the early 1980s. On both fronts we are lower taxing and lower spending than the previous government. The member for North Sydney came in here today and had the hide to start lecturing this government about expenditure and where expenditure cuts should be made. If it is that easy a job he should be able to come forward and announce one or two expenditure items that he thinks need to be made.
Have a look at what this government has already done. We have already achieved, in this budget alone, $33.6 billion worth of savings measures. That adds to the savings measures we achieved previously. We have made $100 billion worth of savings measures over the last four years. If you think you can still find additional savings measures, come forward and identify them. You hear those on the other side talk about the precarious nature of the Australian economy. What a load of rubbish! We understand that there are challenges in various parts of this economy, but look at the underlying fundamentals of the economy. We have low unemployment, at 4.9 per cent. We have contained inflation. We have growth at levels that the rest of the advanced world could only dream of and a record pipeline of investment. We have a strong economy. But we want to spread the benefits of the boom and that is why we have announced a range of measurements in the budget that will ensure the benefits of the boom are being spread.
Those opposite want to come in here and lecture people about debt. Our net debt is to peak in 2011-12 at 9.6 per cent of our GDP. They talk about us overburdening the country with debt.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member opposite says 'What was it when you came in?' Well, there was this thing called the global financial crisis. And do you know what? We stood up to the challenge and we invested in supporting jobs.
Mr Robb interjecting—
Mr BRADBURY: The member for Goldstein says that they wasted money. I will tell you what: if it were left up to him, hundreds of thousands of Australians would have been out of a job. We would have gone into recession. Instead, we were one of the only advanced economies in the world to avoid recession.
There is no excuse for these people—no excuse for the member for Goldstein. At least the Leader of the Opposition's excuse was that he slept through the debate on the response to the global financial crisis. He did not come in here. At least he can say, 'I didn't vote against the government's package to stimulate the economy.' He can say that. He can put his hand on his heart and say, 'I didn't vote against the stimulus package,' because he did not. He was asleep in his office and did not come in on the most important debate that this parliament has dealt with for half a century.
Mr Christensen interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Dawson has already been warned.
Mr BRADBURY: This was the most important economic debate that we have dealt with and he was not even here to vote for it because he fell asleep. He slept through it!
Whilst the Leader of the Opposition might have slept through the global financial crisis, the rest of the world has not. And we acted to support hundreds of thousands of jobs. Since 2007 we have created three-quarters of a million jobs in this country post GFC. When the GFC hit, 27 million jobs were shed around the world. These are the facts of our government's economic management. We have managed the economy so that it is a strong economy, but now we want to spread the benefits of the boom.
We are the only advanced economy that has handed down a budget surplus. All the others are miles back in deficit. We are returning to surplus, and these people, who were high up when it came to spending and higher when it came to taxing, want to come here and lecture us. Australia is a standout performer of all world economies and you should stand up and be proud of that rather than criticise. (Time expired)
Mr ROBB (Goldstein) (16:02): We have just heard it again. We had this same problem a few days ago. You have to give it to the member for Lindsay, he is the master of spin. He did not refer for one second to the subject of the debate, which is the urgent need for the government to rein in spending in the face of events unfolding in Europe. Former Reserve Bank board member and noted Australian economist Warwick McKibbin recently declared that the government has put the economy in the eye of a perfect storm.
Government members interjecting—
Mr ROBB: Yes, well done, great spin. Best spin I have heard for a while. Off you go!
Government members interjecting—
Mr ROBB: They are all having a chuckle on the other side about the fact that this government has put the economy in the eye of a perfect storm. Well, laugh on! This is not a game. No wonder we have a view in the community that this government is such a dysfunctional mob and unable to manage money. That is the view, and you know it. You must be getting it. We are getting it in spadefuls everywhere we go. Professor McKibbin said:
The federal government has bet that a crisis in Europe will not happen during the 2012-13 financial year.
Furthermore, David Uren, the respected economics editor of the Australian, observed today:
There is no effort to place Australia's prospects into the context of a global malaise that shows no sign of lifting.
That is what concerns me about the member for Lindsay; he shows no awareness that there is a global malaise that shows no sign of lifting. Mr Uren went on:
Its continuing hold has been seen across the past 10 days, with signs of rapid slowdown in China, renewed crisis in Europe and speculation that the US Federal Reserve will again start printing money to buy its own government's bonds.
These observations are confirmed by the views and the confidence levels of Australian business people. If everything that the member for Lindsay said were true—if this economy is going gang busters, if we are better placed than the rest of the world, if households should not be worried about where the next dollar for their mortgage is going to come from or whether there is any threat to their jobs—then you would expect that the confidence levels of the 2.4 million small business people and the hundreds of thousands of bigger businesses across this country would be at some reasonable level.
Let us have a look. In March 2010 the NAB business confidence level was measured at 17. In March 2011, last year, it was at 11. In March 2012, just a month or so ago, it was at minus one. There has been a significant—
Ms Rowland interjecting—
Mr ROBB: Members opposite are saying we are talking down the economy. This is facing the facts. This was the subject of the debate. Are you going to get your head out of the sand and look at the dangers that are coming down the line, or which could come down the line? Are you going to restore the resilience that you inherited when you won government? Are you going to restore us to no debt? Are you going to restore the $70 billion of assets? Are you going to restore the confidence of the business sector and households back to what it was? No! Minus one is the reality. You cannot wish it away; it is the reality. It has gone down from 17, to 11 and then to minus one. Business people, who make the investments and who take the risks, are the ones who have no confidence. They are not spending any of the money sitting on balance sheets—and there is a lot of money around. They are not investing it.
There is a crisis of confidence across the business sector and, outside the resources sector, they are not investing at all. Within the resources sector, we are now seeing again over the last week Access Economics warning that $260 billion of projects being actively considered and at an advanced planning stage may be deferred. That is a quarter of a trillion dollars worth of projects on which the Treasurer stood up here today and proudly declared, 'Job done.' They are not even finalised in terms of investment decisions, and Access Economics assess that these projects may well be deferred.
In fact, I went to Perth a couple of weeks ago to talk to a number of senior people within the mining industry. I spent several years working in the mining industry. I got to Perth, and half the people that I went to have a chat with to see what was happening were not there. They were in Africa. All I could hear in Perth was that there are now some 300 Australian mining companies who are actively seeking opportunities in Africa. It is not just Australian mining companies; it is investment dollars. Investment funds by the billions that were coming here out of the United States and other countries are now heading to Africa. Why is that so? What do they say to me when they give me a reason for starting to write down the prospects of mining here in Australia? They say 'sovereign risk'. That is what they say. They say 'the carbon tax' and 'the mining tax'.
Again, there is the very smart decision in the budget to double the withholding tax, which the government had very properly reduced to 7½ per cent, one of the very few measures in the last four or five years that you could commend the government for and that gave any sense to the business community that you knew their circumstances. You have turned around and doubled it, and not only that: you have made it retrospective. So the billions of dollars that were attracted because of that 7½ per cent withholding tax are now going to be thwarted. You will see this dry up. You have sacrificed billions of dollars of potential investment for the sake of $260 million over the next three or four years to try to convey that you have balanced your books, when in fact you have lost billions of dollars of investment on behalf of the Australian community. They talk about the re-regulation of the workforce and many more things. All of these things add up to sovereign risk. It is why the business sector are so down in the mouth about their prospects under this government. It is why they endlessly say, 'Can't you bring on an election? For goodness sake bring on an election.' This country is stopping in its tracks because of the uncertainty of this government.
It is not only all of these policy decisions; it is the way in which you conduct business between yourselves. It is the way in which you protect, cover and spend weeks of time and distraction over a member who really has disgraced himself and the parliament. Yet you are spending time and effort protecting this person, at the expense of the proper operation of this parliament. People see this and cringe. They are cringing in coffee shops, in shops, in factories and in households all over this country, wondering how much more dysfunctional you lot can become. This is why we need an election, and it is for these reasons that you have not in any sense anticipated some of the danger signs coming. Warwick McKibbin is not a man known for his dramatic expression or his overstatement of issues. He said that this government has put the economy 'in the eye of the perfect storm'. You have massive spending commitments. You have increased spending by 40 per cent—$100 billion more than four years ago. You cannot explain this; you simply cannot explain it. Let us forget about the stimulus; that was for two years.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr ROBB: No, let us except the stimulus. I am talking about this year's budget, which has no stimulus money in it, I am told by you. This year's budget is $100 billion more than four years ago. That is a 40 per cent increase. What about a household? What about any of these people in the gallery? If they increased their spending 40 per cent every four years, their households would go broke in no time. This is unrealistic, yet you are spending $100 billion more, and the member for Lindsay stands up here and makes out that you are being fiscally responsible and tough. You are just full of spin. Explain $100 billion at a time when inflation was 13.2 per cent.
This government has created structural deficits such that, if the mining income comes back by just a modest amount—20 or 30 per cent—we will dive straight into deficits in excess of $50 billion and debt will ratchet up. It is giving no sense that it understands any of this. People have lost confidence. There is a crisis of confidence. We need an election. We need somebody in these chairs that knows how to manage money.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Before I call the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, can I just request all members of this chamber, when addressing the chair, not to refer to 'you'. Otherwise I will repeatedly pull you up, and your time is limited in the debate. I just give a general warning to everyone: the use of the word 'you' is a reflection on the chair.
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:12): Amongst all the noise and pollution coming from the other side, you could be forgiven if you could not hear the laughter. They do say laughter is the best medicine, and I tell you what: the opposition need all the laughter they can get, because they are a very sick mob if they cannot even accept some of the basic premises and facts of what is happening in our economy, whether you compare us to anyone in the world or to no-one in the world. Either way, there are actually some really good things happening in this country and it is time the opposition, like many others, just took note of it and recognised what has happened.
What is also true is that, when you run out of your own ideas, you just start attacking the ideas of others. There is not one idea coming from that side. We saw it in the budget response. It was not a budget response; it was just the usual attack that we get in this place. It is just a lot of noise and a lot of pollution and it brings nothing new to the table. If people are really considering the issue, a matter of public importance has been brought forward here which says the government should rein in spending in the face of current events. If that is the case, where was their case—if that is actually what you are trying to achieve? The opposition comes in here and says, 'Rein in spending.' Where? I was sitting here making notes, hoping for one new idea—maybe we could use it. But there was not one. It was just a sheer, blatant, political attack just to try to gain some advantage. I am not going to use the same rhetoric that was used by my opponents, carrying on about spin and all the rest of it. It would be nice if just once in a while we actually got a contribution in this place, if you are going to raise a matter of public importance, that actually did just that. The fact of the matter is that none of the facts bear out the fanciful half-truths that we get from the other side.
There is something, though, that I really do appreciate, and that is the fact that Australians are really hard working, and I am sure the opposition will agree. They may not know that Australians are in fact the hardest working people in the world. It is true. Consistent surveys in recent years have rated Australians as the hardest working people in the world. We are right up there with the best of them. We work many hours and we work productively as well. We are actually an efficient mob.
It is because of that and because of what this government is doing that we have managed to get through the global financial crisis, that we have managed to weather the worst storms. I heard before that 'there is a perfect storm coming'. Well, there is a storm coming, but I do not know how perfect it will be or how big the opposition would like this storm to be. But on this side, on the government side, on the Labor side, we are doing everything we can to batten down the hatches, and whatever storm might come—we do not know what it might look like or what it might mean—we will work very hard to make sure that whatever happens we have an economy that is resilient to it.
One of the best ways to make an economy resilient is to make sure that people still have their jobs. If you look at any economy in the world that is struggling you see that the first thing that goes is people's jobs. If you do not have a job—if you want to go back to the old 'let's go back to basics' stuff—you cannot pay any of your bills. The reality is that we have got people still in work. We worked hard during the global financial crisis to ensure that this economy survived, that Australia would fare the best of any economy. I will make a wager with you. Travel as far as you like and go and ask any treasurer or any finance minister of any other OECD nation or any other nation whether they would like to trade our economy for theirs. They would hack off their own right arm to do that, because they understand the good fundamentals that we have here. That is something that is inescapable. It is just unimaginable for the other side to even contemplate that that might be true, but that is the reality.
Every time this government—and I am sure this happens on the other side—talks to people from other countries, global forums, financial forums and finance ministers' meetings they all look to us and say, 'How are you guys doing it? How are you managing to keep your economy so strong?' One of the ways we are doing that is through really responsible fiscal management—and responsible in a whole range of areas. It is not just some glib, simplistic approach which says, 'You just need to do one thing; let's just save more.' I love these sorts of things—'Let's just spend less and save more.' What does that actually mean? It must mean something, but they do not tell us what it means. It is a little bit too simplistic for me. If 'save more' means sack people, get rid of people's jobs and shut down industry, then I am not too keen on that. I think there might be a better way. I think we ought to work with industry and try to save people's jobs. I think we ought to keep our economy growing. I think we ought to do something to make sure that people are still working tomorrow as well as the next day.
Who are the workers in this country who actually create this economy? It is the small business owners. It is the people who buy a franchise—the people who create a job, who buy their own job and employ their family members or perhaps a friend. There are 500,000 plus franchisees in this country who create an economy, who create work. There are all the tradespeople who go out and work every day, whether they drive a ute, whether they work for someone or whether they work for themselves. We have to keep them working—and we have done that. We have done it in this budget and we have done it in consecutive budgets. We have made sure that when you do spend money—because that is part of growth; spending some money—you spend it in the right areas. Look at the schools and the investment that we have made in really decent infrastructure in schools which will have a legacy for the next 30 years. It keeps giving for 30 years. Look at the school halls, the science labs and the teaching facilities—30 years.
I heard the member for North Sydney bleating on about the 'Asian century'. What does that mean to him? According to him, we ought to keep up, we ought to be able to run faster and we ought to be able to do things. I would have thought that if you wanted to run faster you would need to train, and if you are going to train you will need somewhere to train and a training program. You would think that training program might start with our kids in schools. So what did we do? We commissioned Gonski, we invested money, we put bricks and mortar into schools and we actually went for the national curriculum and tried to lift the standard. But apparently that is a waste of money. That is the stuff those opposite talk about when they say they want to save money. You are never going to believe this—because I still do not believe it—but they are going to oppose the schoolkids bonus because, apparently, according to them, parents are not responsible enough to spend money on their own kids' education. That is an insult—but I will skip over that for the moment.
If we are to listen to the member for North Sydney, even for a split second, when he says, 'We've got to run faster'—and I agree with him; let's run faster—one might say that he will need to do a lot of training himself if he wants to run faster. If you are going to run faster, sign up to a program and get a trainer—get somebody who might have some knowledge about how you are going to run faster. That is what we are doing. We are putting money into schools, into people, into education—through Gonski and through proper funding. And who is going to benefit from this? Our kids are. I do not believe that any kid in this country should have less opportunity than any other kid in this country no matter where they come from.
So when the member for North Sydney talks about the Asian century, for him it is hollow, meaningless echoes off the wall. He is not training. He is not running faster. From what I can see his is running a lot slower—in fact, his walk has become a dawdle. That is what this opposition is represented by—former ministers who are dawdling and have plenty of hollow rhetoric echoing off walls.
The member for North Sydney loves to attack programs. And it sounds pretty funny to me—programs investigating or researching birds and snails and the moon and all the rest of it. But, under his ideology, you would burn the books and you would get rid of scientists—let's just get rid of all the scientists and all the books!
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr RIPOLL: I am sure this bird and snail research was going on when John Howard was Prime Minister, and we did not hear this side say too much about it. The reality is that there is probably a whole heap of research here which relates to something else and is good for this country in some way. The reason that we have science, research, scientists, teachers, professors and universities and we fund them is because it is good for the economy. It is even good for the philistines who sit opposite, the uneducated mob over there, who would actually shut down every school, because that would save money—'Let's just shut down the schools. There's plenty of savings to be made if we have no teachers and plenty of savings to be made if we don't invest in health'!
Mr Ian Macfarlane: This is nonsense!
Mr RIPOLL: You are right—it is nonsense. That is why I am raising it—because I am trying to make a point. The member for Groom is completely right: it is nonsense. It is nonsense to attack research and science. It is nonsense to attack school funding. It is nonsense not to get behind and support these things. The facts do not bear out the jokes that these guys opposite come up with—and I think the classic one today has to be 'we've got to run faster'. Well, have a look at them. Even with skates they could not keep up!
The truth is our economy is strong. It is really strong and it is in good nick—4.9 per cent unemployment; down from 5.1 per cent. Even if you do not believe it, even if you are sceptical about the number, it is the same methodology and the same data that it has been for 30 years. It is the same data and the same methodology as it was when these guys were in government. Whatever that 4.9 per cent means, it means that unemployment went down and jobs went up. That is all it means. It means more people have got money in their pockets and they can keep the economy strong, because they will spend. They will keep buying. We have done things for small businesses. There is the $6,500 instant tax write-off, there is the $5,500 for the utes; there are things there for the economy to keep growing. It is a strong budget. If you compare it with any economy in the world, we have got inflation under control, we have got debt under control, we have got 9.6 per cent of GDP compared with every other economy on the world. Japan is on 240 per cent. I am proud of the economy we have got. (Time expired)
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:23): If we are the Philistines then I guess I am a bit of a Goliath man, but that was no David performance. That was not even a pebble of a speech. I simply say this: spending is very, very easy. It is so easy that even Labor can do it. What they cannot do is get value for money. And they cannot stop spending the money—even in the wake of four record deficit budgets. Spending is an addiction and, like any addict, this government are in denial. They simply cannot accept that they have got a problem. They try to justify their drunken-sailor approach to spending by comparing themselves with Greece and Spain. If an alcoholic can name someone who drinks more than them, it does not mean they are not an alcoholic. Labor try to justify their spending habit by saying that debt is nothing to worry about. We have been told by the Treasurer that asking to extend the credit card limit by another $50 billion to $300 billion is 'no big deal'.
I wonder if the Treasurer's counterpart in the Greek parliament ever described the Greek debt level as 'no big deal'. If this is no big deal, how would he describe the debt ceiling when Labor came to government? It was just $75 billion and it was not even needed. But in 2009 the Treasurer increased the debt ceiling to a temporary $200 billion. Remember that? It was going to be temporary. He cited 'special circumstances'. In the last budget he increased it permanently to $250 billion, and now we are told that we are going to be increasing it to $300 billion and it is 'no big deal'.
Mr Hartsuyker: And he won't need it, he says!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes, he won't need it, he reckons—just like the last one. How far do Labor have to take it before they take it seriously? This government can try to trivialise their recklessness all they like, but it is a bit like Shakira's hips: the numbers do not lie. Real numbers do not, anyway, but the rubbery forecast and the smoke-and-mirrors budget delivered by the Treasurer are a pure work of fiction. The numbers for 2012-13 that we will see in about 16 months from now will tell a darker truth. In 16 months time we will see how much of a big deal the debt limit is—whatever it actually may be by then.
The shadow Treasurer delivered an excellent speech at the National Press Club earlier this month. One of the most telling graphics he used gave a visual representation—a very strong pattern of budget surpluses under the coalition. And then you saw this massive decline of budget deficits when Labor had the keys to the cookie jar. It clearly demonstrates that Labor's out-of-control spending has delivered the four biggest budget deficits on record, totalling $174 billion. They are very frightening figures—although I can understand families in my electorate having trouble putting them in perspective, because families are faced with the same issues every day. They have to watch their spending. And why is it that families have to balance their budgets but the Labor government cannot? Families know that, if you spend more than you earn, you either run out of money or you have to tax the credit card. And speaking of credit cards, can I say how sad it is that this government is so bogged down in the muck and mire surrounding the member for Dobell and, to get out of it and focus on the economy once again, they need to clear the air. Today the Prime Minister failed to do so in question time. When she was asked what line the member for Dobell had crossed, there was absolutely no answer—only some dancing, some line dancing, perhaps, to a country song, probably Johnny Cash: 'Because he's mine, he'll walk the line.' Going back to the credit cards, families understand that credit card debt has to be paid back. They do not get voted out and let another family come in to clean up their financial mess..
Mr Hartsuyker: Unless you're in the HSU!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes, unless you are in the HSU. Sooner or later, you have to pay it back. If you do not spend within your means, if you do not rein in your spending, if you spend more than you earn, if you keep borrowing money, you end up in a position where it is impossible to pay back.
Mr Hartsuyker: Then you call in the coalition!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: You call in the coalition at that point. I wonder if this same matter was ever a matter of public importance for the Greek parliament. Clearly a pattern of borrowing more and more money did not work over there. We could ask: are we on the same path? We will not be far behind if we keep posting the biggest budget deficits that this country has ever seen. But turning things around will not be as easy as it sounds, because Labor is spending money in two ways. They are recklessly splashing the cash around in sugar hits that they hope will lift their numbers in the polls and mask the impact of the carbon tax. Speaking about the carbon tax, it is very interesting. It is one of those taxes that is actually costing more than it is collecting, so we are told. I had a look on the Clean Energy Future website and I found an interesting article titled, 'Living green, drinking tea and weaving.' I was looking to see what some of the carbon tax dollars will go to. It said, 'This Saturday, 12 May, Auburn Community Development Network will host another "enviro tea salon"'. That is actually thanks to support from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. They are giving them $72,000 to do this. What do they do at these enviro tea salons? This Saturday, participants can take part in a basketweaving workshop. What is the Gillard Labor government doing funding basketweaving to the tune of $72,000? How is basketweaving going to mitigate so-called 'dangerous climate change'? Maybe this is an adaptation thing. They are adapting us to life under the carbon tax.
What is perhaps more reckless than this is the fact that they have locked in billions of dollars in spending that will remain even if things in the world go ever so badly. When this government look for the bigger drunk in the room and they compare our economy to other countries, one thing they do not mention is structural deficit. But the economist Henry Ergas did. In an article in the Australian on 7 May this year, he made this comparison:
The International Monetary Fund's fiscal update last week highlights how lacklustre the government's efforts have been. Importantly, the IMF concentrates on the structural budget balance, which nets out upswings and downswings and so captures the burden being placed on future taxpayers.
This is a good indication of how an economy is really travelling, particularly in uncertain times. Ergas continued:
Seventeen advanced economies have materially improved their structural budget balance since the global financial crisis. But not Australia. And six advanced economies will have a structural budget surplus by 2013. But not Australia.
If this government wants to talk about the economy and compare us to the rest of the world, then let us do that. But let us compare apples with apples. We are indeed the Lucky Country. We are ideally placed to take advantage of the global resources boom. Australia went into the GFC with an economy that was the envy of the world, with money in the bank. And here we are, after four years of 'hard Labor', posting record deficits. We have extended the credit card in the middle of a boom. If this government is posting record deficits now, what will we see if the economy actually goes into complete meltdown? If this smoke and mirrors budget surplus is so thin it is actually transparent—like the one we have been dished up—despite it being based on a forecast of a bumper 11 per cent increase in tax revenue, it will actually be a real bumper deficit when it sets in.
If the thought of what might happen when things go pear-shaped globally is not enough to warrant reining in spending then consider this: even if, by some miracle, the forecast $1.5 billion surplus is actually delivered, what will it do to debt? It is hardly going to touch the sides. If Labor managed, by that unlikely miracle, to deliver this long, long series of surpluses, it would actually take Labor 96 years to pay off the debts that accrued in just four years. If the government does not rein in spending and start paying down debt, Australia will continue to spend an extraordinary amount on interest. Interest payments on Labor's debt alone will reach an alarming $8 billion a year.
What Labor's recklessness has cost this country is what could have been bought with that money. For example, the National Disability Insurance Scheme could have been brought in. We could have been spending that $8 billion on infrastructure to ensure a stronger economy into the future. We could have been spending that $8 billion on fixing the Bruce Highway right up and down the coast of Queensland, making it safer for motorists and flood-proofing sections of it. Instead, it has been frittered away on pink batts, on overpriced school tuck shops—
An opposition member: On sleeping snails!
Mr CHRISTENSEN: on sleeping snails and on 'enviro tea workshops' where they are going to be doing basket weaving. What a basket case of a government this is! It cannot manage its debt.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:33): Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, before I start can I commend you on that wonderful tie that you are wearing and its nice maroon colour. And coming from country Queensland I want to point out a mortal sin that was committed by the previous speaker. He misquoted Johnny Cash—and that is reprehensible!
This matter of public importance is all about looking at government spending, especially in the face of events unfolding in Europe. We have heard from the member for North Sydney, the member for Goldstein and the member for Dawson. It is always easy to find fault with some obscure and esoteric component of a multimillion-dollar budget. But when you are talking about a trillion-dollar budget it really is just smoke and mirrors to trot out one small amount as an example of what this government is doing wrong.
It is funny that I am the third speaker today to quote from the Australian. I hate to do this, but I too am going to quote from that well-known socialist and ALP stooge David Uren. In the first paragraph of his article in today's Australian he says:
The Australian economy is tipped to beat Labor's current budget targets—and grow at one of the fastest rates in the OECD
A government member: The member for Goldstein did not quote that, did he?
Mr PERRETT: No, he did not. In fact, I could not find in this article the bit that the member for Goldstein quoted. But I will go back with a fine toothcomb to find it. Uren said:
The Paris-based OECD last night endorsed Labor's "ambitious" plan to return the budget to surplus. And it said that despite the "fragile" state of the international economy, Australia could expect to continue reaping the benefits of the mining boom …
Then he gives other quotes that provide the correct economic context for Australia. It is a shame that the other speakers who quoted from the Australian were not prepared to quote from that part. I was actually a bit misled by the MPI raised by the member for North Sydney; I thought he was only going to talk about the events unfolding in Europe. But he did not refer to that at all in his presentation, and nor did the member for Goldstein.
Times are tough, we do know that. I have another quote, which I printed off from the Brisbane Times, just to balance the fact that I am quoting from the Australian. It states:
The stocks have shed another $15 billion, bringing losses to May to about $100 billion.
These are serious, important, tough economic times throughout the world. We have got the dollar going down below 98c. In fact, apart from the yen, all currencies are falling against the US dollar—that is simply a part of the global shift. So these are very tough times. But I was interested to see comments from the World Bank—which are in contrast to the member for North Sydney's motion—saying countries could further loosen monetary and fiscal policies. I quote:
Fiscal measures to support consumption, such as targeted tax cuts, social welfare spending and other social expenditures, should be viewed as the first priority.
That is the recommendation of the World Bank. Thankfully, we do have a little bit of room to manoeuvre—but not to do some of the fanciful wish list things that the member for Dawson listed in his speech. Flood-proofing and paralleling the Bruce Highway from Coolangatta to Cairns was not in their budget announcements. In fact, there were not many monetary measures mentioned in either the budget in reply speech by the Leader of the Opposition or in the member for North Sydney's response at the National Press Club. They really are drifting into magic pudding economics. Just five days ago, Mr Abbott reaffirmed their commitment that there will be lower taxes, less government spending and lower interest rates under the opposition. The stuff that they are able to commit to is just magical! He is able to commit to all of this, as well as scrapping the MRRT and the carbon tax, while still meeting the same emissions targets that this side of the House will meet!
The member for Dawson seems to be a bit of a sceptic about harmful pollution.
Mr Tehan: He liked your basket-weaving initiative though!
Mr PERRETT: I have to remind those opposite that you are committed to exactly the same emissions targets that this side is committed to. John Howard committed to them when he was Prime Minister. He was not prepared to ratify Kyoto but he started the measuring process—and, but for the efforts of Queensland farmers, he would not have been able to meet those targets. Still, I remind those opposite that they are committed to exactly the same targets.
It is important to point out that taxation as a proportion of GDP is currently 22.1 per cent, which is lower than at any time during the previous Liberal government, and that percentages are what is most important when we are talking about dollars. This is especially so in an expanding economy, though it is slightly different in a contracting economy. The people opposite understand this.
We are making life a lot easier for Australians. It is great that we have low cash rates so that a person with a mortgage of $300,000, which is the average, is paying $3,500 less in interest per year. Take the member for Warringah with his, I think, $750,000 mortgage—the one that he forgot to mention on the register of interests. The actual mortgage that is on the register of interest—
Mrs Mirabella: The one that's not real.
Mr PERRETT: I will take that interjection from the member for Indi. I am only reading from the headline here; perhaps she could correct the record. It says '$710,000 in Abbott loans not declared'. That is the headline of the article in the paper, but I am sure the member for Indi will explain how it is not an actual mortgage. She understands more about the Leader of the Opposition's finances than I do. I am sure he is thankful that he is paying $8,000 less.
Mrs Mirabella: Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Moreton is deliberately being misleading. My interjection was relating to the Prime Minister saying people on the North Shore were not real, their families were not real and their mortgages were not real.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): There is no point of order. I remind the member for Moreton that all comments are made through the chair. A couple of times he has directed his comments directly to members opposite. I remind him to keep his comments through the chair.
Mr PERRETT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I misunderstood. I took the member for Indi's words literally; but, since she has explained them, I take that on board.
Spending as a percentage of GDP is now at 23.5 per cent, which is much better than at any time under the coalition. Incredibly, we have delivered $33.6 billion in savings in this budget, which builds on the $100 billion in savings over the last four budgets. So we are in a great position compared to the rest of the world, and I see great opportunities.
This MPI debate is potentially quite provocative in the light of what is going on. People in Australia are a little bit scared, they are feeling a little bit of trepidation. They take their lead from their political leaders—and, at the moment, the Leader of the Opposition and the team opposite are setting a tone. On Insiders on the weekend, they compared the happiness index for Australia with that for Spain, and I was amazed to learn that the Spanish, with 23 per cent unemployment and youth unemployment of nearly 50 per cent, are happier than Australians. We have 4.9 per cent unemployment. I think a lot of the responsibility for the unhappiness of Australians lies with the current political discourse, which is so bitter. The jeremiahs are constantly coming at a time when we should be encouraging people to spend more.
Thankfully, we are encouraging people to go to the shops, to look after their local retailers, and to take advantage of the government money circulating in the economy. There will be 4,000 more people in Moreton after 1 July who will no longer have to pay any tax at all. So, by 14 July, when the first pay packet arrives, they will have more money in their hand. Around 45,000 people in Moreton will receive a tax cut of more than $300, and 55,000 people overall will receive a tax cut in Moreton. That money can go into bills, and, by 14 July—Bastille Day—it will be able to go into tills as well. That will be a great boost for my local economy, as will the education refunds and the $69, $250 and $380 for pensioner couples and the $110 for children. All those payments, combined with the Clean Energy advance payments, will be great for the economy. (Time expired)
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (16:43): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this matter of public importance debate on the urgent need for the government to rein in spending in the face of events unfolding in Europe. It calls on the government to rein in expenditure because of global economic volatility. The world's economy is in a parlous state, and Australia used up its get-out-of-jail-free cards during the GFC. That is the problem—we have placed ourselves in a position now where there is little ammunition left in the locker should hard times return.
Every bit of good economic news out of Europe seems destined to be followed by two negative bits of economic news. A couple of months ago, only just before the Greek election—it seems so long ago now—it was a great relief to the world that Europe and Greece agreed on a bailout deal. But the results of the Greek election were inconclusive and Syriza, which is a radical party of the Left, has made big inroads. They opposed the refinancing package offered by the EC, and now the residents of Greece are facing another election. It is quite likely that, as a result of that election, the refinancing plan for Greece will be thrown on the scrap heap and Greece will have to leave the eurozone. In Spain it is almost as bad. Portugal, Italy and Ireland have similar problems. And now France has chosen a similar path by electing a socialist president who has decried the austerity approach and wants to borrow and spend more money and reduce the retirement age. Already their debt-to-GDP ratios are in the mid-80s.
I do not commonly quote the former Treasurer of South Australia, Mr Kevin Foley, a man I am sure you know well, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. He wrote an article, as you would know, in last week's Sunday Mail, in which he says:
Now the real fear is a third instalment of European tragedy could wash over the rest of us—
the first two he referred to were the two world wars—
minus the human slaughter but just as devastating in economic and financial terms. The crisis now gripping Europe has enormous consequences for the entire world including Australia.
… … …
For two years, Germany, France and the IMF have tried to convince debt-laden countries to get their houses in order.
France's election of a socialist leader has been an alarming development. At any other time I may have been mildly enthusiastic at President Hollande's win but not now and not with his platform.
That is from someone who was the Labor Treasurer of South Australia for over 10 years. He goes on to say that President Hollande was:
… elected promising to wind back Budget cuts, to distance France from the hard-line and appropriate German fiscal position and to deal with this nightmare by going for growth i.e. spend more money. France's debt to GDP is 87 per cent. It is almost as broke as Portugal and Spain, which have levels of debt around 100 per cent of GDP.
Foley goes on to say:
Hollande has no money in the bank so he's going to borrow? Yeah, right.
Meanwhile, back here in Canberra, our Treasurer repeatedly tells us Australia is in fine shape and we have nothing to worry about. However, Australians are distinctly uncomfortable and worried about their futures. Since the GFC, government estimates of growth in the economy and growth in tax receipts have been incredibly optimistic. In the budget for 2008—after the GFC—which was tipped to be a contractionary year, they predicted we would have four per cent growth through the remaining out-years of the budget and beyond. At the time, those figures were highly criticised by people on this side of the House and economists around the nation. And they have proven to have been overly optimistic. In that light, the government have failed to take the tough decisions because they have overestimated the world recovery and the recovery in receipts.
The record is not pretty. In the final budget that Peter Costello delivered, there was a $19.7 billion surplus. But the following years registered a $17 billion deficit, a $54 billion deficit and then a $47 billion deficit. This year the deficit is $44 billion, and the year is not finished. Really quite disturbing is the rise in overall government expenditure, which was around the $270 billion mark in the last Costello budget and is now at $376 billion—an increase of more than 40 per cent for the coming budget. The stimulus was meant to be a one-off shot from the government. The stimulus packages that came through were supposed to ramp up and put some money out in the economy and buy some assets—admittedly, some pretty dodgy assets—and then the money was supposed to be wound back. The stimulus is over but we find the budget now sits at $100 billion more than the last Costello budget. The member for Moreton, just recently on his feet, said that the government had made $100 billion worth of cuts in four years. In fact, their expenditure has not risen by $100 billion in four years, it will rise by $100 billion every year in the budgets from this point.
The problem is that Labor members love being the local Father Christmas. They just cannot say no. They are like a bad parent. They love to give out money. The trouble is that it is other people's money, including that of future generations. The government tell us they have taken the tough decisions, but in four years they have repeatedly lifted the borrowing ceiling, first from $75 billion to $200 billion to deal with the GFC and then to $250 billion. Now, this year, embedded in the budget papers is a move to shift the borrowing limit to $300 billion, an extra $50 billion—even though the Treasurer tells us we are going to bank a surplus. It leaves you a bit speechless.
Yesterday was a red-letter day in this parliament. The member for Longman had another birthday. He was 22 yesterday. We remember well the question he asked in this House. He asked why he should believe that the Labor Party will ever deliver a surplus to this nation when they have never done so in his entire life. He is another year older and they have not done it, again, and it is pretty unlikely to happen in the next 12 months. The lift in the borrowing limit is a clear indication that Wayne Swan has little faith in his budget predictions of a surplus. His attempt to justify the action of the extra $50 billion borrowing limit as 'bumps'—$50 billion bumps!—is simply not believable and is an admission that he has little faith in his budget projections. That is why it is so important that Labor rein in this reckless spending.
Even Ken Henry admitted last week on the ABC's 7.30 that the value of the stimulus spending in many cases was poor. He even went on to say that getting value was not the aim of the program—it was just about getting the money out the door. That was the important thing. It did not really matter what it was spent on or how it was spent. That is what I call reckless spending. It is unbelievably reckless—just shovel it out the door and do not care what it is spent on. It is a disgrace.
The government is insulting the electorate. The electors see through the game. They know that eventually they will pick up the bill and they will pick up the interest. This nation will be paying $8 billion a year in interest in the next 12 months—that is, $22 million a day in interest. That is $1, in round figures, for every Australian every day. A dollar a day in interest for every Australian—man, woman and child—and they will still owe the principal. They will still owe the $144 billion this government has racked up on the credit card.
There is every possibility that this budget is already shot to pieces. The falls in commodity prices pushed by the Greek debt crisis, the announcement by BHP and Rio that they are reconsidering investment, the escalation of strikes around the Queensland coalfields—there is every chance that this budget is already in trouble and the government needs to reposition its spending program.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The discussion is now concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Government Response to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister for Indigenous Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Centenary of ANZAC) (16:53): by leave—The purpose of this statement is to advise the House of the government's response to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, as announced in the federal budget.
The review
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004—the MRCA—was introduced on 1 July 2004 and provides rehabilitation and compensation coverage for injuries, diseases and deaths caused by all types of military service after that date.
In the lead-up to the 2007 election, we undertook to conduct a review of the MRCA. The review commenced in mid-2009, at which time the MRCA had been in operation for five years. Broad terms of reference were established to ensure all aspects were captured in the review including how the legislation has been administered.
In the 2010 election, we committed to 'taking all appropriate action in response to the review to ensure services and support for veterans and serving members evolve with their needs'. The response announced in the budget takes account of the views gained from considerable consultation during the conduct of the review and following the release of the report.
Fifty-two submissions from individuals, ex-service organisations and other organisations were considered by the Review Steering Committee. Members of the steering committee visited 12 ADF bases to hear the views of more than 400 current ADF members. More than 100 members of the public and veteran community attended eight separate meetings at venues near the bases visited. A further 48 submissions, from individuals, ex-service organisations and other organisations, providing feedback on the report were considered. The response represents the government's strong commitment to ensuring appropriate legislation is in place to meet the needs of our men and women in uniform.
The report
The steering committee delivered its comprehensive report to me in February 2011. In March 2011, I released the report publicly and called for feedback from the veteran and defence communities to ensure their views had been understood and considered. The report concluded that the objectives of the MRCA are sound. It also confirmed that the unique nature of military service justified rehabilitation and compensation arrangements specific to the needs of the military.
However, not unexpectedly given the relative complexity and period of operation of the MRCA, the review found opportunities for improvements. It made 108 recommendations ranging from retaining the status quo, support for current initiatives, clarification of policy, further work and monitoring, through to administrative and legislative changes.
The government response
The government has allocated a net $17.4 million over four years to respond to the review. This comprises $39.6 million of additional expenditure, partly offset by estimated savings for the government of $22.2 million over four years generated by the initiative to issue repatriation health cards to certain beneficiaries with Defence related claims under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988—SRCA.
Outcomes
Of the 108 recommendations, the government is implementing 96. The 96 comprise: 94 recommendations accepted, either in full, or with modification or enhancement, and two replaced by favourable outcomes. The government deferred three recommendations for further consideration and the remaining nine recommendations were rejected. Of the nine rejected, four were presented as alternatives in the report, and the other five were rejected for various reasons, including concerns raised by ex-service organisations. Of the 96 recommendations to be implemented, that is those accepted or replaced with favourable outcomes:
53 will result in improvements;
21 require future monitoring and/or further review work; and
22 will retain the status quo.
Main initiatives
The major elements of the government's response are:
changing the methodology used to calculate permanent impairment compensation across multiple acts.
This important measure will address the unintended outcome of the current methodology for calculating permanent impairment compensation under the MRCA where the person has previously received compensation under the VEA and/or SRCA. Currently, the compensation paid for a condition accepted under the MRCA may be lower than expected for the level of impairment associated with that condition. The new methodology will remedy this in the majority of cases and will be applied both prospectively and retrospectively at a cost of $33.7 million over four years.
This will include revisiting all calculations involving this methodology made since 1 July 2004.
from December 2013, the government will extend access to the White Card for treatment for beneficiaries with Defence related claims under the SRCA who have long-term treatment needs. This initiative will create consistency in the way that all former members of the ADF, with conditions accepted under one of the acts administered by DVA, can access medical treatment for chronic conditions.
This initiative is expected to generate estimated savings of $22.2 million over four years.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs will be consulting with key health professionals and their representative organisations on the implementation detail of this initiative:
the third key initiative will provide earlier permanent impairment compensation, for those with multiple conditions, through payment of compensation based on stabilisation of each condition.
This will ensure compensation is not delayed in the situation where all a person's accepted conditions have not yet been stabilised.
The government is also increasing flexibility for future wholly-dependent partners in the way they receive compensation following the death of an ADF member or former member, by allowing them to choose a partial lump-sum payment.
Currently, wholly-dependent partners have a one-time choice between receiving ongoing periodic payments or converting all of it to a lump sum.
This initiative allows future recipients to make a one-time choice between periodic payments for life, or converting 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent or 100 per cent to an age-based lump sum—thus allowing them to better match their income to their needs.
The government has also agreed to a one-time increase in the rate of pension payable to eligible dependent children under the MRCA following the death of an ADF member or former member.
This will realign the payment with a similar payment made under the SRCA.
Finally, the government is increasing the amount of compensation that may be paid for financial or legal advice for those persons who have choices to make about the form of their benefits under the MRCA.
It is important that those eligible for this type of compensation have access to appropriate advice and this increase in compensation acknowledges that there have been changes in the way the financial industry charges for advice since the commencement of the MRCA in 2004.
Work is already underway to begin implementation of these recommendations, and following system and legislative changes and other preparatory work, the bulk of the recommendations will be implemented from 1 July 2013.
Over 20 of the accepted recommendations require changes to legislation.
The changes to the MRCA will ensure the needs of our men and women in uniform, including those serving in operations today, will have the support they need into the future.
Conclusion
I would like to thank the members of the steering committee for their comprehensive report on military compensation arrangements with a focus on those with service after 1 July 2004.
I would also like to thank the veteran and defence communities for their contributions to the review which were important in helping to shape the future of the military rehabilitation and compensation system.
I encourage you all to read the report, as it contains valuable explanations of the military compensation system.
I commend to you the government's response to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements, the full details of which can be found on the Department of Veterans' Affairs website. I present a copy of the government's response to the Review Of Military Compensation Arrangements.
I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Fadden to speak for nine minutes.
Leave granted.
Mr SNOWDON: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking in reply to the minister's statement for a period not exceeding nine minutes.
Question agreed to.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden) (17:03): I thank the minister for his statement to the House. The coalition welcomes the government's response to the Campbell Review of Military Compensation Arrangements. The government has accepted 96 of the 108 recommendations of the review and in response has detailed a $17.4 million package of assistance to veterans and their families.
The Campbell review considered the coalition's Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, or MRCA. The act was developed by the previous coalition government and in particular by former Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Danna Vale, who determined that this legislation would ensure the best possible outcome for veterans. The new act combined elements of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 to provide a modern compensation scheme for veterans and members of the Australian Defence Force.
The MRCA came about in response to the Tanzer review and the tragic Black Hawk accident at the High Range training area near Townsville in 1996. That accident focused our attention on the deficiencies of the military compensation system as it was then constructed. The act has generally worked well save for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission's previous decision to refuse to adopt the option of multiple offsetting formulas as allowed by the act. It was therefore prudent to consider the legislation and its operation to ensure that it meets the expectations of the veteran and ex-service community.
At the 2007 election Labor committed to a review and in 2009 announced that a review would be conducted by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, Mr Ian Campbell PSM. Mr Campbell's review team comprised representatives from the departments of defence, Treasury, finance and education, and employment and workplace relations. A sixth representative and expert in repatriation law, Mr Peter Sutherland, was also selected. It is fair to say that, after some pressure from the coalition, the report was finally concluded in early 2011 and was released for comment from the veteran and ex-service community. That public consultation period concluded at the end of June last year. Despite commitments to address 'no-cost' initiatives before last Christmas the minister's own deadline unfortunately lapsed, though the government has now responded to the entire report as part of this year's budget.
The coalition has long pressed for the compensation-offsetting methodology to be addressed. The act gives the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission the power to adopt multiple compensation-offsetting formulas, an option which the commission had not previously taken. The new arrangements will provide two calculation methods enabling the best possible outcome to be achieved where a veteran has multiple accepted conditions under one or more acts. This change will be important to ensure that veterans receive adequate compensation for their accepted conditions. Importantly, it recognises the differences in the compensation methodology calculation under different acts to ensure that a veteran receives proper compensation for their service-related injuries. As the minister quite rightly said during his ministerial statement, it is about reflecting the unique nature of military service. The coalition cautiously welcomes the adoption of the white card system for veterans with entitlements under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The adoption of the white card system does not come without some risk attached, though. The government admitted in February that no consultation with providers had been undertaken in relation to this recommendation. The coalition will therefore seek further information from the government to make sure no veteran is left worse off as a result of this change. It is a step in the right direction but, as noted by departmental representatives in Senate estimates this year, it relies on the goodwill of providers to be implemented. That it is being implemented without consultation is slightly concerning.
The MRCA is a complex piece of legislation. Decisions taken by veterans in relation to their compensation can have significant life-long impacts, and the move to provide additional financial support to veterans and their families when making decisions about compensation is a welcome step. Whilst the government will provide further financial assistance in this area, it is disappointing that the government is continuing to cut $1 million from the BEST program. BEST, for the benefit of the House, is the Building Excellence in Support and Training program, and was established by the previous coalition government to assist largely-volunteer veteran and ex-service people and organisations to provide pension and compensation claims assistance to veterans. As a result of these cuts in the BEST program, veterans' welfare and service centres across Australia are being forced scale down or even close their operations. It is my view and the coalition's view that this will hurt the next generation of veterans seeking help and assistance with gaining their proper entitlements under law from the Australian government.
Unfortunately, this is not the only area where the government is letting our veteran community down—a community that, as the minister said in his own statement, involves and has shown a unique nature of service through its service. Labor continues to oppose the fair indexation for DFRDB and DFRB superannuants. Labor unfortunately opposed the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Amendment (Fair Indexation) Bill 2010 put forward by Senator Ronaldson in the Senate. We believe that the fair indexation bill we put forward, which indexes defence pensions in the same way as the age pension, represents fair, just and equitable indexation. We believe it represents a fair go to veterans.
The minister is known as a decent minister, and I call on the him to join with the coalition to see that these veterans get a fair go: Minister, they deserve it. The veteran community will welcome the somewhat delayed response by the government to the Campbell review, and will welcome in many ways the minister's statements here this afternoon. We will consider the enabling legislation when it is introduced, and I know the shadow minister is looking forward to examining the government's response in greater detail during Senate estimates next Tuesday night. I thank the minister for his statement to the House and look forward to some positive outcomes from the work that the minister's department has done.
BILLS
Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Report from Federation Chamber
Bill returned from Federation Chamber without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Ordered that this bill be considered immediately.
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr RIPOLL (Oxley—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (17:10): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (17:11): I rise today to speak to this bill, which in some respects is not particularly important but in other respects is quite important. This Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012 will have implications for a lot of us, especially those who travel overseas in the future. Perhaps in time it may have implications for domestic travel, although that is not the intention at present.
We have had brought home to us very vividly in the last couple of days, with the death of the alleged bomber at Lockerbie, what an explosion on an aircraft can do and what dreadful mayhem it can create in the loss of life and property when a plane comes out of the sky. It is just horrendous, the death and destruction that can ensue. We saw this also with the aircraft going into the World Trade Centre and crashing into the Pentagon in the 9/11 circumstances. There have been other instances across the world, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, where aircraft have been blown up, and that has been going on right back to the Second World War. But with the fragile peace in the Middle East and the number of terrorists who are abroad at present, it is a time when we must be ever vigilant.
In addition to those horrific circumstances like Lockerbie and 9/11, we have also had some near misses where people have come onto aircraft with shoes full of explosives. The incident that, more than any other, triggered this bill was a flight on Christmas Day 2009 from Amsterdam to Detroit on Northwest Airlines flight 253, where one passenger had part of the explosive cocktail in his underwear; a frightening circumstance that he would blow himself and everyone else on the plane to bits. Luckily, he did not get the opportunity to trigger that dreadful cocktail. The point was that the product he was carrying on him was not detectable through a metal scanner. Indeed, whether you have a powder or a gel, if it is a form of explosive cocktail then it needs to be detected. This set the minds of the world's security people on edge and we have now come up with new forms of scanners. The Australian government, through this legislation, will introduce scanning initially to our international airports.
The coalition does not oppose the bill and we accept in a bipartisan spirit that the enhancement of national security is a duty for all of us. However, we recognise there are people with genuine concerns—some about health and some about privacy. These concerns led to the government conducting an inquiry through the Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, of which I am the deputy chair, and were addressed. It was a very interesting inquiry—not a particularly long one, but certainly a very interesting one.
The first concern was the health aspect. This new form of scanner is different from the metal scanner we are all used to at airports where you walk through and lights are triggered at your feet, legs, hips, waist and upper body and a signal goes off that you do not have metal on you. As I said, if you had a powder or a gel, it probably would not be detected. With the new scanners, you go into a tiny cylindrical room about the size of a telephone box and two masts with antennas on them revolve around you for a period of just two seconds. They transmit a signal that is returned to the antenna and it forms a 3D image. As it comes off your body surface or the surface of any other things you might be carrying, this triggers different light patterns on a generic picture. From that, you can tell whether people have got dangerous materials on them.
One issue that occurred to me before we even got to these new scanners is that my wife has got a hardened plastic knife at home—not that I fear my wife with a knife; I do not—for cutting vegetables. It is incredibly sharp and it is as long as a normal carving knife. I have often wondered whether it would be detectable if someone had one of those down the leg of their pants or under their skirt. But these hardened plastic knives would certainly be detectable under this type of operation.
We had one of these scanners in Parliament House, up on the first floor, and members of the committee, ministerial staff and others were allowed to see this thing and experience it. I went into the scanner and I took off certain items of metal and left other ones on. It certainly picked up all these bits of metal I was carrying. In fact, I thought I had emptied my left pocket and there was a 10c piece in it. That 10c piece came up on the image loud and clear. In the words of Oliver Goldsmith's poem 'fools, who came to scoff, remained to pray'. There is no doubt that this technology will detect not only metal but other objects, and that makes security when we travel in aircraft that much better for all of us.
The other worry lots of people had was about privacy. I think people are entitled to privacy. When you go through one of these walk-through metal scanners, the only other way they can check whether you are carrying some other product is to either strip search or, rather intrusively, frisk you. No-one likes that. People quite rightly object. When the idea of something that could, so to speak, look right through you came on the market, a lot of people had a certain reluctance to participate. They were diffident about it. Probably one of the reasons for that was that an earlier model—not of this exact same technology but of similar technology—allowed anatomical differences in the male and female body to be seen on the screen. A lot of people took objection to that, and perhaps rightly so. Even though the people who were doing the screening were to be in a booth, that did cause some problems. But this new model that we saw here in Parliament House makes a generic figure. There are no anatomical distinctions between these figures. They are not exactly stick figures—they are more bulky than that—but there is no differentiation between male and female, for example. The upper torso, lower torso, legs, arms and head are quite clearly evident, but only to that extent. As the signal comes back from the antenna it is converted into a 3D image and superimposed upon this generic figure which is roughly the size of the person who has gone through the scanning machine. And let me tell you that every bit of metal on you shows up, and I am sure that every bit of plastic or powder or gel that does not come from the normal reaction to your body will also show up on that screen.
I think people need to accept that. Some people said they wanted to have an opt-out provision and to be frisked. I do not think that is necessary. There is no intrusion into people's personal privacy in the strict sense of the word. I think we are going to follow the UK system, where if you are asked to go through the scanner and you do not then you do not go into the secure area of the airport, plain and simple—no fights, no tantrums, you just do not get in.
As I said earlier, some people are concerned about the irradiation factor. We called in and took evidence from a whole range of people and agencies such as ARPANSA, the Department of Health and Ageing, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the radiation regulators in the states and territories. Between them, they issued a health and safety information sheet which said:
There is no evidence to suggest that millimetre-wave body scanners, or other devices in this frequency and at the power density used by scanners, are a health risk for the travelling public or the operators.
I think that is a pretty reasonable assessment of it.
This will enhance safety at Australian airports for people travelling overseas, initially. I personally would not mind if it were extended to domestic flights, but that is not the intention at this stage. I think we cannot be too vigilant about things like this. All these added moves make our lives safer, make our travel more secure and remove anxieties. We have all seen what happens on an aircraft when a gas bottle explodes—something as innocent as that—and the damage that caused to the aircraft. Just imagine if it had been a proper explosive device and what that might have done to that aircraft. We should never put ourselves in that position. We should not suborn ourselves to people who carry explosives in their shoes or in their underwear. We should remove all those people from world travel so that intercourse between the nations of the world can continue freely and without any intrusion that might impact on our safety.
The committee unanimously supported the recommendation made following its inquiry, and that recommendation was that the legislation should be endorsed. I, for one, strongly endorse the legislation.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond—Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) (17:26): I am very pleased to be speaking on this bill before the House today, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, which will amend the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004. I thank the previous speaker, the member for Hinkler, for his contribution and the bipartisan support for this very important bill to improve our aviation security. I acknowledge the points he made in relation to his concerns and the concerns shared by all of us in the House about making sure we increase our aviation security measures.
The amendments contained in this bill will support the upcoming introduction of body scanners at Australian international airports. The use of body scanners is required to ensure that Australian travellers, crew and everyone involved with aircraft travel are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism. This is a very important and major step in ensuring the safety of all people travelling through our international airports for whatever reason, for tourism, for trade. We are seeing a massive increase in international air travel and this is a very important step to meet the increased security needs within the aviation environment.
The introduction of these body scanners will bring Australia into line with countries such as the USA, Canada, the UK and the Netherlands, so it is very important that we are making this improvement. Many speakers have talked about why such an improvement is necessary. It is vitally important when we look at tackling aviation terrorism and the threat it brings. As we know, terrorism has become the defining issue of the first decade of the 21st century, with the 9-11 aeroplane attacks acknowledged as the most destructive, horrific terrorist attacks in history.
Since that time Australia's aviation security regime has been significantly strengthened. However, the aviation sector must remain vigilant against the threat of any potential terrorist attack and that is why improvements such as this measure are vitally important. Many speakers have talked about the situation in 2009 where a passenger on a US flight between Amsterdam and Detroit concealed an explosive device in his underwear and passed through aviation security screening with that device undetected on his person. This event highlighted the vulnerability in global aviation security screening practices, including in Australia. It certainly made many countries aware of the need for increased security. In response to this incident, the government announced a package of measures to strengthen Australia's aviation security. So, accepting that the aviation security environment has significantly evolved in the last decade and will continue to do so, the bill before the House today continues the government's commitment to ensuring that Australian airports are afforded the highest level of protection against the threat of aviation terrorism.
The bill will also provide flexibility for future governments to introduce new screening tools as technologies improve, ensuring that technologies will be used to achieve the maximum security outcome whilst also acknowledging and making sure that there is minimal impact on passenger movements as much as possible to have that balance right. We obviously have to be very mindful of making sure that we keep our security commitment at a very strong level and ensuring as best we can the free flow of passengers through our international terminals. I think that the majority of people do acknowledge the importance of having increased security measures and appreciate how absolutely vital they are in today's environment.
The bill states that a person has consented to any screening procedure at the screening point and must receive clearance in order to board an aircraft or to enter an area of a security controlled airport. Secondly, it provides for the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to deal with any person that must not pass through a screening point. Thirdly, it lists, but does not limit, the types of equipment that may be used for security screening purposes. This includes metal detection, explosive trace detection and active millimetre-wave body scanning equipment. If a body scanner is used for the screening of a person, the image must only be a generic body, gender-neutral, and must not identify that person. Fourthly, the bill repeals section 95A of the act. Very importantly, the bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
As I stated earlier and as many other speakers have spoken about, passenger screening is a critical component of any aviation security system operating internationally today. Section 41 of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 provides the legislative framework requiring a person to be screened when boarding an aircraft or entering an area or zone within a security controlled airport. Screening is conducted by authorised screening officers who inspect individuals and their property to deter and prevent the carriage of prohibited items and weapons that are considered to be a threat to an aircraft.
Screening can entail using X-ray machines, walk-through and hand-held metal detection devices and random and continuous explosive-trace detection devices on passengers and carry-on bags and physical searches as required. The bill will enable the removal of section 95A of the act, meaning that an individual will no longer be able to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure, so it is very important that we have that removal and that change there.
In order to ensure the travelling public is safe, the prohibited items that Australian aviation screening seeks to identify has evolved from simply attempting to detect metallic weapons to a newer environment that presents a range of sophisticated threats that our screening regime must be capable of detecting. Unfortunately, where we have people finding new and advanced ways to attempt to get these items onto our aircraft we do have to make sure that our security systems are evolving as well to be able to detect them at a much greater rate.
This is where the use of body scanning technologies can play a very significant role in Australia's aviation security regime. Body scanners have the ability to detect and pinpoint the location of both metallic and non-metallic items concealed within or underneath a person's clothing. Indeed, body scanners offer the greatest chance of detection, as existing screening technology used in Australia is incapable of detecting many of the new-generation threats. There is currently no alternative method of passenger screening available today that can really deliver an equivalent security outcome to a body scanner. That is why it is very important that we do have that in place.
We are also very mindful and aware of an individual's privacy. We have carefully considered the introduction of body scanners and the impact on the travelling public's privacy and we are committed to the introduction of body scanners that have a range of privacy enhancements. We understand how important that is. The automatic threat recognition technology is one of the most important of these. This technology displays areas of concern on a generic human representation which is the same for all passengers. It is very important that the point be made clear that it is the same. The technology removes the need for a human operator to look at raw or detailed images and therefore maintains the privacy and modesty of all individuals. In addition, body scanners introduced in Australia will not be capable of storing or transmitting any information or data. There has also been extensive consultation to ensure that body scanners meet health and safety requirements. The ProVision millimetre-wave body scanner will be introduced, being the only one that currently meets the government's requirements.
Also it is important to note that the introduction of body scanners will not interfere with the rights of people to wear traditional, religious or cultural attire. As I said before, when it comes to scanning there are no defining characteristics and the operator is not given any raw images but, rather, stick figures that represent only a male or a female image. It is very important that we are of that.
Body screening will also protect a passenger's modesty. Full body frisking—if we look at the comparison—can include a full and thorough search of the entire body and may even require the removal of some clothing. When you look at that differentiation, it is unlikely that a passenger selected for screening would opt for a full body frisk rather than body screening.
The government does understand that some screening technologies, including body scanners, may not be suitable for all individuals due to special circumstances—for example, in light of an individual's disabilities or other medical conditions. We are very much aware of that. Individuals who cannot undergo certain screening procedures due to physical or medical conditions will be screened by alternative methods suited to their circumstances, and it is very important that we address all those privacy concerns that have been raised.
It is important that we take this added step in terms of body scanners to ensure the safety and security of our international airports, particularly when we look at the massive rise in international air travel and what it means for our country in tourism and trade and how it is such a strong economic driver. But at the same time we have to be very mindful of ensuring that we have very strict and very thorough security regimes in place. I think most travellers appreciate and understand the necessity of having such levels of security, the reasons they need to be increased and why having body scanners is so vitally important.
When we look at the role of international airports we can see how important they are as economic drivers. I certainly see that in my electorate on the North Coast of New South Wales. Indeed, we have the Gold Coast airport, which crosses Commonwealth land between Queensland and New South Wales. It is an expanding airport and, in terms of being an economic driver for northern New South Wales and also for South-East Queensland, it is vitally important. We have seen an increase in international travel with visitors coming to all parts of our region and, of course, that brings massive economic benefits, not just the increases in jobs at the airport itself but in the surrounding areas in tourism and retail. So I certainly understand firsthand the importance of international air travel and also the role that airports play within our communities.
From my background in policing, I have a strong understanding and appreciation of the need for enhanced security systems, particularly in environments where we have to be always very vigilant. Looking at the terrorist activities in the past, we need to be always very concerned that we are acting in the best interests of all people who are travelling through our international airports and providing the highest amount of protection that we possibly can. That is why this government is very committed to making sure that we do have body scanners at our international airports. We want to make sure that we have a very robust and effective aviation security screening regime and that is why we are introducing this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (17:38): The tragic events of 11 September 2001 changed the world forever. After 9/11 questions were understandably asked about and criticism levelled at the effectiveness of security at the time. All 19 hijackers from the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda involved in those dreadful suicide attacks against America and against freedom using four hijacked passenger jets were able to pass existing checkpoints and board the aircraft. Since the attacks, in which 2,996 lives were lost and 6,000 people were injured, security at many airports worldwide has been considerably strengthened.
The legislation before the House, the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012, implements several amendments to facilitate the introduction of body scanners at international airports in Australia. It would be reasonable to say there are a lot of people who are uncomfortable with some of what this bill proposes, even though all would agree with the tenet of the legislation and what it proposes to achieve or, rather, what it aims to avoid. No-one in their right mind wants a repeat of 9/11 and those awful images burned into the conscience of a bereaved world. To do all we can to ensure such an act of mass murder does not happen again will require some inconvenience, some level of unwanted intrusion.
Body scanning screening security will bother those subjected to it. It will put people out. It will aggravate and annoy them, even infuriate some. But this must be done for the greater good of a society in which people expect to be able to board planes without fear of bad and mad terrorists perpetrating their wickedness on the world.
In the bill's amendments, section 41A is inserted. It assumes consent for any screening procedure, except for a frisk search, at a screening point unless the person expressly refuses consent. Section 44 is amended to allow the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 to handle people unable to pass through a screening point. Sections 44(3), 44(3A) and 44(3B) are inserted to list but not restrict the types of equipment which can be used for screening and specify that where body scanning equipment is used the image generated must be gender-neutral and non-identifiable. That is of the utmost importance for people and their privacy. The amendments repeal section 95A, which allows a person to choose a frisk search over another screening procedure.
Why has all of this become necessary? On Christmas Day 2009, a 23-year-old Nigerian Islamist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to detonate plastic explosives sewn to his underwear on Northwest Airlines flight NW253 from Amsterdam to Detroit. There were 290 passengers onboard—innocent people for whom the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who claimed to have organised the attack and supplied the would-be bomber with the improvised explosive device, had absolutely no regard. Abdulmutallab had successfully concealed the bomb in his underwear through security screening in Yemen and Amsterdam. It went undetected because it did not contain metallic elements. The potentially deadly bomb failed to detonate, instead catching fire and making popping noises, at which point Abdulmutallab was tackled, restrained and handcuffed while the pilot safely landed the plane. In response to what could have been a shocking tragedy, the United States increased the installation and use of full-body scanners in many of its major airports. The scanners are designed to be able to detect bombs under clothing, and 11 airports, including O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, began to receive the machines in March 2010.
Here in Australia, the government announced a package of measures to heighten aviation security on 9 February 2010. This announcement committed $200 million for new security technologies, increased policing at airports, improved security procedures and bolstered international cooperation. The package included $28.5 million for optimal technologies, including body scanners. The introduction of body scanners is supported by the Department of Infrastructure and Transport's Office of Transport Security. This technology is already used in Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications tabled its report about this bill on 9 May 2012, recommending unanimously that this legislation be passed. A Senate inquiry is underway and scheduled to report next Wednesday.
Non-metallic explosives still pose a very real and deadly threat to safe air travel as shown by the fact that earlier this month an upgraded version of the underwear bomb was seized by the Central Intelligence Agency. Unfortunately, there are people in this world whose hatred for the Western way of life, fuelled by religious and ethnic intolerance, puts them on a suicidal path of mass destruction. These people must be stopped. They must be locked away. If installing body scanners at international airports in Australia means limiting the risk of terrorism then that is a positive measure, a good thing. Too many families—too many Australian parents—today mourn loved ones lost because of terrorism. Young Riverina men David Mavroudis, Clint Thompson and Shane Walsh Till were among 88 Australians killed in the Bali bombing on 12 October 2002. Shane was a mate of mine. This was not a plane hijacking or in-flight bomb attack but nevertheless an act of barbarism which stuck at the heart of our peace-loving way of life. It was a grim reminder of how vigilant we must be in our homeland security to do whatever we can to minimise the threat of such appalling occurrences taking place here or on outbound planes.
The only body scanner which fulfils the government's requirements is the L-3 Communications ProVision millimetre-wave body scanner. Passengers to go through scanners will be selected on a random basis, as is the case for existing explosives testing. I know the member for Hume has expressed reservations about the safety of the equipment for people who, like him, have pacemakers and defibrillators. My coalition colleague appreciates the necessity of this legislation; however, he is also right to question whether the actual scanning could be in any way harmful to someone carrying heart-saving technology.
Due to the extremely low power level of the scanner, it will not be able to detect internal medical insertions such as pacemakers or metal hips. The scanner uses a weak beam of radio waves transmitted at the person being scanned from two rotating masts inside the device. The exposure from the being in the scanner for 1.5 to 2.5 seconds is said to be less than what you would experience routinely during a flight and with 10,000 times less radio frequency energy than an average mobile telephone call. Energy reflected by the body or any other object on the body is received by the machine and analysed by the device's software. If an anomaly is detected, a small box indicating its location is superimposed on a generic human image which is displayed for closer inspection by screening staff. The machines are not capable of storing or transmitting any information or data. The scanning will be culturally sensitive in that passengers will not be required to remove any religious items or clothing.
Being held up at an airport for a safety test is usually a hassle and invariably it occurs whenever you have the least amount of time to get to the boarding gate. But for safety's sake it is a necessary incursion in our modern life and if it helps to detect one—just one—person attempting to wreak havoc, then it is well worth the effort. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (17:47): I join the debate in relation to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. It is with great disappointment that I stand here tonight to participate in this debate, because I think it is very sad that we are forced in this day and age to take these steps. I think it is a very sad reflection on the world we live in and the threats that are posed to international air travellers in particular. But I do acknowledge the expert advice that has been presented during this debate and the recommendations from security officials relied on through the department that this is a necessary step and I acknowledge that the coalition will not be opposing this legislation.
I must confess when I first heard about body scanners my own predisposition was to be negative towards them. My fear was that it would be just another intrusion upon people's rights to privacy and to their rights to go about the quiet enjoyment of their own lives, and it would be another significant cost to air travellers. So I did have significant reservations when I first heard about these body scanners.
The coalition does acknowledge that there are some concerns within the community about body scanners. I participated in the committee's inquiry into the body scanner technology and I must say that, having viewed the scanners and participated in that inquiry, most of the concerns I had were allayed. And I do note some of the previous speakers went through in some detail about some of those issues.
The first thing that I was perhaps satisfied with when it came to the issue of the body scanners was this issue of personal privacy in the fact that the legislation and the demonstration that many members took the opportunity to participate in really did allay my initial concerns in relation to privacy. The images which are displayed are not of an anatomical nature—people cannot distinguish between men or women or the size of a person or any other features by looking at those images. I am reassured by that and the legislation does provide for the fact that the images cannot be displayed and they cannot be transferred. So we are not going to have this situation where, as one of the previous speakers remarked—it may have been the member for McEwen—some of these images are then going to be popping up at a later point in time in websites or in some other place around the world. I think that is a very good thing and I am reassured by that aspect of the legislation.
Section 44(3B) states that image produced by a body scanner must be a gender-neutral, generic image such that the person is not identifiable and no anatomical or physical attributes of that person are revealed. I think that we can all take heart from that and the fact that this bill has been well drafted in that regard. We have all seen the images I believe of the body scanner image. It is just a stick figure but it does allow for the person operating the equipment to quickly identify any areas of concern, and that is one of the best aspects of it. For anyone who actually had the opportunity to use the scanner, the scanner was able to detect things—unusual objects—very quickly, and then it was easily resolved. The person operating the equipment can very easily go to the place on the person's body and resolve the issue very quickly, unlike with metal scanners where you often see people walking through multiple times, taking off belts, boots, watches and everything else they might have forgotten to take off, and it takes far longer period to resolve the issue. So I was reassured by that. It will be a quick and efficient method of resolving any security concerns.
Previous speakers also referred to an issue that I have been lobbied on by some people in the community who have some reservations with the body scanner technology in relation to health issues. I believe the Leader of the Nationals covered off on this issue particular well in his speech and I do not intend to go through it all again. There is no evidence to suggest that the body scanner technology does pose a health risk for individuals using them. In fact, one of the interesting things about the technology, particularly for people who may have had surgical implants, is that the body scan technology may be a preferred way of going through security checkpoints. It is less intrusive than having to explain the metal pin or whatever other medical device they might have for their various conditions.
In some ways it enhances privacy for people. I take comfort from the background information that indicates the scanner emits 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone call. So the machines themselves do meet the public health and safety tests that should be applied in these circumstances.
Having participated in the inquiry and having seen the machines in action, I am reassured that they will provide a worthwhile service in our security regime at our international airports. I have no argument with the need to use modern technology wherever possible to improve security. Unfortunately, the people who would do us harm are always looking for ways to go about their evil work. Giving passengers peace of mind is a very important aspect of this legislation. Also, it reflects the huge challenge we face to stay one step ahead of those who would seek to do us harm.
I will speak a little more broadly on the aviation industry and some of the security measures more generally in the time that is available to me. I will also reflect on some comments made previously by the shadow minister for tourism in his contribution. He referred to some of the additional concerns for aviation and the tourism industry arising from the budget and there are some issues there that I think the government needs to take onboard. I refer particularly to the Tourism and Transport Forum. They put out a statement on 9 May, after the budget, that was headed: 'The devil is in the detail.'
I do not intend to go through every aspect of the contribution by the Air Transport and Tourism Forum; but, when we are talking about legislation here today which will add costs to the Australian tourism industry, there are some very real challenges facing it. It is important that, whether we call them charges, levies, fees or whatever, these new costs all add up to being a tax on tourism. They act as a barrier when it comes to attracting international visitors to our shores. We have a situation where a high Australian dollar is making it difficult for the tourism industry in a very price-sensitive market. It is counterintuitive for us as a nation to be spending marketing dollars in an attempt to attract international tourists to our shores and then making ourselves less attractive or providing extra costs to the visiting tourists.
I acknowledge that one of the important aspects of this bill is that it helps promote Australia as a safe tourism destination. The body scanner technology will be of benefit to the industry where it applies to international flights. Increasing passenger movement charges and requirements for partial recovery of airport policing costs through the Australian police all effectively add up to another tax on tourism at a time when the tourism industry and the aviation sector, more generally, is facing some significant challenges. I urge the government to recognise this.
It is the same for regional aviation. I recently had the opportunity to meet with some senior staff members from Regional Express—or the Rex airline, as it is more commonly known. They are concerned that some of the combined impacts of government decisions and other changes in the regulatory environment are contributing to a $6 million hit per year on their bottom line. That is a significant cost. I acknowledge that Rex is a profitable business. They have been doing a good job and they are thriving in regional communities. But the government is making it harder at the moment. The minister needs to think very seriously about some of the decisions that are having an impact on the regional aviation sector.
The fact that the combined impacts of these threats are threatening the future viability of their industry is something the minister needs to take onboard. Among those threats is the carbon tax. It will have a direct impact on regional aviation. There is no shielding for regional air services and it will result in a direct price impact for travellers, which obviously makes it less attractive for them to use our regional airline services. The other point that was made very strongly to me is in relation to the en route scheme and is one that has been abandoned by this government. It will lead to a faster decline in regional air services and make it less likely for them to open up new areas of service throughout regional Australia. At a time when we should be supporting the regional aviation industry to open up new routes and drive regional development, we are unfortunately making it harder for it.
Another concern facing the regional aviation sector and perhaps relevant to this bill today in terms of body scanner technology is that there are some very serious issues associated with the additional security screening requirements in regional settings. I know we all take public health and safety very seriously, but it is so important that security measures are risk based, and they should be proportionate to the costs and benefits involved.
I will provide the House with an update on a particularly positive story about the Australian aviation sector. It relates to some news from a company called GippsAero in my electorate of Gippsland. It is a Mahindra Aerospace company and is based at the Latrobe Valley airfield in Traralgon. As far as I am aware, GippsAero is the only manufacturer of commercial aircraft in Australia. It has successfully completed the first flight of its new aircraft, the GA10. This aircraft is the first single turboprop designed and developed in Australia. It is a 10-seat multirole aircraft based on the very successful GA8 Airvan, which many people know of in the aviation sector and fondly call 'the ute of the sky'.
They have been a very successful company in Gippsland. In fact, they have sold more than 200 units throughout the world. We are very proud of the company and what it has been able to achieve during some fairly difficult times. They have come through the global financial crisis with a different management model—I acknowledge that—but they have been very successful and an important employer in the Gippsland region. The CEO of GippsAero, Dr Terry Miles, announced this week:
The GA10 will bring an entry level turboprop utility aircraft to the market place enabling operators to make the not inconsiderable step of moving from piston to turboprop power.
The projected low purchase price and low operating costs of the GA10, coupled with its great versatility, will offer operators a commercially viable multi role turbo prop aircraft.
It is not my role to run advertising for GippsAero but I am very proud of the company. I congratulate them on the work they are doing. They are doing an extraordinarily good job. They have manufactured and sold in excess of 200 aircraft that fly in 34 countries around the world, including in the US, Australia, Europe and Asia. It is a terrific little regional business that we hope to expand greatly in the future.
On those expansion plans, there are real opportunities for governments at all levels to partner with GippsAero and the Latrobe Regional Airport in the opportunities to develop a real aviation niche in Traralgon. Right now, we have a commitment on the table from Latrobe City of $500,000 and the state government has committed $1.5 million. And just today the state government added another $1.2 million to its commitment to the upgrade of the airport, bringing it to $3.2 million. This is on the table and available for use for the upgrade of Latrobe Regional Airport. However, the challenge now is that we need to secure funding under the Regional Development Australia Fund. I am optimistic, and I know the Gippsland board of Regional Development Australia is very positive about the project plan for the Latrobe Valley. A lot of government ministers have come to the Latrobe Valley and talked a lot about ways they would like to help my community adjust to the impact of the carbon tax, but it remains to be seen whether the government is going to put money on the table—and when I say the government, I am referring to the federal government.
So supporting an upgrade of Latrobe Regional Airport would be a very good start, and I urge the relevant ministers to take note of the commitments that are already on the table: firstly, the Latrobe city's $500,000 commitment; and now with the state government adding a further $1.2 million today to the $1.5 million that they have already committed. I congratulate those levels of government and I look forward to the expansion of Latrobe Regional Airport, which will enable the local aircraft manufacturer, GippsAero, to expand its operations to meet the growing business needs of my community. I would like to encourage the federal government to have a very close look at this particular project; I know it is being actively considered by the government at the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker Livermore, I appreciate your indulgence; I did stray a little bit from the body scanner technology but I think it was important to raise a couple of other regional aviation issues, particularly as they apply to my electorate of Gippsland, and to mention some of the opportunities that exist in regional aviation throughout Australia. There is a very good opportunity for this government, or future governments, to work with the regional aviation sector. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, coming from a regional seat, the tyranny of distance can make it difficult for us to expand our opportunities—particularly for young people growing up in regional communities—but, if we can continue to support regional aviation, we can help to drive regional development opportunities. I would like to see this and future governments work closely with the regional aviation sector for the benefit of the entire nation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms K Livermore ): I thank the member for his contribution. I note that a bigger indulgence in his favour today was him playing for New South Wales in the State of—
Mr Chester interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I beg your pardon; that is okay then. We will return to the bill.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (18:02): I appreciate the opportunity tonight to make some comments on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. When visit schools and talk to children in the Cowan electorate about government and parliament—whether they are in primary school or high school—I am very clear on this matter. I say to the children: the one thing that is always clear is that both sides of politics believe in making this country the best place it can be, but the difference between them—the Labor side and the Liberal-National side—is how we get to that place. I can say that about the major parties; I am not so sure about the fringe party.
This is one of those bills where we are as one. This is one of those bills where we believe that more needs to be done. We welcome the fact that this bill is coming through. I certainly endorse the technology and I endorse the bill.
In recent days we have heard that the only person found guilty of and sentenced for the Lockerbie terrorist attack, the attack that brought down the Pan Am 747 over Scotland so many years ago, has recently passed away—and good riddance, might I say. The involvement of the then Libyan regime in that matter is, I think, strongly suspected and believed by most people. The reality is—whether it is in the past, like major terrorist attacks like that one; in the more recent past; or when we look forward to the future—that there are people out there who wish to create havoc. They wish to murder and kill innocent people. As a result of that, governments around the world need to work together and come up with these sorts of laws, and make use of technology which is going to increase the likelihood of detection and safeguard the people.
There is nothing more tragic in the world than to see those—particularly the innocents, the women and the children—who have nothing to do with politics and who have nothing to do with the issues that so many terrorist groups espouse around the world get caught up, get killed, maimed or terrified in the crossfire of the evil and brutal ways of such groups.
When I was in the Australian Federal Police many years ago, back in 1986 and 1987, the security arrangements at the airports at that time were good, but they were only up to the technology at the time. We have seen that technology move on. That technology, as I said before, is required to deal with not only the conventional and the usual threats that might be out there, such as the weapons of various kinds and the explosive devices, but also the latest technology, such as the underwear bomb and the new generation of underwear bomb that was recently discovered by the US secret services. What we need is a further increase in security to match up to the threats that currently face the world.
Australians are used to running their carry-on baggage through the X-ray machines and stepping through the X-ray machines and, more recently, the random checks of explosive trace devices that we have at the airports. All of us who travel regularly, from Perth and from other places, are subject to that—I think I have had about a hundred explosive trace detection tests—and Australians accept that. I do not wish to run down the privacy concerns but, ultimately, everybody who hops on a plane wants to be safe and they are prepared to forgo a little bit of convenience to make sure that their journey is not going to be stopped by a terrorist attack or by people up to no good with weapons or explosives. So there is no doubt that there are some privacy concerns. You only need look on the internet at Google images of the body-scanning machines we are talking about today to see sensationalist pictures of somebody appearing in a—let us say—anatomically correct way. Of course people are concerned about that, so it is heartening and completely appropriate that within this bill the regulations are completely defined. It is absolutely the case that the use of only gender-neutral, generic images of the body are absolutely locked into the bill and that the legislation looks at and addresses the fact that improvements in technology will see further generations of these sorts of machines coming through.
One of the images I have seen from these body scanning machines was of the minister—in all his clothed glory, luckily. He went through one of those machines. A number of us also got to test out the machines ourselves, and that was a very good way of making sure that we as parliamentarians were better informed. I was given the opportunity to put myself through one of these machines and, because I had already emptied my pockets, nothing came up. I was heartened by that, but then I remembered that in my office I had a small plastic covered device which I had been given several years before during a science-meets-parliament event and that one part of the device could be pulled off to reveal a very sharp knife. I was thinking, 'I will go and find that in my office, and I will come back and slide it down one of my socks and work out whether this machine is as good as it could be.' There was no doubt—as soon as image came up, there in yellow the machine described exactly where the knife was hidden on my person. So I became a very clear and absolute fan of this technology.
I had seen one of these machines in Los Angeles a couple of years before, soon after the last election. A member of my family was asked to go through one of the machines, and I was of the view that perhaps a little bit more could be seen than just the non-anatomically correct image. But I am greatly heartened by the fact that such privacy concerns are covered within the legislation. The machines cannot record images, and a fuller stick figure is all that is going to come up on the images. Through personal experience, I have no doubt that these machines are very good and that they do detect what needs to be detected.
There have also been concerns—although none have been raised with me personally within the electorate of Cowan—that these machines will expose a person to increased electromagnetic radiation. But this is also dealt with in the legislation. The scanner will emit 10,000 times less radiofrequency energy than an average mobile phone telephone call. I think that fact really addresses the key issues that have been covered by a lot of the commentary on these body scanning machines.
I turn now to address concerns about cultural and religious profiling. I have watched very carefully the existing explosive trace detection regime that takes place at our airports, because with my federal police background I am quite interested in aviation security, and, as a frequent flyer, I am very interested in aviation security. I have observed the people who are picked up during the X-ray walk-throughs to be called forward for the explosive trace detection procedure, and it does seem to be very random. It does not appear that people are targeted for any sort of racial, cultural or religious reason.
In conclusion I say that I think that what we have here in Australia is pretty good so far and that this bill and this technology will improve what we already have. As I said before, there have been some great tragedies in history and, as we know, there has never been a single survivor of an explosion on board an aircraft. We want to make sure that the best security regimes possible are in place and that the Australian public and visitors to our country are as safe as possible. All the concerns about implanted medical devices, about medical objects, about privacy and about the targeting of particular groups are addressed in the bill. We have a good background in this country in making sure that security measures are applied fairly and appropriately, and I have great confidence that aviation security will only be improved by this bill and by this technology. I welcome the passage of the bill, and I look forward to seeing body-scanning devices used widely throughout the nation's airports.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:14): I thank all those who participated in such a constructive way during the debate on the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012. The introduction of security screening technology is an important step in further strengthening the security of the nation's aviation industry. The attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253 in December 2009 and the recently disrupted plot to bomb a US-bound aircraft using a non-metal improvised explosive device highlight the need for robust aviation security screening systems that are capable of detecting non-metallic threats to commercial passenger aircraft. The introduction of body scanners will ensure that travellers departing Australia are afforded the highest level of protection against aviation terrorism.
My department has consulted extensively with other government agencies, community stakeholders and industry to ensure that all health and privacy issues associated with the introduction of this technology have been fully explored. As a result of these discussions, the government has put in place a number of measures to protect the privacy and health of travellers.
Firstly, it is a requirement that body scanners used for aviation security screening in Australia must use non-ionising millimetre wave-technology. X-ray technology will not be allowed. Secondly, to protect the privacy of the travelling public, any image produced by a body scanner must only be a generic or stick figure image that is gender neutral and from which the person cannot be identified. In addition, the body scanner must not store any image of the person that is produced by the equipment or any personal information about the person.
This bill will ensure that body scanners are used in such a way that achieves both an optimal security outcome and a minimal impact on passenger facilitation. The passage of this bill will help to ensure the safety of the 13 million people that depart from Australia's international airports each year.
I thank once again all members who participated in the debate and I thank the House for the support of this important legislation, which I commend to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:16): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move the government amendment as circulated:
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 3), after subsection 44(3B), insert:
(3C) If body scanning equipment is to be used for the screening of a person, the equipment must not store or transmit:
(a) an image of the person that is produced by the equipment; or
(b) personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) about the person.
Mr ALBANESE: In speaking to the legislation amendment that I have moved, I move this amendment in response to the matters that were raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I am proposing an amendment to the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill to include a provision requiring that any current or future body scanner used for aviation security screening at Australian airports not store or transmit any image or personal information about the person being screened. This was always the intention of the government. The Senate committee has asked that the bill be amended to include a very explicit provision in the legislation, and that is why this amendment has been moved.
The amendment will strengthen the privacy safeguards already contained in the bill and give the travelling public further assurance that their privacy is being protected, without affecting the security outcome that will be achieved through the introduction of body scanners. The amendment confirms the government's absolute commitment to ensuring that it achieves the right balance between privacy and security at our airports.
I commend this bill, as amended, to the House.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (18:18): We have many issues with many of the things done and said by the Leader of the House; on this occasion, we thank him for adopting the amendments and proposals put forward to protect the privacy of information as presented by the coalition through the Senate report. We appreciate that. Our other disputes remain, but we accept this amendment.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the House and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) (18:19): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr ALBANESE: I do thank the opposition for their support for the legislation and indeed for the amendment that arose out of the Senate inquiry. It is important, and I think a precondition to successful outcomes, that issues of security be bipartisan—that they not be conducted in a political fashion. The government has attempted to ensure that there has been as much community consultation as possible. Indeed, even in this House, we ensured that one of the body scanners was made available for all members and senators, and indeed all members of the media and others who work in this House, to use so they could see in practice the way that these body scanners would work. Often with these issues it is far easier to raise concerns than to look at the reality of how things will work in practice. I thank the House and I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (18:21): In relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012, the opposition is delighted to provide its support, although we wish to make one significant amendment. Let me begin by putting this bill in context before examining the bill, the committee and the issues in relation to water and farmers' rights over their own land.
The starting point is that there are two great issues in relation to coal seam gas. The first, the subject of this bill, is an environmental issue in relation to the protection of our water resources against the sorts of outcomes which we have seen from bad practices in some of the West Coast and Central West areas of the United States, the sorts of practices which may inadvertently lead to the depletion of aquifers or the poisoning of certain subterranean water bodies. That is a deep, real, legitimate, prime concern. We do not play dice with our underground water resources, our aquifers, the resources of the Murray-Darling Basin or the Great Artesian Basin; we simply do not take risks on that front. I will come back to that later.
What this bill does not do—and I think it is very important to acknowledge this—is address the issue of farmers' access to and control over their own land. One of the most significant issues surrounding coal seam gas is that farmers feel they are losing control of their land. Of course there has been a royalties regime, of course there has been a right of access in contemporary Australian history in relation to minerals and other forms of energy, but there is a new challenge. This House would be derelict in its duty if it did not acknowledge the issue that coal-seam gas poses for farmers and their land.
This bill does not deal with this issue, although my own view is that the right thing, the decent thing, the honourable thing would be for the gas companies to unilaterally agree on a moratorium on exploration or exploitation of resources unless there is consent from the landholder. That is a personal view and something that should be decided on at the level of each state, because the states have control over the land. It is not something which the federal parliament can or should be doing, because we fundamentally believe in the rights of state governments to control their critical resources. But similarly, we think that responsible companies can and should make that agreement. Not everybody will be in accord with this view, but I have personally spoken with many of the players in the industry, the vast majority of whom have indicated strong in-principle support for this notion of a voluntary moratorium unless there is consent. Let's consider these resources, but let's recognise that the best way to deal with legitimate community and individual anxiety is to recognise that control, and the best people to do that are the key players in key companies who need to agree across the board that they will adopt a moratorium unless there is voluntarily given consent for either exploration or exploitation. That is the general principle.
Given the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, I repeat that it is my view and not a formal policy position that perhaps could be achieved on a bipartisan basis—that is, an agreement with the key exploration and exploitation companies in relation to coal seam gas where they impose upon themselves a voluntary moratorium on exploitation or exploration on individual plots of land unless there is consent. I respectfully say to Minister Burke that there is a strong readiness across the gas community to adopt this standard. I do not hold out that it is universal, but I do believe that good leadership can help bring this about by including the premiers of New South Wales and Queensland and leaders at the Commonwealth level. We would be happy to play our part. We do not seek to impose this standard, but we do think that there is a window of opportunity to bring it to pass. I note that many of the critical players in the industry have recognised the legitimate community concern about farmers' land rights and they are looking at this standard. Perhaps over the coming months a voluntary agreement can be brought to pass.
I turn to the bill which establishes the independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. We agree with the purpose, because it is about providing adequate information as a precursor to understanding the impacts of coal seam gas on water resources. In order to do that, it establishes a scientific committee. In particular the key functions of the committee are, firstly, to advise on research priorities and, secondly, to advise on bioregional assessments, of which we are supportive, in areas of high potential impact from coal seam gas and to provide advice to the Commonwealth environment minister on priority assessment areas. Thirdly, to advise on research and bioregional assessments commissioned by the minister. Fourthly, to publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area. And, fifthly, to provide the Commonwealth minister and the relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on particular coal seam gas or large coalmining proposals that may have a significant impact on water resources. It also has a more general plenary power to advise as and when circumstances arise.
The background to this is relatively clear. The technology to extract the gas from coal seams has been in existence for a long period. It has been through a transformative process over the last 15 years and the economics have changed in such a way that we now have a legitimate chance of providing significant revenue for Australia, revenue for rural communities and an additional competitively priced form of energy, whether it is for domestic use or export production. The industry is growing substantially. In Queensland alone the expectation, on the best available advice we have, is for 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year. At a federal government level there is also income and company tax. But none of this is acceptable if it comes at the price of destruction of our fundamental water resources. Water is king—let us be absolutely clear on that. The standard we set is that we will not play dice with, risk or put on the table the safety or sanctity of our aquifers, the Great Artesian Basin or our subterranean water resources. That is a principle on which I believe there is clear bipartisan agreement.
To deal with this the committee is established as a precursor to other critical developments. It is a step toward providing comprehensive mapping of all of those areas which are likely to be the subject of consideration. Against that background, we are supportive of the bill; but we do have one proposed amendment. We are not going to hold a gun to the head of the government on this—we are dealing in good faith; but we ask the government to consider our amendment and approve it. The amendment will be moved by the member for Groom, Ian Macfarlane, who has a close personal connection with this issue not just as a Queenslander but as somebody who represents an area of Australia, in and around Toowoomba and the Darling Downs, which may well be subject to significant further proposals. It is his deep personal concern (a) about water resources and (b) about the rights of individual farmers which has led to that.
The bill currently states that each member of the committee except the chair is to be appointed on the basis that they possess scientific qualifications that the minister considers relevant to the performance of the committee's functions including but not limited to ecology, geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, natural resource management and health. Our proposal, to be moved by the member for Groom, is that the committee's fundamental reason for being is to advise on scientific issues and therefore the bill should require that a majority of the members have advanced qualifications and expertise in the three key fields of geology, hydrogeology or hydrology. It is not a fundamental change. It is about providing more grunt and credibility to this committee. My request is that the government accept this proposal. We are willing to talk about any variations. This is not an ambit claim; it is a legitimate proposal for improvement. We are committed to the notion of protecting water resources as a fundamental and, therefore, this can make a contribution.
Then there is the question of access to the land, which was the subject of my earlier points. Farmers' rights are as critical as protection of aquifers, subterranean water and Great Artesian Basin resources. While this bill is not about farmers' rights, it is about the establishment of a committee to provide scientific advice. We believe that we need to work with the farming community, and I personally believe that the standard of voluntary consent should be what the industry settles upon for exploration and exploitation of these resources. That is a personal view—but I think there is an opportunity for the minister. We have met with coal seam gas companies and other companies considering entering this field and put it squarely to them that this is the standard which we think should be adopted. At this time there is a window of opportunity and I would commend that to the government and to the minister at the table. Having said that, this is a good bill. It is a good step forward. We commend it to the House and we are delighted to support it.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (18:34): I speak in support of this piece of legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012.
My community, Ipswich, was built on coalmining. At one stage we had about 30 coalmines in Ipswich. Ipswich has also been the scene of some of the worst tragedies in Queensland with many deaths as result of the coalmining industry, including at Box Flat in the early 1970s where many men were killed. If you look at the crest of Ipswich you will see 'Be confident when doing right' in Latin, but you will also see symbols of the coalmining industry. Coalmining has been a particularly important industry in Ipswich. Thousands of men, and some women as well, have worked in the industry, which is developing Ipswich and providing funds and employment for the local community. If you go to the heritage centre at Redbank Plains you will see the wonderful work done by the CFMEU to restore and remember Ipswich's coalmining history.
There is still coalmining in the Ipswich and West Moreton region. There are two active New Hope coalmines near Rosewood, a rural township near Ipswich; Jeebropilly is one and New Oakleigh the other. They provide employment. When I first became a federal member there was some talk that all coalmines in Ipswich would be closed but in fact there has been an expansion of coalmining in the Ipswich and West Moreton region.
If you look at any of the newspapers from around South-East Queensland—like the Fassifern Guardian, the Kilcoy Sentinel or the Gatton Staror the Toowoomba Chronicle in places like the Scenic Rim area, the Lockyer Valley, the rural parts of Ipswich, the Brisbane valley, the Kilcoy shire, or the Toowoomba and Darling Downs areas—you will see letters to the editor, press releases from politicians, and comments made by councillors and chambers of commerce. This is a very big issue. Coalmining and the coal seam gas industry is a controversial issue. I do not always agree with the member for Flinders, but his comment in relation to water is accurate. It is extremely important that we make sure we have a good, adequate and clean water supply not just for industry and agriculture but also for the consumers—the men and women, the mums and dads—in these rural areas like Boonah, Gatton, Fernvale and Lowood, and major provincial cities in Queensland, like Toowoomba and Ipswich.
In the last state election in Queensland we heard a lot of controversial statements and claims. We saw the new LNP government and the now Premier make a play for every side of the street on this particular issue, saying one thing to farmers and another to industry. When the Prime Minister was in Ipswich some time ago this issue was raised with her, and it is certainly an issue that has been raised with me. There is great controversy around mining explorations and mining licences in and around Ipswich and Ebenezer, as well as Mount Mort, Mount Walker and other areas. I am aware of this as a local member, I am aware of this from my childhood and I am aware of this from my time working and living in Ipswich.
This legislation goes towards addressing some of the community's concerns in relation to coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. To put it in its context, the community concerns could be expressed like this: there was talk some months ago around the upper part of the Brisbane Valley, where there are 900 people on the electoral roll in the rural township of Toogoolawah. In fact, about a quarter of the township came out one very cold and bitter night to talk about coalmining, the possibility of coalmining in the Brisbane Valley and its proximity to the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams. They expressed strong community concern and objection. I notice the Somerset Regional Council has also expressed its objection to large coalmining developments in and around the Brisbane Valley. Certainly, with its emphasis on tourism and agriculture, and its proximity to the water supply for Brisbane and Ipswich, large coalmining developments are not appropriate in the Brisbane Valley region.
We have listened to what communities have said in South-East Queensland and elsewhere, and we are looking at introducing a new science based framework to provide some certainty for these communities, protecting the long-term health of our water supplies, making sure that the best scientific analysis and evidence can be given, and advice offered, to governments. I applaud the Prime Minister for announcing in November 2011 that the new independent expert scientific committee will be established in relation to these issues. This will take some of the heat out of the issue—not all of it, of course, but some of it—and will make sure that people can rely on expert advice. They are concerned about the impact on water resources. They are concerned about what might happen in their region to biodiversity, conservation, the environment and protected species. They are concerned about all of these issues.
This bill creates a new division under part 19 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, establishing a new statutory committee with responsibility for: research; advice on bioregional assessments, and on the impact of coal seam gas and large coalmining developments; advice on research and development commissioned by the minister for the environment following consideration of that committee's advice; and providing advice in a number of other areas as well. It provides for information on the comparability and consistency of research. We often have the coal seam gas industry commissioning expert advice and evidence, which is then contradicted by other people.
This is about best practice. It is about making sure that we have listened to community concerns. It is about providing, by legislation, the creation of a new committee which will give that advice, making sure that the minister, while being accountable, open and transparent and while listening to local communities, has the best independent expert scientific advice on hand for coal seam gas and large coalmining developments. I think that will in some way assuage the concerns of people in the Ipswich and West Moreton regions. I know it will continue to be an issue. I know some farmers are supportive of these developments while others have tremendous hostility. We have seen a strange marriage of political alliance between the likes of Alan Jones and Bob Katter, and we have seen the Greens also involved in these things.
We want to make sure that we can take the heat out of these issues. We want to make sure that the government makes good decisions, and that councils and state governments make good decisions, in relation to planning and development. We want to make sure that the kinds of decisions we make take into consideration the environment, the flora and fauna, the potential economic development of the industries and the employment opportunities. We also want to make sure that these decisions maintain the viability of these communities and the viability of an agricultural industry which, to Queensland, is particularly important. I am aware of this from living in Ipswich and I am aware of this from being a federal member.
I commend the legislation to the House and I support it.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom) (18:43): I rise today to speak on this bill, the substance of which has a significance well beyond this parliament. The bill in question, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012, is one that formalises the plan to establish an independent expert scientific committee on coal seam gas and large coalmining development. As previous speakers have said, there is a level of community concern in relation to these developments, and I will come back to that in more detail.
The role of this committee will be to provide scientific advice to governments on relevant coal seam gas and large coalmining projects, and to commission and fund water resource assessments for priority regions. The committee can advise on research priorities and bioregional assessment in areas of high potential impact, advise on research and bioregional assessment commissioned by the Commonwealth environment minister as a result of the committee's advice, publish options on improving the consistency of research in this area and publish information on developing leading standards in the protection of water resources from the impacts of coal seam gas and large coal developments. Also, the committee can provide the environment minister and relevant state or territory ministers with expert scientific advice on coal seam gas and large coalmining developments that may have a significant impact on water resources and can also provide advice outside the scope under certain circumstances.
The coal seam gas industry both in Queensland and in New South Wales has been the subject of a lengthy debate in recent years, some of which has been guided by a genuine desire to balance the specifics of the burgeoning industry with the interests of pre-existing industries, most importantly and most commonly agriculture. Unfortunately, some of the debate has been has not been quite so well intentioned and in some cases has been downright misleading and dishonest. The result is that many people who are not directly involved in the CSG industry have only ever heard the negatives about the industry. They do not hear about the jobs that CSG and coal are creating. They do not hear about the regional communities these industries are sustaining.
I grew up in a regional community, and it is interesting that in my 14 years in politics, Bruce Scott, the member for Maranoa has been closing in on my boundaries because of a population drift in his electorate. We are now seeing that actually go the other way; his electorate, for the first time in many years, is growing. That is a direct result of the development of the coal seam in the area.
We do not hear from the critics of these industries about the export revenue that the coal and coal seam industries are providing. All we hear are claims of division, about farmers who are steamrolled by ruthless mining companies hell-bent on making a profit no matter what the cost. I grew up in this region, I live in this region and I see both sides. I was a farmer for longer than I have been a politician. I can assure you that, yes, there are areas of conflict and, yes, there are areas of difference. But in the main there is a resolve in the community to reach a point where these two industries, the agricultural industry and the mining and resource industry, can actually coexist. The reason is they have a shared interest not only in the long-term sustainability of the land—in terms of allowing, where it is possible, resource extraction; they also, more importantly, have a shared interest that that land continues to produce agricultural wealth for our nation.
We see that cooperation between the rural industry—and farmers in particular—and the resource industry take place outside the spotlight. As I have noted elsewhere, this issue has been subjected to some of the most disingenuous manipulation that I have ever seen in my many years as a farmer, my fewer years as an agri-politician or my recent years as a politician. I know this area and this industry well. Agriculture is still running deep in my blood and it is in my soul that we do everything we can to ensure that that industry and its people have a future. But at the same time we owe these people, and more particularly their children, the opportunities that may exist in having these industries coexist.
One of the pleasing things I see as a result of the so called coal seam boom is that parents are now seeing the opportunity for their children to travel away to university to gain degrees, to become trades people and then to return to their home district and have a future there amongst the family and friends they grew up with. Those ties always run deep. I had the opportunity a few weekends ago to go back to my home district. There is nothing like mixing with the people you grew up with. Perhaps you do not know them as closely as you used to but there is a feeling of belonging. My district virtually has expired. There are now more people from my district living in Toowoomba than living in the district I grew up in. The one thing that will save districts like Boondooma from that sort of near extinction where the school closes and the community is almost in an idle is if the agricultural industry and the resource industry can coexist and come up with an agreement where the long-term future of agriculture is protected and the opportunities provided by the resource sector are optimised.
The regulations surrounding the CSG industry and the coal industry fall primarily in the jurisdiction of our state governments—in these cases, primarily in New South Wales and Queensland. There has, however, always been an element of federal regulation as far as the EPBC Act applies, and recent developments mean there is added pressure on the federal government to expand its oversight role. The coalition believes that anything that further ensures the integrity of the industry and can address the issues of public confidence is a good thing. So we believe there is a role for this assessment panel and for the expertise it brings to this area. We are a little bit cautious that this process may bring an added level of red tape and convolution but we are prepared to give it a shot on the basis that we see the merit in it. We need to work with the state governments, which are at the moment trying to balance the interests of mining and agriculture and ensure that the states' prime farming land is safeguarded for the long-term future. Both states are taking their responsibilities seriously and I think we can have faith in the processes both Queensland and New South Wales governments are putting in place.
I do expect, however, that the Greens-driven protest movement will continue. The Greens have capitalised on the campaigning opportunities of stirring up anti-CSG and anticoalmining sentiment, and there are legitimate concerns within the farming communities about the long-term impacts of these industries. These concerns need to be and hopefully will be addressed by this committee. We have seen, though, that at times federal red tape with the environment minister basically ties projects up. We have a recent example where the Queensland government has approved the expansion of bauxite mining on Cape York but that whole process has been tied down by the federal minister's unwillingness to make a decision when he has been fed an absolute bucketload of misinformation by the Greens. He wants to go back through that information, and I could bet that that information is going to prove to be untrue. It is a good example of how the green movement uses these sorts of genuine processes to slow everything down to a point where they try and destroy development.
The legitimate concerns of the farmers, who are the custodians of productive farming land for generations to come, need to be addressed. And the incorrect claims that are made by those who have no interest in sustainable development also need to be addressed and proven incorrect or correct, one way or the other. That is not to say that there are not parts of rural industry that will be deemed off limits. Both the coalition leader and I have said quite clearly that, while it is beyond our immediate power, the preservation of prime agricultural land is of top priority and that the owners of that land should have the right to say no to development on their land. As such, some land will be deemed off limits, but that is a good thing in terms of maintaining productivity in the long-term interests of Australia.
This committee gives us a good opportunity to balance the interests of mining and farming sectors, to the benefit of both, and to ensure the harmonisation of the state system so that stakeholders know exactly where they stand. To this end, the coalition supports this bill and provides in principle support for the establishment of the committee, subject to an amendment which I will outline during the detailed reading stage.
While the potential economic benefits of these industries are clear, with around 90 per cent of Queensland's gas supplies already coming from CSG operations and with the industry expected to deliver 18,000 jobs and around $850 million in royalties per year in Queensland alone, there is a very significant concern that we get this system to work properly and in a way which not only allows those jobs and that return to the state to take place but also ensures the protection of ground and surface water systems. The establishment of this committee will add, in our opinion, independent expert input to the debate about coal seam gas extraction and export and about coalmine development and the export of coal. The committee is a positive step towards improving public confidence in the environmental integrity of these two industries in particular, and the coalition will not stand in its way.
The coalition sees the benefit in this. There is a requirement that we in parliament ensure that public confidence in the processes is maintained and that, where it can be, it is improved. There is a vast amount of information available in relation to coal seam development and underground water in particular that needs to be collated, verified and put in a form that can be used both for assessing applications to explore and develop but also for disseminating to those farmers who have concerns. They are the custodians of this land for generations to come and they need to have confidence that the information they are getting is correct and can be relied on.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (18:56): I rise to voice my support for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seem Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012. This does not happen too often but I would like to commend the member for Groom for his relentlessly sensible comments on this legislation. As a former mining minister and as someone who has always been passionate about both farming and mining, he understands the intersection between these two, at times competing, interests. I hope his voice of reason is the voice that rules those opposite. I can remember not that long ago when the Leader of the Opposition made the commitment to Alan Jones that he would 'lock the gate'—which is actually a change in the property rights of landholders, a change from the idea of the Crown owning minerals. I know the Leader of the Opposition did retreat a little bit from that. Alan Jones has a particular vested interest on this issue because his home town is now a coalmine and he is quite upset about it. In fact, we have such an unholy alliance on this issue: Alan Jones, the Greens and Bob Katter all together on the same ticket. That shows you how bizarre this can be. But that Alan Jones interview when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, said that, yes, it would be okay on occasions to lock the gate, showed that—come the moment, come the right goading from someone like Alan Jones—he will say anything and do anything if he thinks it will win him a vote.
Nevertheless, I come with a bit of authority on mining, having worked for two mining ministers and for the Queensland Resources Council. The council has seen incredible change in the coal seam gas developments over the last 10 years, from a state government policy from Peter Beattie that some say was developed literally on the back of a napkin. There has been an incredible change in the companies providing energy in Queensland and the companies providing jobs and revenue for the state of Queensland. Obviously there are no coal seam gas developments in my electorate of Moreton, but many of my constituents are very concerned about this issue. Some are very enthusiastic about the legislation we are discussing tonight, because they are concerned about the impacts on farming communities. There are others who do a lot of business with mining and coal seam gas developments, companies such as Hastings Deering, Komatsu and the Bradken foundry, which is one of the world's best makers of specialised mining equipment. This is important legislation and the benefits of coal seam gas and coal mining development are undeniable with job opportunities of up to 18,000 jobs for Queensland and revenue of up to $850 million for Queensland that will help much of Australia, Queensland especially, and some communities particularly.
Debate interrupted.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Rishworth ) (19:00): I present the Report No. 52 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members business on Monday, 28 May 2012.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Olympic Dam
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo) (19:00): I rise this evening to talk about an extremely important issue in my home state of South Australia. The House would be aware that some months ago the South Australian parliament in a largely bipartisan move passed legislation to give the green light to the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine at Roxby Downs in South Australia. Most members are aware that the proposed expansion of that site is so exceptional that it will be a huge boon for future generations of South Australians. It is the fourth largest copper resource, the largest known deposit of uranium and has rich deposits of silver and gold.
The expansion will create one of the world's largest open pit mines. By 2050 the size of the pit will grow to be 4.1 kilometres long, 3.5 kilometres wide and one kilometre deep—basically the square mile of Adelaide. It will take about six years of mining to remove the 350-metre thick layer of overburden and expose the upper surface of the ore body. It will employ some 4,000 to 6,000 additional people and, over the long term, see a doubling of the existing operational workforce to 8,000 people. It is expected that the flow-on effect will create some 15,000 jobs in South Australia.
The royalty revenue from the expansion so far averages about $60 million a year from the Olympic Dam project and this is expected to increase four-fold on the completion of the expanded operation. Independent economic analysis of the project's impact on South Australia's economy estimates it will add more than $45 billion to the gross state product over the life of the mine and it is expected that when the mine reaches full production, the South Australia's GSP would be an estimated 8.7 per cent higher in annual average terms compared to the business-as-usual case projection. It was largely a bipartisan state parliament decision last year—except for the Greens, of course, who opposed the expansion of the Olympic Dam—and South Australians hope that it will go ahead when the BHP board decides on this sometime later this year.
But significant threats have emerged that the BHP board is now considering seriously, which put this project in the near future in doubt. I think that it is high time that this parliament and particularly the government very quickly addresses those threats to ensure that the benefits of this expansion, so well known particularly for South Australia, can go ahead.
Last week Jac Nasser, the chairman of the BHP board, one of Australia's most well-respected businesspeople, made a comprehensive speech in which he talked about the challenges that the resource sector in Australia now faces. Those on the other side would have you believe that there is no competition in the global resource market, that Australia has it cornered. Of course that is not true. We compete like any other industry and it is a tough competitive market.
The chairman of the BHP board last week made it very clear that there are four factors which have changed and which are making it harder for this project to go ahead: high investing and operating costs, making us one of the highest cost economies in the world, soon to be made worse by the biggest carbon tax in the world; cost increases due to the industrial relations environment and in particular union militancy; the uncertainty in relation to taxation laws—and I quote Mr Nasser here:
It is the right of governments to set the tax regime but I cannot overstate how the level of uncertainty about Australia's tax system is generating negative investor reaction.
And finally, there is global volatility. Three of the four issues are directly the responsibility of this federal government. Mr Nasser went on to make clear that these factors will be considered when consideration is given by the board to the $20 billion expansion. He said:
We are fortunate to have a diversified portfolio of choices. Given our range of options, if we can't meet our criteria in any one project, product or geography, we will redirect our capital somewhere else or we simply won't invest at all.
This is not code; it could not be clearer. It is a real and present danger to this project going ahead. The question has to be asked: why would the government be trying to openly hold back our best performing industry? It is like running Black Caviar at Royal Ascot and putting Fat Albert on as the jockey. Black Caviar would not win, and neither will we win the race for investment. Costs in Australian mining have risen too fast and too far and now investment is at risk. There is no bigger threat than that to the expansion of Olympic Dam.
The chairman of Rio Tinto backed those comments up recently in the Australian Financial Review when he said:
... are you worried about your over-exposure to Australia... That's not a good thing, that's a damning testimony—
It certainly is. This government must stop the carbon tax. They must take away the regulation burden of the workplace relations reregulation that they have made. Otherwise it will be on their head if Olympic Dam does not go ahead. (Time expired)
National Volunteer Week
Ms GRIERSON (Newcastle) (19:06): I rise to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by volunteers to the local community in my electorate of Newcastle. We all know that volunteers contribute over 700 million hours and $14.6 billion to the not-for-profit sector each year. These are remarkable statistics of commitment and of value and worth. It is always important, therefore, to take the time to recognise the importance of volunteering to our communities and to our Australian society.
During National Volunteer Week last week, I had the great privilege and pleasure of attending volunteering ceremonies held by local organisations, in particular, the Northern Settlement Services Volunteers Appreciation Morning Tea and the Launch of the 2012 Red Shield Appeal, an appeal that depends on the committed work of many volunteers around the nation. At the Northern Settlements Services it was wonderful to see young African migrants, refugees, being assisted to attain studies and drivers licences, and gain computer skills. This is wonderful work that is helping people who come to this nation with a distinct disadvantage.
I am also the patron of the Hunter New England Mental Health Volunteer Service and I am very proud to be associated with the great work done by our local volunteers in that capacity. This organisation has around 80 volunteers across the Hunter-New England area who assist in improving the journey of recovery for those touched by mental illness in our community. While I was unable personally to attend the celebration morning tea during National Volunteer Week, my staff represented me at that event and reported that it was a great showcase of the wonderful things that our mental health volunteers are doing. So I give a big thank you all round.
Since we were elected to government in 2007, federal Labor has provided over $425,000 under the FaHCSIA Volunteer Grants Program to over 31 local organisations in Newcastle. Although those grants are small they are very much welcomed by each organisation. This funding has helped to purchase much needed equipment for use by volunteers or to reimburse expenses incurred by volunteers who so generously donate their time to assisting others.
For example, $4,500 was provided to Grandparents as Parents, or GAPS, which is a fabulous group operating in my electorate. GAPS provides assistance and support for grandparents and other family members who act as carers for young relatives. The funding was directed to support GAPS in organising events and helping kinship carers to access welfare and advocacy services.
A further $4,695 was granted to the Hunter African Communities Council to assist in providing a support network to migrants of Ethiopian descent who have settled in our city of Newcastle. From facilitating participation in local sporting and social activities to assisting residents to access support services, this is a volunteer organisation that is truly promoting social inclusion in my electorate.
While these funding commitments have had a significant impact and facilitate the wonderful work in our local community, it is also important to encourage and reward volunteering for the enrichment it provides to our social fabric. It is in pursuit of this goal that I recently called once more for nominations for the Newcastle Community Volunteer Awards. Held annually since 2004, those awards are a gesture of recognition and sincere thanks to ordinary people in my electorate who make extraordinary contributions in our community. As a testament to the strength of the volunteering community in Newcastle, I have proudly presented over 530 community volunteer awards to individuals and organisations from all sectors: from providers of aged care and disability services to those involved in education, sport and recreation.
The community in Newcastle is richer for the ongoing dedication, commitment and enthusiasm of our volunteers. I am always astounded by the stories behind each and every one of the recipients and also of the way everyone says, 'Oh no, I did not do anything.' Their modesty and humility are quite overwhelming.
I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the Hunter Volunteer Centre, currently under the guidance of manager Tony Ross, in assisting to make the awards ceremony a success, year in and year out. This year the theme for the National Volunteers Weekwas 'Volunteers—Every One Counts'. This is so true, and I know that all members in this House understand and appreciate the work of volunteers in their communities. They really do make a difference. They really are special.
I look forward to reading the stories that accompany the applications for the 2012 Newcastle Community Volunteer Awards as they start to flow in over the coming weeks. I take this opportunity to encourage anyone who knows of any Novocastrians who do volunteer to get into contact with my office for a nomination form. So do dob in a volunteer and help to recognise the work they selflessly do for others.
Longman Electorate: Volunteers
WYATT ROY (Longman) (19:11): I acknowledge the member for Newcastle. We all acknowledge the importance of volunteers across our nation. Last week as part of National Volunteers Week, I held the Longman awards to celebrate achievers in the Longman community. On Friday night, 60 individuals were recognised for their work. I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House the stories of the finalists from the Longman awards.
A young man from Burpengary Meadows State School single-handedly raised $600 for cancer research as part of this year's Shave for a Cure. This young man, Billy Setter, won the Youth Achievement Award. Billy's remarkable determination and effort is a lesson to all of us. Our other young finalists have also achieved great things—Brooke Tytherleigh in her dancing; Daniel Thompson, Jayden Donald and Kaylee McKeown in their sports achievements. My region has many talented young athletes including Benjamin Brown, Braden Lockyer, Troy Guenther, Jessica Bayliss and Mitchell De Rossi.
One person stood out from the crowd that were nominated for the sports achievement award. That was a young lady by the name of Nicola Crook. Nicola is not only an exceptional team player chosen to play representative softball at the national level but she also plays a valuable role in mentoring the next generation of sports stars by coaching young softball teams. Nicola's willingness to pass on her invaluable skills is the kind of positive sport role model that other young sports stars should be able to look up to, and was the basis for her winning the Sports Achievement Award.
Another community role model is Howard Walter, winner of the Volunteer Achievement Award. Walter is affectionately known as the mayor of Wamuran for his indefatigable commitment to the Wamuran community. Howard retired in 1999, only to become Treasurer of the Wamuran Sporting Association and to volunteer with Neighbourhood Watch as a 'blockie'. Howard gives freely of his time, expecting nothing in return, and is the epitome of a community achiever.
The list of volunteers who were nominated for this year's awards and their many years of service to the community are simply phenomenal. I would like to recognise the efforts of: Kim Barton, Jenny Butler, Fay Cartiridge, Ellen Corrick, Noelene Davis, Betty Farren-Price, Dale Hennessey, Margaret Kelly, Leonie McGee, Tony Moronejt or 'Top Hat', Janette Norquay, Coral Padget, Heather Phillips, Ken Piva, Cluny Seager, Dawn Sharp, Shirley Styman, Lesley Timmers, Christine Tindall, Jenny Tompkins, Anthony Vohland, Jenny Walters, Nonie Watt and Bette Webb.
Longman is home to some of the most dedicated and committed environmental groups in our region. This year's Environmental Achievement Award went to the Wallum Action Group for their endeavour to support revegetation of the region with native plants, but also because of the financial support that the group provides to other local environmental groups through their sale of native plants. Without this financial support, many of the other groups such as one of the other finalists, Bribie and District Wildlife Rescue, could not continue to do the wonderful things that they do. It is also important to acknowledge the volunteers in these environmental groups who make it all happen, including our environmental award finalists, Alan Kerr, Robbie Thompson and Wal Corney, as well as our ecowarriors, Anna and Connor McHugh.
This year the Longman Awards included a Small Business Achievement category. This was a chance to recognise those local businesses who feel that part of their responsibility is to give back to the community that supports them. Our finalists, Martin Jonkers Motors and the Abbey Museum of Art and Archaeology, both deserve to be recognised for the ways that they quietly give back. So too does Devin's Windscreens, which was awarded Small Business Achievement winner. Devin and his team work with the Queensland department of justice to give at-risk youth a second chance, an opportunity to learn new skills and a brighter future.
One of the most touching stories was that of Dawn Worley, who was this year's Seniors Achievement Award winner. Dawn has worked tirelessly for the past four years to establish Dragons Abreast Bribie Island, a group which facilitates dragon boat racing as a physical therapy for breast cancer survivors. The paddling involved in dragon boat racing provides important exercise of the muscles, and by establishing this group Dawn has been instrumental in creating a support network for the individuals, families and friends of breast cancer survivors. Dawn has touched the lives of many survivors, helping them through what can only be described as the most difficult challenge of their lives.
Dawn is not alone; Doris Thwaite, George Grant, Janet Ross and Margaret Courtney were all also worthy finalists in this category. This year many community groups were put forward to be acknowledged under community group achievements. The Going Cheap Project, the Pinkaboutit team, Global Care Bribie Island, Lions Club of Narangba, Pink Pythons Under 15s and the Wamuran and District Men's Shed are all doing fantastic things for our community. I want to take this opportunity to thank my community for the opportunity to humbly represent them. (Time expired)
Budget
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (19:16): On 17 April this year the member for North Sydney travelled to London where he gave a speech in which he said that Hong Kong's government debt was 'moderate'. That speech pointed out that Hong Kong's gross government debt was then 34 per cent of GDP. As Simon Howson pointed out to me, given that Australia's gross government debt will peak at 18 per cent of GDP, the only appropriate word for Australia's debt levels is 'low'. Australia's net debt as a share of GDP will peak at 9.6 per cent of GDP. That is like somebody earning $100,000 and owing $9,600. This debt was, of course, taken on in order to save jobs—200,000 of them, and tens of thousands of small businesses.
Late last year, Australian banks were actually concerned that there were too few Australian government bonds in the market for them to meet the Basel III requirements. They were concerned that the Australian government had too little debt, and relative to other major advanced economies that is indeed the case—Australia's debt levels will peak at one-tenth of the average in major advanced economies. But now the coalition appears set to stand against an increase in Australia's debt ceiling, to stand against an increase in Australia's debt limit.
I want to use the opportunity tonight to inform the House as to the consequences of this reckless action. Rob Nicholl, head of the Australian Office of Financial Management has told the government:
Any uncertainty whatsoever as to the Government's ability to undertake normal debt management operations would create widespread and potentially serious negative speculation, this in turn creating unfavourable perceptions on the part of the investment community.
Mr Nicholl told the government:
With increasing scrutiny of, and interest in, the market for CGS, it is critical to maintain a clear and unambiguous signal that debt market operations will not be impeded …
We are raising the debt limit for two reasons. The first is that revenues tend to come in later in the year and payments are made throughout the year, so government needs to meet the gap through temporary further issuance in short-term markets. The second is to manage maturity of long-term bonds outstanding. Prior to their maturity, the Australian Office of Financial Management has to accumulate enough money to pay out the long-term bond holders because not enough tax receipts have yet flowed in. So for a little while we have twice the amount of bonds on issue before we pay off the first lot of long-term bonds. While the budget papers show that Commonwealth government securities on issue will be under the existing limit, fluctuations require us to raise the debt cap. This is, of course, sound economic management, as Paul Krugman pointed out during the US fight over the debt:
… since debt is the consequence of decisions about taxing and spending, and Congress already makes those taxing and spending-decisions, why require an additional vote on debt? And traditionally the debt limit his been treated as a minor detail.
But not so under the wrecking ball approach of those opposite. As Stephen Koukoulas has observed:
Think back to what happened mid last year. Congress was going to block a required increase in the US debt ceiling. The US government was going to miss its bills. I don’t want to overstate it, but things got pretty ugly... Around 80 per cent of our bond market is held by foreigners. We can’t afford to alienate these people by playing silly buggers with the ceiling.
The approach that the coalition is taking over the debt limit is an approach that is aimed at convincing investors that Australia is no longer a responsible country. As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute puts it, the approach of the US Republicans, which is effectively the approach of those opposite, is to come around with baseball bats declaring: 'Nice economy you have here. A real shame if something happened to it'.
Raising the debt limit is sensible economic management. Those opposite, including the member for North Sydney, have called for more 30-year bonds. He has spoken overseas about the 'moderate' debt of a country with nearly twice Australia's debt levels, and yet here, as Stephen Koukoulas has said,
… the opposition is willing to risk overseas investor confidence in Australia for the sake of a cheap political point.
The opposition should stop playing politics with the debt ceiling and start focusing on the national economic interest.
Gold Coast: Commonwealth Games 2018
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (19:21): Many Gold Coast residents and Queenslanders will remember that great day in November last year when we heard that the Gold Coast will host the 2018 Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth Games offers a fantastic opportunity for the Gold Coast to revitalise both its tourism and construction industries. Both industries in recent years have experienced a downturn, for a variety of reasons, and the Gold Coast unemployment rate is still higher than the national average; therefore, the announcement of the games comes at a time when it is essential that steps are taken to create more jobs on the Gold Coast and create more local wealth for employees and small businesses alike.
With this in mind, we need to have an approach for the whole of the Gold Coast not just the northern Gold Coast, to ensure that the benefits created by the games and the period of time before and after the event are spread evenly. Although the northern end of the Gold Coast has a number of the facilities required to effectively host many of the individual events, it does not mean that the southern Gold Coast, where my electorate is based, should be excluded from hosting some of them.
Information currently available indicates that the road racing event is to be held in Elanora and Currumbin Valley, with the Rugby Sevens competition to be held at Skilled Park stadium in Robina. However, other events, like the triathlon, can easily be held amongst much of the beautiful scenery—including some of our many beaches—that is abundant on the southern Gold Coast. The risk that is taken by centralising many events, including many important facilities such as the athletes' village on the northern end of the Gold Coast, is that the southern economy will not reap the benefits.
Small businesses are struggling due to lower expenditure from locals, and tourists and many hospitality operators on the southern Gold Coast are still suffering from low tourist numbers. When major events are being held it provides these businesses with the opportunity to get more customers through the door, due to their proximity to the events. To highlight an example, the Cooly Rocks On festival, the successor to the Wintersun festival, delivers a much-needed injection to the southern Gold Coast economy, with accommodation being booked out and many small businesses in the Coolangatta area attracting many more customers than usual. This means more jobs and more wealth in the local community.
Although the games are still nearly six years away, we should be taking advantage of this opportunity right now to promote the whole of the Gold Coast. It is such a great location to live and holiday. Other benefits from hosting events on the southern Gold Coast would come from the construction of improved infrastructure that would be required for the transportation of visitors and facilitation of events. Much of the facilities and infrastructure required to host major sporting events that will be part of the games program is currently located on the northern end of the Gold Coast, with the exception of Skilled Park in Robina. However, there is no reason that, in the six-year period between now and the games, existing infrastructure cannot be improved. That will allow for more events to be held down on the southern end of the Gold Coast. In the long run, the benefits would mean that southern Gold Coast residents would have better infrastructure at their disposal and could potentially host more major events in the years ahead, generating more local wealth.
The Commonwealth Games present the Gold Coast with a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we need to ensure that all is being done to take advantage of not only the event but also the consequential benefits. It is important that we spread the benefits. We do not want a disproportionate amount of money and resources being spent on the northern end of the Gold Coast while the southern end of the Gold Coast is forgotten. I urge the new Commonwealth Games Board to do what it can to ensure that the southern Gold Coast plays an equal role in the delivery of the games so that all Gold Coast residents can enjoy and benefit from, what I know, will be a fantastic milestone in the Gold Coast's history.
Reid Electorate: Railways
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (19:26): The expansion and electrification of railways is one of the more effective means of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and reducing road congestion and the unending road toll. With these advantages in mind, our government has committed $840 million toward the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor project that runs from Strathfield in my electorate to Newcastle. It is a forward-looking plan that will, amongst other benefits, result in more than 200,000 heavy vehicles being taken off the road each year, a reduction in the consumption of expensive, imported diesel fuel by 40 million litres per year and a reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions of 100,000 tons.
In my electorate this project will see a new rail underpass for freight trains at North Strathfield, a new track connected to the existing relief goods loop line at North Strathfield and 2.4 kilometres of new track, and the upgrade of 850 metres of existing track. Under the previous Howard government Australian railways entered a very dark age that, with the exception of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, saw tracks torn up, services abandoned, freight wagons cut up and, in New South Wales, 60 serviceable electric locomotives scrapped.
Responsible governments around the world are implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—in particular, expanding railway electrification. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, transport produces one-sixth of Australia's carbon dioxide emissions and, due in part to the Howard government's policies of expanding road freight at the expense of railways, emissions from the transport industry were 29 per cent higher in 2008 than in 1990.
As we know, the Leader of the Opposition said in his inaugural speech in this place, 'The government's job is not to lay rails, shift earth and pour concrete,' so no-one should be under any illusion that an Abbott government would ever have undertaken an important initiative like the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor project. Following the oil shocks of the 1970s, engineers in the United States and other countries investigated railway electrification as a means of reducing dependence on oil. They found advantages that include lower running costs and lower maintenance costs of locomotives and multiple units, a higher power-to-weight ratio resulting in fewer locomotives required, faster acceleration, higher practical limit of power and a higher speed limit. Other benefits include quieter operation, independence from interruptions to oil supplies and lower carbon dioxide pollution.
Despite these evident benefits the Howard government, in its amalgamation of Australian National Railways and the New South Wales railways' FreightCorp collaborated in scrapping or mothballing 10 type 85 class and 50 type 86 class electric locomotives worth hundreds of millions of dollars that had previously served the New South Wales railways well. Among the consequences of this extraordinary act of vandalism was that freight operators on New South Wales railways, always short of motive power, were forced to import 16 secondhand diesel locomotives from Denmark.
Numbers of worn out and decrepit diesel locomotives, well past their intended useful life, have been returned to service and can regularly be seen hooked together as multiple units struggling to haul strings of freight cars that were formerly pulled by a single, powerful electric locomotive. The diesel locomotives that now haul freight trains through my electorate produce serious noise and exhaust pollution that directly affects many people who live near railway lines where freight trains operate. Worse, as an increasing number of freight trains use the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor, the impact of these locomotives will only intensify unless electric locomotives are re-commissioned to replace the decrepit diesels that now pump out toxic emissions and noise into the environment.
In concluding, in spite of the best efforts of the Howard government, a significant number of electric locomotives do survive hidden away in various depots and sidings. I have no doubt that many of these clean, quiet and powerful machines could be returned to service to the benefit of those constituents who live alongside rail corridors in my electorate. I will have more to say on this in the near future, because the enemy, time, has beaten me tonight. (Time expired)
Friendly Faces Helping Hands
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (19:31): One of the most traumatic things that can happen to a family from a regional or country area is to have a sudden illness or injury inflicted on their family. Quite often this involves a very quick trip to a city to a large hospital for treatment. One of the problems when these people get to the city area is that they are in a completely unfamiliar area in unfamiliar surroundings and they are at a loss to know where to go to find the services that they need.
One of these people is a constituent of mine, a young lady by the name of Kelly Foran. Kelly Foran has had a series of health issues, not only for herself but also for members of her family—multiple issues that would lay most people low and probably suffering from self-pity. Kelly Foran has built on her own experiences and is working very hard to help others in the position that she found herself in.
She has actually formed an organisation called Friendly Faces Helping Hands. This is a multifaceted thing—from a website which has been designed to printed information that is placed in doctors surgeries and with a phone backup service. Friendly Faces Helping Hands lists commonsense services that people may need to find—for instance, where you can find cheap parking near large metropolitan hospitals, where you can find affordable accommodation, where the social workers are located in the hospital, where you can buy nappies after hours and how you can get there by public transport; a whole range of things that if you find yourself on a very quick trip to an unfamiliar area you just do not know.
Kelly has been running this pretty well on her own with some donations from family, friends and community members. She has grown this to a situation now where she has information on the larger hospitals in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. She has helped countless people with what she is doing. Kelly does this from the little community of Maules Creek, which is out from Narrabri in north-west New South Wales.
Last week I raised with the health minister what Kelly has been doing. There are government websites to help people who are in this position but they mainly deal with government services. There is nothing comparable to what Friendly Faces Helping Hand does and the broader, more practical, commonsense approach that it takes. So on Kelly's behalf I made a request to the health minister for some financial assistance so that Kelly can grow Friendly Faces Helping Hands into a more sustainable-type unit and so she does not have to eat into her own personal savings in order for this service to continue and be expanded, I believe, to a nation-wide website that can help people all across Australia. I am hopeful that the health minister will look upon this favourably. She certainly gave me a great hearing when I spoke to her last week. As I know from personal experience, to have to travel to a larger city hospital, quite often under rushed circumstances, can be very difficult. (Time expired)
Public Education Day
Calwell Electorate: Broadmeadows Jobs and Skills Expo
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (19:36): Before I begin, I just want the House to note that today is Public Education Day. I would like to wish all of the public schools in my electorate a very happy Public Education Day and also to welcome the Australian Education Union, who are here with us in parliament this week, and to congratulate them on their unwavering dedication to promoting the cause of public education in Australia.
Last Wednesday I attended a Jobs and Skills Expo in my electorate, along with the Minister for Human Services, Senator Kim Carr, and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relation, Mr Bill Shorten. This is a wonderful initiative implemented by this government as part of our commitment to helping people find employment by linking job seekers with prospective employers. Also, it gives young job seekers and even school students the opportunity to get to know what kinds of job prospects, as well as training opportunities, are available to them. Looking for a job or deciding on a career option can be very daunting for people, especially young people, so a jobs expo provides a one-stop shop.
The one in my electorate was, I think, about the 50th such jobs expo that has taken place around the country. I welcomed the minister—who is here, doing a great job. The jobs expo generated a very high level of interest, with many constituents coming into my office to ask for information days before the event actually took place. Its importance lies in the opportunity that it gives job seekers to submit resumes and to speak directly to employers as well as training organisations. Put simply, the expo is a big jobs and skills marketplace where job seekers of all ages and skill levels are connected with a number of employers, employment service providers, recruitment agencies and registered training organisations. Of course, all this happens under one roof and in one day. In fact, some of our local participants described it as a case of job seekers being able to do as much as six weeks worth of job searching in one day at the expo.
While unemployment rates in some regions across Australia have improved, there is more work to be done in many places, including in Melbourne's northern and western suburbs. When one takes into account that about 940,000 people live in the north-western suburbs of Melbourne, a jobs expo goes a long way in encouraging people to seek employment and better their qualifications. The Broadmeadows expo allowed constituents the opportunity to take advantage of more than 960 job prospects on offer, encouraged more than 1,300 resumes to be submitted and allowed the 85 exhibitors to directly interact with prospective employees. The exhibitors told me that as a result of the expo as many as 441 job seekers would be placed in jobs. It is important to get the message out that it is never too late to reskill or engage in the workforce, and the expo was a vehicle that helped many people in my electorate to take the first step.
To further encourage participation, exhibiting at the expo was free. As a result, it attracted the attention of a range of employers, including some of the big employers, and I would like to mention them here this evening: BAE Systems, which is a major supplier to the Australian Defence Force; Grocon, Australia's largest privately owned development and construction company, which has—as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke—built the iconic structures of the Rialto Towers in Melbourne; Bowens Timber and Building Supplies; Bunnings; the Trade Institute of Victoria; Victoria Police; and, of course, Woolworths.
At the jobs expo, a further very important announcement was made: that up to 800 families would receive computers thanks to a partnership between the Australian government and WorkVentures. Senator Kim Carr made the announcement on the day, and the partnership entails the Department of Human Services supplying laptops to the not-for-profit organisation WorkVentures. These laptops are refurbished and sold at a discount price to people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. This partnership is a win for everyone. It will help people who are at risk of social exclusion as a result of not having the benefits of technology. I want to thank the chief executive officer of WorkVentures, Mr Arsenio Alegre, who is thoroughly and utterly committed to being involved in this project. He believes that everyone should have access to the benefits of technology and no-one should be disadvantaged as a result of their socioeconomic status.
North West Rail Link
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (19:41): I rise tonight to condemn the recent decision by Infrastructure Australia to advise the government to reject a request from the New South Wales government to fund the North West rail line. I want to make it clear from the beginning that this is against the express advice of the New South Wales government, the facts available on Sydney infrastructure in recent years and the quality of applications that have been made. In fact, this casts a very bad light on the government's new policy of having a national infrastructure body to determine priorities according to need, not according to political priorities. It is a fact, of course, that this Labor government has not spent a single dollar on funding for infrastructure in metropolitan Sydney—not a single dollar. We are all aware of the debacle of the funding for a study for a metro line, only for it to have to be handed back by a state Labor government incompetent to administer anything. However, that should not penalise an entire city for all time.
The north-west is well regarded as one of Sydney's and the nation's fastest growing regions. This rail network that the state government is planning for will improve congestion and take about 40,000 passengers down the North West rail line from the Western, Richmond and Northern lines, easing overcrowding for commuters in those areas of Sydney. It will support about 16,000 jobs and inject $25 billion into the state's economy. It is regarded as the single largest tunnel rail project in Australia's history.
I have spoken to the New South Wales state government and looked at what the record of this has been. I want to record for the House in the strongest possible terms that the Premier, Barry O'Farrell, met with the federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the member for Grayndler, and informed him of the New South Wales government's determination to deliver the North West rail line as a priority. The Premier, Barry O'Farrell, has written to the transport minister asking that he join the New South Wales government and find a way for the Commonwealth to help fund the North West rail line. The Premier has met with the Prime Minister to outline how the North West rail line is a priority for New South Wales and metropolitan Sydney. The Premier has written to the Prime Minister requesting that she directly fund the North West rail line.
Despite this unquestionable need for the rail link and despite the clear position of the New South Wales government, this government has allocated funding to an Epping to Parramatta rail line. It is now well established, of course, that this proposal was a last-minute promise by the Labor government in the lead-up to the 2010 election. This pre-election offer was made just 10 days prior to the last election, without consultation and with no submission before the federal government to Infrastructure Australia. The New South Wales government, in contrast, submitted a 2,200-page environmental impact statement which included all the benefits this North West rail line project will bring to the community, and it was told that not enough work had been put into this 2,200-page submission. Contrast that with the New South Wales Labor government submitting five pages of information to the federal government seeking funding for a scoping study on the Parramatta to Epping rail line. Well, lo and behold, this government, with a five-page submission, got $2.1 billion in the 2010-11 mid-year economic forecasts from 2014 onwards; yet a 2,200 page submission with an EIS has been knocked back by this federal government and Infrastructure Australia. The hypocrisy is absolutely astounding. Given that Labor has built no infrastructure in metropolitan Sydney for the last four years, this playing politics with rail lines in the nation's biggest city has to come to an end.
I also want to record tonight that we have a break in the clouds on the horizon. The member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, has come forward and said that she opposes Infrastructure Australia's decision to revise against the funding for the North West rail line. I will quote from page 3 of the Rouse Hill Times of 9 May:
"There is no argument it has to be built" she said. "It will be regardless. It is Barry's holy grail, which I fully support."
Clearly, the member for Greenway sees the North West rail line as a vital piece of rail infrastructure that will service not just her own electorate but also my electorate and the people of north-west Sydney and provide the best bang for the buck in the Sydney metropolitan area.
That is why I am going to be calling upon this House and the government to allocate the $2.1 billion that is in the mid-year economic forecasts of 2010-11 for the 2014 year for the Parramatta to Epping rail line to be reallocated to the New South Wales government to make their determination about what is the most important rail priority. Given the member for Greenway's comments, I am going to be asking her to join me in this call, ensuring that both of our electorates are well looked after and this money is well allocated on the right projects based on transport priorities and not political circumstance.
Sydney is sick of rail line politics. It was 16 years under a previous Labor state administration. We now have a federal Infrastructure Australia body. We now have the ability to ensure that this most important rail line project in metropolitan Sydney and in the country is well funded, built on time and enhances our transport situation in a congested city.
Australian Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (19:46): I rise once again to defend the Australian Public Service against continued attacks from several fronts. For the past two decades, and now as the federal member for Canberra, I have been an advocate for a strong and stable Public Service here in the ACT. Canberra is built on the Public Service, and much of our private sector is interlinked with it. Without the APS, I believe Canberra as we know it would simply cease to exist. But too often we hear nothing but disdain towards our Public Service and our public servants.
I was dismayed to see the front page of today's Canberra Times, which quoted a new report from Roy Morgan calling for our Public Service to be decentralised and departments moved to the bush. This is something mining magnate Gina Rinehart—friend of those opposite—and the Leader of the Opposition have also endorsed. The report suggests Canberra should be ashamed of its low unemployment rate and embarrassed by its ability to attract the best and brightest—the most highly educated in the country. 'It's like Disneyland,' says Roy Morgan chief executive Michele Levine. I have heard Canberra called a lot of things, but Disneyland ain't one of them. The notion that our public servants here in Canberra do not understand what it is like for people living in regional Australia is absolutely ludicrous.
Firstly, Canberra is located in a regional area. It is located in the capital region. Secondly, Canberra services around 30 per cent of the region in education, health and a range of other services. There are over 22,500 non-ACT residents travelling to the ACT each day for work, and they are from the region. Many people here have come from regional areas, to make a difference to those regional areas. When I was at the ANU most of the people I studied with were from Goulburn, Yass and around the region. So I take heart in the Prime Minister's recent comment, 'I commit to Canberra remaining the heart of the Australian Public Service and the primary location of government departments and agencies.' Canberra can be sure that under Labor, our Public Service will stay strong.
What I would like to know: is which departments should be moved to the bush, as suggested, and when? Would those opposite like to put forward a policy for once, and state which departments they would like to shift to the north of Australia? Maybe they can ask Gina Rinehart what she thinks? Canberra is the home of our Public Service, but it is also a working city with a vibrant community. Moving whole departments out of Canberra would have significant ramifications. Unemployment would go up, the private sector would suffer and the housing market would collapse.
This is more of the same lack of understanding about how Canberra works that we get from those opposite. Too often all we hear from those opposite is nonsense about 'waste' and the need to audit and axe our Public Service. There is no understanding of the important work our Public Service does. Those opposite simply do not appreciate the role played by the APS in upholding, promoting and serving our democracy. The APS is itself an institution of Australia's democratic system of government. So, in keeping the Public Service strong, we are ensuring democracy stays strong as well.
That is the difference between Labor and the coalition when it comes to our Public Service. Those opposite do not see the Public Service as vital to Australian government. We on this side want to make the Public Service the most efficient and effective in the world. Since 2011, we have actively pursued efficiencies in the Public Service—and we have runs on the board, with over $10 billion in efficiencies realised since we came to government. While the approach of those opposite is to run around saying they will 'end the waste' and abolish whole departments, our approach is focused on improving efficiency—not cutting jobs. Our approach is about stability; their approach is just lazy.
And I absolutely reject their view that our focus on efficiency and taking staffing levels back to what they were in 2009-10 is in any way worse than their outrageous plan to slash 12,000 jobs across the board. I mean, can we really believe they will stop at 12,000 jobs? I condemn their plans to make 12,000 public servants redundant should they come to office. Their plan is ill-conceived, based on no clear evidence and totally ignorant of the way our Public Service works. It is a plan that will hurt Canberra's private sector and cause irreversible damage to our region's economy. (Time expired)
Tertiary Education
Mr JENKINS (Scullin) (19:51): The Leader of the Opposition's misappropriation of Ben Chifley's 'light on the hill' speech was a most audacious action, even by the Leader of the Opposition's standards. When we think about the rich history of the Australian Labor Party, we have nothing but pride. In looking at Chifley's speech, given at the ALP conference in 1949, it is instructive to read the following:
No Labour Minister or leader ever has an easy job. The urgency that rests behind the Labour movement, pushing it on to do things, to create new conditions, to reorganise the economy of the country, always means that the people who work within the Labour movement, people who lead, can never have an easy job. The job of the evangelist is never easy.
Tonight I want to reflect on Labor's proud record on tertiary education. I am of a generation that benefited from the decision of the Whitlam government to dispense with tertiary education fees. As it transpired, it would not have affected me because I was lucky enough to earn a Commonwealth scholarship. But for many of my peers, in our final years of secondary education the thought of whether or not we could afford university was paramount, so the Whitlam government's actions were enabling for very many people to make a transition. As things developed, there was still concern about the inadequacy of the way in which people from low socioeconomic backgrounds could attain a tertiary place.
Moving forward to the Hawke era and the creation of HECS, I was from a tradition within the Labor Party and the Labor movement that opposed HECS. I had the problem, though, that the minister for tertiary education at the time, John Dawkins, had a strong belief that introducing a HECS program would inject more money into tertiary education. It was electorates like Scullin that would see the benefit, because we had low participation rates. The outcomes are a bit chequered, I think, as a result of HECS payments.
Move forward to 2009 and a new Labor government: a Labor government driven by the same values, that wants to see kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds able to have access to tertiary education. If we look at La Trobe University in the northern suburbs of Melbourne, we see a 35 per cent increase in students from low SES backgrounds—from 1,200 to 1,700—in the 2009 final figures of enrolments to the third round in 2012. Those sorts of figures make me very proud. If we look at the university that serves the western suburbs of Melbourne, Victoria University, we see a similar increase: 28 per cent, from 1,000 to 1,300. These are the things that we should dwell upon. These are the things that, in all the mire of perception, bad things and chaos, this government has been able to achieve. These are things that are truly Labor in their values, that come from the vision of Chifley and continue through the Whitlam era, through the Hawke era and now, in the Rudd-Gillard era. We have stayed true to trying to make opportunities for the people that we are entrusted with serving. In conclusion, I thank the member for Gippsland for yielding to me in this adjournment debate.
Petition: Supply of PBS Medicines
Petition: Digital Television Reception in Boolarra and District
Petition: Princes Highway Gippsland Region
Petition: Latrobe Regional Hospital
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (19:56): In the spirit of the member for Scullin's speech, I am quite ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with him when it comes to the issue of higher education achievement for people from low socioeconomic groups, particularly those from regional areas. We do have a lot more work to do in that regard, and I am sure the government realises there are many challenges ahead for us in relation to raising the participation rates for students from regional communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. I will be tabling four petitions—which I understand is a bit unusual—that have all been found to be in order by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions. Two of them have been raised in smaller form in the past, so it is a chance to make sure that the people who signed these petitions have the opportunity to see them tabled in the House tonight.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Petitions, I congratulate the secretariat and all the other members of the committee for conducting themselves in a very professional manner on that committee. I think it is an important role we play in giving the people of Australia the opportunity to directly petition the House and to have their issues raised in this most important of places.
The first petition relates to the supply of PBS medicines. Specifically it relates to the timely and efficient delivery of those medicines. It is a huge petition. There are more than 13,000 signatures on it, and this is on top of the petition with 50,000 signatures that I tabled last November. There was significant concern regarding the distribution system for PBS medicines, and it helped draw attention to a very important issue at that time. I have been reassured by the companies involved that their delivery performance has improved significantly since the matter was first brought to the attention of the House. I am confident that we are moving in the right direction in relation to that, and I congratulate the petitioners for bringing it to the attention of the House.
The next petition comes from the community of Boolarra, and it is a somewhat smaller petition but a very significant petition for the 92 residents who signed it. It relates to issues associated with switchover to digital TV. The Boolarra community is one of the first areas that was switched over. There were many assurances given to the community in relation to the switchover from digital to analog, but the expectations of that community have not been met. The services are continuously interrupted. I have made representations to the minister, and his office has been very forthcoming in trying to come up with some solutions to work with the community but, unfortunately, we have not really resolved the concerns of the Boolarra and district residents. It looks like there is going to be considerable expense to many residents to try to overcome their issues. The communication issues associated with the digital TV rollout have not been resolved in those areas, where the topographic conditions are sometimes very difficult to overcome.
The third petition relates to the Princes Highway east of Sale and the need for additional funding to ensure that one of the most notorious stretches of road in Victoria is properly maintained in the future. It actually relates specifically to the need to include that section of road on the national road network. It is something I have raised before in the House and I will continue to work with the minister in that regard.
The final petition relates to the La Trobe Regional Hospital. More than 2,100 people have signed that petition calling on the federal government to work with the state government in a major overhaul of services for La Trobe Regional Hospital. It is an issue I have raised many times. I have discussed it with the relevant ministers and I am looking forward in the future to achieving an outcome on behalf of all the people of Gippsland.
Supply of PBS Medicines
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of pharmacy customers draws the following to the attention of the House:
The Federal Government established a Community Service Obligation (CSO) to ensure that all Australians have timely access to the PBS medicines they require, regardless of the cost of the medicines, or where they live.
Under exclusive PBS supply arrangements established by pharmaceutical manufacturers, eligible CSO Distributors are excluded from supplying PBS medicines within 24 hours under the CSO and pharmacists have their supply options for PBS medicines reduced to a single supplier.
We therefore ask the House to take immediate action and introduce an amendment to the National Health Act 1953 that prohibits exclusive supply of PBS medicines by manufacturers and suppliers to community pharmacies.
from 13,672 citizens.
Petition received.
Digital Television Reception in Boolarra and District
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Boolarra, Victoria, Australia draws to the attention of the House: the ongoing difficulties with Digital Television reception in Boolarra and surrounding district. Interruptions and "No Signal" messages can number many dozens of times during a day. Our area was first to be switched over to Digital Television reception, and despite the assurances given at Town Meetings regarding our Repeater tower by the authorities, the service provided has continuously been interrupted. Individual complaints have met with no satisfactory answers or solutions to the problems experienced. Recent discussions with the service provider also indicate that the functionality/directionality of the previous tower has been reduced, although there was no mention of this in the extensive consultation we had prior to the new transmitter being installed.
We therefore ask the House to: Investigate the viability and operation of the Repeater Tower, and improve the transmission of the Digital Television signal so that it is constant and reliable and provides an equivalent service to the previous transmitter, whether by provision of a new Repeater tower or equipment, or alternately, aerials for all residents to receive transmission from Mount lassie at no cost to citizens.
from 92 citizens
Petition received.
Princes Highway Gippsland Region
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of citizens of Australia who travel in the Gippsland region, draws to the attention of the House the inadequate condition of the Princes Highway between Sale and the New South Wales border.
In particular we note:
Accident rates that indicate the Princes Highway in Gippsland is one of the state's most dangerous roads. From April 1, 2004 to March 31, 2009, there were 314 crashes reported on the Princes Highway east with 497 people injured and 28 people killed;
Insufficient overtaking lanes;
Concerns over the poor road surface, lack of shoulders and inadequate rest areas;
An RACV assessment of highways in Gippsland found that most sections of road were an unacceptable standard for a national highway.
We therefore ask the House to support the adding of the Princes Highway east of Sale to the National Road Network to give it access to Federal Government funding.
from 362 citizens
Petition received.
Latrobe Regional Hospital
The petition read as follows—
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 urgent need for Federal Government investment at Latrobe Regional Hospital (LRH).
Gippsland some of the poorest health outcomes in Victoria and demand at LRH is expected to increase due to an ageing population locally and growth predictions in the region of 13 per cent over the next 10 years.
Despite the fantastic efforts of staff, facilities at LRH fall well below existing standards and are not adequate to meet the needs of the local community.
We therefore ask the House of Representatives to recognise the importance of Latrobe Regional Hospital's application for $65 million through the Federal Government's Health and Hospitals Fund and support the establishment of new and improved health facilities for Gippsland and Latrobe Valley residents.
from 2,175 citizens
Petition received.
House adjourne d at 20 : 00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and for related purposes.
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to provide for a national law about marine safety for certain commercial vessels, and for related purposes.
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to make amendments that relate to the enactment of the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 and that align that act with work health and safety laws, and for related purposes.
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act relating to maritime safety and the prevention of pollution of the marine environment, and for related purposes.
Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Navigation Act 2012, and for related purposes.
Ms Macklin to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and other legislation, and for related purposes.
Mr Bowen to present a bill for an act to amend the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and for other purposes.
Mr Shorten to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for other purposes.
Mr Ripoll to present a bill for an act to amend the Corporations Act 2001, and for related purposes.
Mr Gray to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report Proposed new National Archives Preservation Facility and refurbishment of the existing Mitchell facility for the National Archives of Australia at Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory.
Mr Gray to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report Base Infrastructure Works Project under the Base Security Improvement Program.
Mr Hockey to move:
That this House rescinds the resolution of the House of Representatives of 8 May 2012, regarding the management of proceedings in respect of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012, to allow the House to properly consider the proposal contained in Appropriation Bill (No.2), to increase the Commonwealth debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( M r S Georganas) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Second Deputy Speaker) (09:30): I rise to acknowledge the wonderful contribution of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which they make and have made for such a long time across rural and remote parts of Australia. Earlier this month I had the great pleasure of opening the RFDS's dynamic new visitor information display at the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and Outback Heritage Centre in Longreach. The display will ensure that the RFDS story and its history will be conveyed to many thousands of people who visit the hall of fame, and will also add to the other stories of the history of the pioneers and the pioneering spirit of the people of the outback.
The RFDS has provided a mantle of safety for travellers and the people of the outback for the past 84 years, and I know they will continue to do it for many, many decades to come. Many of these visitors and tourists are from our cities and overseas, and there are also those people who live in rural and remote parts of Australia. The Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame in Longreach is the perfect place to tell this magnificent and wonderful part of our history and the ongoing story.
After the opening of the Royal Flying Doctor Service visitor information centre, which I was privileged to open, I spoke to one of the flight nurses about the sort of call that they are likely to receive when they are called to an emergency. She said that one went like this: the flight nurse asked the caller, 'What was the colour of the skin under the gash on the patient?' And the bushie said, 'Well, I'll ask me old mate because my foot's in the paddock. See, my foot's not with me.' From this, the nurse had to deal immediately with an emergency situation in a remote community. Of course, the Royal Flying Doctor Service was once again on its way to help that patient, but I think that it describes graphically the laid-back approach of many people of rural and remote Australia: 'I'll be right; there is someone always worse off.' It describes an emergency situation that can often come across the desk of the Royal Flying Doctor Service centre.
The RFDS has come a long way since the early vision of the Reverend John Flynn. Flynn witnessed the daily struggle of pioneers living in remote areas, where just two doctors so often provided the only medical care for an area of almost two million square kilometres. Today, the RFDS owns a fleet of some 53 fully instrumented and medically equipped aircraft with the latest navigation technology. Flynn's vision to provide the mantle of safety for these people started on 15 May 1928, and his dream became a reality from that very humble beginning when they used a pedal radio to give medical advice to remote stations and communities across Australia.
Today, the RFDS operates from 21 bases across Australia, and each year pilots fly the equivalent of 25 round trips to the moon. The RFDS doctors and their flight nurses are responsible for the care of over 270,000 patients each year. I commend the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame and the executive of the RFDS for the wonderful display that they now have— (Time expired)
Page Electorate: Coal Seam Gas
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (09:33): I want to raise the issue of coal seam gas and what is happening in my area. What issue would bring together a children's TV character—that is, dirtgirl from dirtgirlworld—the Presentation Sisters of Lismore diocese, the CWA, five local councils, environmental groups, farmers and thousands of residents across the Northern Rivers?
This month, in Lismore, where I live, an estimated 7,000 people took part in a march and rally in the streets to make their voices heard in opposition to coal seam gas mining and exploration in the Northern Rivers region. This rally did not get media coverage on the national level but I wanted to bring this to the attention of the parliament because it was an incredible show of unity of purpose a very diverse group of people. The heading in the local paper, Northern Star, said, 'Community unites against CSG'. That is what we have in my area: a community, and a community united against CSG. Among them were the Presentation Sisters of Lismore. They marched under a banner which read, 'Presentation people say no to CSG'. As it said in the Northern Star, a directive from the International Presentation Association states that part of their mission is to confront personal and corporate greed:
… which contribute to the present extremes of wealth and poverty and the degradation of Earth.
One of the rally's organisers, Amanda Doran, said she got involved in the CSG action after hearing a Queensland farmer, Brian Monk, who has been travelling around giving talks on this. He was talking about his kids—or grandkids, I think it was—getting skin reactions from their bathwater, which had been polluted from CSG bore water. This is an issue that drew many people from the Northern Rivers to attend a rally in Sydney at the parliament, including members of the CWA both at state level and also locally. That was where dirtgirl from dirtgirlworld, a children's TV show, made her presence felt. As she said, she was making her first political stand on the issue of CSG.
Since early last year, anti-CSG groups have been getting active right across the region and have been coming to see me to raise their concerns. There is the Clarence Valley Alliance Against Coal Seam Gas, the Group Against Gas Kyogle, the Keerrong Gas Squad, CSG Free Northern Rivers, and the umbrella group, which is Lock the Gate—there is that broader movement, but it is Lock the Gate Northern Rivers, a local chapter. Also, four of the five local councils in my Page electorate have declared some form of moratorium. They are saying that they are against it because we do not know what the impacts are and we are very concerned about what we do know, particularly with water. Richmond Valley Council approved a moratorium on all new coal seam gas projects on council-owned land until the state government adopts its new Strategic Regional Land Use Policy.
Canning Electorate: Building the Education Revolution Program
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (09:36): I wish to raise the issue of an uncompleted BER project in my electorate, at Ocean Road Primary School. The expected completion date was before the end of 2010 for the new early learning centre with a playground. As we are now almost halfway through 2012, I was astounded to find out that the BER project at this school is yet to be completed some 1½ years later. The new BER classroom itself has been finished, but it is surrounded by builders' fences. The early learning centre playground is not started, landscaping is not finished and there are still piles of sand and construction rubbish around the school.
How did this shambolic state of affairs transpire? I have been to the school and examined this myself on a couple of occasions. Remember that this is a centre for children four or five years old. This is an area where they need play facilities as part of their education, and they need this project completed so that they can use it safely. I have not only visited the school, as I said, but been in contact with the principal, Dean Finlay, who is at his wit's end about how to try to get these works completed. I have tried for seven months now to get a resolution for the students, staff and parents of Ocean Road Primary School, yet we are still waiting for the project to be finished even though I have raised it in this place before.
You would think that either state or federal education authorities would have contacted me about this issue, but no. On 27 October 2011 I wrote to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth, Peter Garrett. I outlined the issue. Five months later, after no reply from Minister Garrett, I received a response from Minister Brendan O'Connor stating that these projects were progressing and there were negotiations, and all the florid language you would expect from Minister O'Connor. So I visited the school again to check these assurances from the minister that things were progressing well. This was over the school holidays. There was a large hole dug for the reticulation, four feet deep and 20 metres long, and consequently the school had problems watering the gardens. I then contacted Minister O'Connor's office, and he told me that it had been passed on to Jacinta Collins's office. If I had not rung the Western Australian education department yesterday and spoken to Milan Trifunovic, who heads the BMA, I would not have found out that shade had been completed, curbing to the soft-fall area has now been completed and they expect that by 28 May they should have finished so that the children of this school might eventually get to use this worthwhile BER project. But why has it taken so long? Why the malaise and the delays? Finally we may have some action thanks to Milan Trifunovic and the WA education department.
Braham, Mr William
Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) (09:39): It is an honour for me to pay tribute to a tireless community advocate from my electorate of Hindmarsh who sadly passed away recently, Mr William Braham. He will be missed by all. He was a very good and a great man. He was born in 1920 and dedicated his working life and much of his retirement to community work and to the union movement. In particular, Bill worked tirelessly to improve workers' superannuation and took on leadership positions with SA Superannuants.
Mr Braham successfully represented the template-makers in the Vehicle Builders Union in 1964, before Commissioner Murray Stewart. He also lobbied for an appeal board for daily paid workers and was appointed to the board when it was established. Between 1957 and 1978, Bill was a representative member to the Vehicle Builders Union Superannuation Federation. Subsequently he was transferred to the Railway Transport Officers Association and made a representative to the Australian Services Union, or the Federated Clerks Union as it was known back then.
Bill Braham was also a member of local bowling clubs in my electorate for over 50 years, a remarkable achievement. He joined the Railways Bowling Club in 1955 and the Grange Bowling Club in 1968, where he became a life member. Grange Bowling Club had a remarkable history of achievement with approximately 10 of its members having played for Australia. I was delighted to be asked by Bill, when I was first elected, to become the patron of the Grange Bowling Club and I have enjoyed visiting the club at each opportunity to share the members' sense of fun and community spirit. Bill would engage me in conversations about the union movement of the past, the labour movement and history.
Bill was also a lifelong member of the Freemasons and was very active and committed in this role, making an enormous contribution. He held a number of positions within the Freemasons. When he moved to the Masonic Homes Somerton Park retirement village in my electorate he continued his service to the community, becoming an advocate for senior Australians. Many times he asked me to go to the Masonic Homes at Somerton Park to talk to residents who had issues or problems that we tried to solve. Even in his later life he was always advocating on behalf of other people. In the words of Doug Strain, CEO of Masonic Homes, 'Bill was one of the true believers, always acting in the best interests of the people who he represented.'
This month would have marked Bill and Joyce Braham's 70th wedding anniversary. I extend my sincere condolences to Mrs Joyce Braham and her family on their loss. Bill will be sadly missed by many people in the Hindmarsh community, in the Masonic Homes, in the Freemasons and in the Grange Bowling Club.
McPherson Electorate: Uniting Church
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:42): There are many wonderful people in my electorate of McPherson and today I would like to acknowledge two very special people, George and Mildred Hohl. Mildred Hohl is 96 years old and George turned 101 on 21 April. On 20 March this year, George and Mildred celebrated 75 years of marriage. This is a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate them both on this very wonderful achievement.
I first met George and Mildred about 16 years ago as they are members of the Burleigh Heads Uniting Church, where my father was an elder, and both George and Mildred were in the congregation on the day that my youngest daughter was christened. George and Mildred are two of the nicest people that you could ever meet. They are truly a very devoted couple, and I feel very privileged to know them. They have been a wonderful support over the years to my parents, especially to my mother over the last couple of years. I know that they have provided very wonderful support and friendship to many other members of the church. Both George and Mildred are held in very high regard by the congregation.
They kept their 75th wedding anniversary fairly quietly amongst the church congregation. When this came up and it was mentioned to George, his reply was, 'I don't like to brag.' I think that says a lot about George and also about Mildred. They are both very humble people with very big hearts. They have nine children, 21 grandchildren and more than 40 great-grandchildren. I am sure their anniversary party was one heck of a party with all of those family members joining in the celebration.
The Burleigh Heads Uniting Church, where George and Mildred are part of the congregation, is also the base for the Never Alone friendship group that was founded by Neville and Dulcie Free. Both Neville and Dulcie received a McPherson Community Achiever Award last year for the work that they have done with this community group and with other community groups in supporting people in the southern end of the Gold Coast. I congratulate Neville and Dulcie on the wonderful work that they do.
The Never Alone friendship group meets once a week, generally on a Wednesday, and there are 40 members of that group. They come along and participate in a range of activities—they might play bingo, they might go on an outing—but basically the purpose of the group is to provide support, friendship and companionship to older members of our community. Neville and Dulcie Free set up the group specifically to help relieve the feeling of isolation that many people feel. The southern Gold Coast does have a significant number of older people, some of whom are on their own now and really need the support and friendship that is offered by the Never Alone friendship group.
I thank Neville and Dulcie Free. I thank Reverend Colin Batt from the Burleigh Heads Uniting Church, and I thank the congregation for the work they do.
Foreign Ownership
Economy
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (09:45): Qantas has announced further cutbacks to their maintenance staff. We have a government in power in Australia that do not seem to have any interest whatsoever in the fact that Qantas is being hollowed out. The only remotely nice thing I could say about the federal government is that they would be extremely better than their opponents, who are the last of the great free traders. Well, you free trade and you hand your Qantas over to overseas interests—as you have handed your entire mining industry over to foreign interests. I see one gentleman over here with a grin on his face. Well, I would not have thought it was funny when the six great mining companies in Australia that accounted for 82 per cent of this nation's mining output under his government were handed over to foreign ownership. Would I have been proud of that?
As to the dairy industry—every single factory in Australia was owned by Australians. You people handed over four-fifths of those factories to foreign ownership, and then you deregulated us so they could pay what they felt like to us, to we poor farmers. You people do not listen to your constituents, but I would like you to have been on the telephone yesterday to one of my constituents and to have listened to the plight of the dairy farmers—the plight that you left them in in Australia. Within two years of your deregulation, there was a farmer committing suicide in this country every four days. Those are not my statistics—they are your statistics. And do you know what your leader on agriculture, your leader of the National Party said? He said, 'Your figures are wrong.' That was his reaction: 'Your figures are wrong.' He attacked the figures.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr KATTER: You deregulated the industry. You are responsible for those people being taken from 59c a litre—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Kennedy will desist from using the word 'you'. You are talking through the chair.
Mr KATTER: Mr Deputy Speaker—to 42c a litre. They had their income taken from 59c to 42c a litre.
The new LNP government in Queensland has announced that they will be flying in miners from overseas. Well, we will see about that, because this is going to be one of the great battles in Queensland's history. This person is a little bit carried away with himself I suspect. Maybe he is entitled to be; he has had a very great victory. But a very great victory in a battle does not give you the war. And if he thinks he is going to fly 40,000 miners into the Galilee Basin to mine those mines, taking Australian jobs away and undermining our pay, he can think again.
Pond, Ms Kristy
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (09:48): I rise to mark the achievement of an extraordinary constituent in my electorate, Ms Kristy Pond. Born prematurely with cerebral palsy and other significant health issues requiring long-term, arduous treatment and surgery, Kristy and her family have faced numerous challenges over the past 15 years. Never expected to walk or talk, Kristy has defied the odds in an amazing way and excelled on the athletic field. Her passion for wheelchair athletics is inspirational and a wonderful testament to what can be achieved through a positive attitude, focus and commitment. Kristy's long list of sporting achievements, including setting Australian records and her many gold medals, is very impressive, but not as impressive as her tenacity and her respect for discipline in the demanding nature of her training. In the worlds of Carl Lewis, track and field champion worldwide, it is all about the journey and not about the outcome. I have had the privilege of meeting Kristy and getting to know her and her family. I can tell you that she is a dedicated young lady. She is a humble achiever. She is somebody who quietly enjoys her journey so far. In spite of her high profile in the sporting world and her dominance on the track, she remains a very fun-loving and committed 15-year-old. Her talent is highly sought after, and Kristy is invited to many local, national and international events. She has caught the eye of many on and off the track and has been nominated for a Pride of Australia medal in the Child of Courage category. The International Paralympic Committee has named her athlete of the month, the second youngest ever winner of the award. She has been named Parramatta Sportsperson of the Year and NewsLocal Junior Sports Star, and she ran the Queen's baton prior to the 2010 Commonwealth Games. This year Kristy has been named New South Wales Young Athlete with a Disability. In 2011, during the Oceania Paralympic Championships held in conjunction with the Arafura Games in Darwin, Kristy won an outstanding seven gold medals. She takes on all her competitors with courage and says that she loves the challenge and the journey.
I am happy to report for the House that the 2012 Summer Paralympic Games will be the 15th Paralympics and will take place between 29 August and 9 September 2012 in London. It was fantastic to hear that Kristy has been chosen to represent Australia at the games. I know she is going to go on to do great things. I congratulate her for this great honour on behalf of my electorate and all members here. I wish her every success and a wonderful life experience that she will never forget.
It would be remiss of me to overlook in all of this the dedication and selflessness of Kristy's mother, Jenny, who sacrificed so much to coach her daughter to reach her personal goals. Jenny and her family are the essence of parents and families who love their children and encourage and support their children's abilities and talents in achieving such great things, in this case against all odds. For Kristy, good luck in the coming Paralympics. You are an amazing young lady and we wish you all the best.
Lindsay Electorate: Nepean Athletics Club
Mr BRADBURY (Lindsay—Assistant Treasurer and Minister Assisting for Deregulation) (09:52): I recently had the pleasure of attending the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Nepean Athletics Club at St Marys Band Club. Nepean Athletics has a long and proud history in my local community. The club was first formed in 1961, with the assistance of St Marys Senior High School. Built on the efforts of its volunteers, the club has grown from strength to strength over the last 50 years, supported by donations, working bees and the skills of local seamstresses.
Nepean Athletics has been a nursery for some fine athletes over the years, many going on to represent the Nepean region at a state and national level. By the late 1980s, Nepean had four athletes selected in the first World Juniors team: Mark Garner, Michelle Keys, Ian Garrett and Stephen Perry. Since then, Nepean Athletics has had at least one athlete in most of the World Juniors teams. Some of the strongest local competitors from our region over the years have included Linda Coffee, Susan Knapton, Michelle French, Stephen Hadfield, Brenda MacNaughton, Bekie Lee and Brook Keys.
Nepean Athletics can also proudly claim three local athletes who went on to represent Australia in the Olympic Games: Ian Garrett, Nick A'Hern and Mark Garner. Ian and Mark also represented Australia at the Commonwealth Games, along with fellow local athlete Bev Hayman. The club was also proudly represented at the Paralympics by visually impaired local resident Ed Holicky. Local residents Amber Menzies, Greg Hunt and Jason Zabiello also went on to achieve success at the international level following their time at Nepean Athletics. These are fantastic achievements of which I know our local community is very proud.
A strong team of veteran athletes currently represent our region through Nepean Athletics on a state, national and international level. These athletes include Heike Forth, Gabie Watts, Belinda Westcott, Annette Tillman, Michelle French, Robert Osborne, Ken Porter, Vanessa Beddie, Anthony Butt and Sally Agius. I congratulate these athletes on all their success in recent years.
Over the past 50 years, dedicated volunteers have been the backbone of Nepean Athletics, doing everything from organising fun runs to staffing barbecues. In particular, I congratulate and thank secretary and fundraiser Evelyn Stark, who has committed 22 years to Nepean Athletics. Along with her husband Phil, now vice-president and fundraiser, Evelyn has made an invaluable contribution to our community through her involvement in Nepean Athletics. For many, Evelyn has long been the face of Nepean Athletics in the broader community.
I also acknowledge and thank treasurer Ron Keys, who has devoted over 25 years to building the sport of athletics in our region. At the age of 80, Ron never misses a BBQ fundraiser or an opportunity to share his coaching skills. I congratulate Nepean Athletics on this fantastic 50-year milestone.
Flynn Electorate: Telecommunications
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (09:55): Today I want to talk about a looming problem with the telecommunications connections in my electorate, especially in the city of Gladstone. Unfortunately, there is no solution in sight. There is no sign of the NBN rollout; it is not even on the radar. The radio airwaves are full of advertisements spruiking the virtues and the benefits of the NBN, but this money could now be better spent on fixing the problems.
Rockhampton, 100 kilometres to the north, will be hooked up some time after the year 2015. Gladstone, on the other hand, is undergoing an industrial boom—there is $65 billion in gas projects underway at this very point, with new housing allotments and workers villages going up like mushrooms. A lot of these new greenfield housing sites have still to be constructed, in the future. Residents on these greenfield sites have already paid for the internal connections into the new homes for the NBN. This is where the problem is: there is no sign of the NBN being hooked up to the Gladstone area for years to come. So what are these people supposed to do?
A new shopping centre opened on Kirkwood Road. It had no ability to hook up to EFTPOS, the internet or a landline. There was confusion between the NBN and Telstra footprints of the area. The powers that be then decided, 'We'll have to change the network from NBN to Telstra,' but no-one told Telstra. Meanwhile, these new businesses were expected to operate for the first three weeks without any EFTPOS and no internet or landline. You can see the confusion that it has created.
There is a housing shortage in Flynn and Gladstone. Looking into the future, these greenfield sites are all dressed up with nowhere to go.
National Heart Foundation
Ms HALL (Shortland—Government Whip) (09:57): This morning the Parliamentary Heart Foundation and Stroke Foundation Friendship Group had a breakfast here in Parliament House. It was a very successful breakfast. Dr Lyn Roberts, the CEO of National Heart Foundation, addressed the breakfast, along with Juleen Cavanagh and Nicole Baxter. Juleen is a survivor of heart attack and Nicole Baxter is a cardiac nurse.
It was a very interesting morning. The member for Hasluck and I are the joint conveners of that committee. It was good to look at heart attack with the Heart Foundation's this morning. There was emphasis placed on the Heart Foundation's Go Red for Women campaign. They reiterated the fact that there is no single cause of heart disease, but risk factors like high blood pressure, high cholesterol and family history increase your chances of developing it.
Ninety per cent of Australian women have at least one risk factor for heart disease and 50 per cent have two or more. Nearly one in three women aged 30 to 65 have been told by a doctor that they have high blood pressure. That is 1.6 million women, but only one in 10 knows that it puts them at risk of heart disease—quite an alarming factor. Thirty per cent of women aged 30 to 65 have been told by a doctor they have high cholesterol, and there is no doubt whatsoever that high blood pressure or high cholesterol increases the risk of heart attack and heart disease. The Heart Foundation message is that women should know their personal risk factors and the factors that can lead to heart disease—and, of course, it is not only women who are at risk of heart disease.
This week the absolute risk of heart disease factors was released. It is a calculation of the risk of a heart attack. Guidelines for the management of risk are being released this week, and this will allow an approach to the prevention of heart attack and strokes in Australia.
Next Tuesday morning the member for Hasluck and I will be starting a walking group of members and senators. We are leaving from the House of Representatives on Tuesday at seven o'clock and we hope that we are joined by many members of this parliament, because we think we need to send out a positive message to the community that we need to address the issues of heart attack and enjoy a healthy lifestyle.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
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) 2012-2013.”
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:01): The 2012-13 budget handed down earlier this month by Treasurer the Hon. Wayne Swan is a responsible budget and a fair budget. It is a budget which reflects good management of the Australian economy through some very difficult times—difficult times which many overseas countries are still grappling with. We are currently seeing that in the Greek elections—new elections are going to be held on 17 June. We saw it only a few days ago when Tomislav Nikolic was elected as the new President of Serbia. We saw it in France when Francois Hollande was elected as the new President of France, also not long ago. And we saw it in Italy, when Mario Monti replaced Silvio Berlusconi as Prime Minister of Italy. We are seeing it in many other countries, where the pressure of governments to cope with their struggling economies is causing them serious difficulties. More recently we saw it in the USA, when JP Morgan incurred a loss of some $2 billion; although, even that figure is still under scrutiny.
These are indeed difficult times, which the Gillard government has steered the Australian economy successfully through with relatively minimal impact on Australian life. In some respects that has been a problem for the government, because many people who do not have the good fortune to be able to travel overseas have not been able to see for themselves just how difficult life has become over the past three years in many of the countries that in the past we thought were doing very well.
Again that is also reflected in: unemployment rates in this country, which have dropped below five per cent—I believe the figure is around 4.9 per cent at the moment; interest rates of 3.75 per cent—three per cent lower than when this government came to office; and a budget that is projected to be back in surplus, as promised, in 2012-13.
It is in that context that the budget was indeed framed. And it is a budget which ensures that all Australians share in Australia's mineral wealth; mineral wealth which most Australians do not share in and have not shared in for too long; and mineral wealth from which most of the profits end up offshore. This budget sets out to address this inequity; an inequity which has resulted in what some describe as a patchwork economy—an economy where some sectors are doing very well, others are doing okay and some are struggling. It is those sectors, the ones that are struggling, that this budget provides the greatest assistance to. I want to talk about some of that assistance and, in particular, how it relates to my own electorate of Makin.
In Makin, 8,900 local families are expected to receive a total of $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in high school, totalling $9.4 million worth of assistance to those families as a result of the school kids bonus payment. That payment will replace the education tax refund. So it is not effectively a new payment; it is a payment that in my own local area some 1,600 families did not access last year. They did not access it either because they were not aware of their entitlement to it or they were not able to produce the receipts. For all the criticism that has been made of that particular payment by members opposite, say it is one measure that I not only strongly support but believe makes absolute sense.
For anyone to suggest that you can send your child to school, whether it is to primary or high school, for less than $400 or $800 for the secondary school child is absolute nonsense. To suggest that you need to have receipts to prove that you have incurred that kind of expense is also a nonsense. Quite frankly, this is the way it should have been from the start, and I congratulate the government for in fact changing the process, which now means that everyone who should be entitled to those funds gets them.
With respect to these benefits, more than 11,000 local families in Makin will receive an increase of up to $600 in their family tax benefit part A payments. That increase will flow from 1 July 2013. There will be a supplementary allowance to help with the cost of living for 7,921 local young people currently receiving allowances—single parents and unemployed—by providing cash payments to help meet the costs of essential services like electricity, gas and water. Singles will receive a supplementary allowance of $210 while couples will receive $350.
I am also pleased to see that only this morning legislation was introduced into the House establishing a National Children's Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission. I think that is a good and very welcome move regarding our responsibility in ensuring that children are protected.
Approximately 55,000 people in Makin will receive a tax cut as of 1 July. Around 46,000 taxpayers will receive a tax cut of at least $300 and, due to the tripling of the tax-free threshold, 4,000 local residents will pay no tax at all. Those numbers apply again to the electorate of Makin, which I represent.
As a result of Labor's tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners, the average wage earner in Makin now pays approximately $1200 less in tax than in 2007-08. From July, Labor will put up to $500 into the superannuation accounts of 23,700 local workers earning up to $37,000. From October, local dads and other partners in Makin will be able to apply for Labor's new Dad and Partner Pay Scheme, which begins in January 2013 and is being debated in the House right now.
I would now like to turn to small business. As a result of having been involved in small business, it is an area that I have not only had a long time personal interest in but one where this side of the House is often criticised by members opposite for not providing enough support. Nothing could be further from the truth. With respect to small business, having been a small business operator since the time I left school prior to coming into this place, I understand the difficulties that small business operators face. I understand the sacrifices they make. I understand the risks they take, and I also understand how hard they work—often without any breaks, no paid holidays; without paid sick leave and without any form of work cover. In that respect, I very much welcome the announcements made by the Treasurer in respect of small business, where $6,500 will be provided as an instant asset write-off and up to $5,000 upfront motor vehicle depreciation allowance will also be provided. For companies earning under $2 million, the provision of up to $1 million of lost carry-back will also be a very welcome measure.
Last month I had the privilege of formally opening the new premises of Savill Packaging in my electorate of Makin. Savill Packaging provides catering and packaging products. It is a family-owned business which was established 30 years ago in 1982. On 20 April, its new premises at Langford Street, Pooraka, were officially opened, although they had been operating there for some months. I was asked to participate in the official opening and to address those present. It was a terrific opportunity for me to speak not only to Geoff Phillips and his team, who run Savill Packaging, but also to numerous other local businesspeople who equally run small or medium-sized businesses. It has given me a tremendous insight into the things which are important to those businesses and how they are coping under the difficult economic circumstances which so many others face, and what they are doing to overcome the difficulties they confront.
Savill Packaging ought to be commended in every sense of the word. It started 30 years ago employing two or three people and has now grown to employ 25 people, all of whom are locals. These kinds of companies keep local economies ticking over—locals who live, work and recreate in the area and who understand the area and depend on the 2.7 million small or medium-sized businesses around Australia for their employment. Small and medium-sized businesses in this country form the biggest individual employment sector and it is important that governments understand that. That is why the measures introduced by the government in the budget are going to be very welcome. I also acknowledge that Savill Packaging not only employ local people but also care about the future—many of their products are what we would now refer to as 'environmentally friendly'. They are a great example of people who work hard but care about the local community and the local people within it. I commend them for what they have done to date and wish them well for their future operations.
There are a range of matters in this budget which are going to be important for communities around Australia. The one area on which I want to comment is the commitment of $1 billion over four years to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. As has been said by others in this place, from the middle of next year select launch sites around the country will begin servicing people with disability. From the middle of 2014, some 20,000 people will be supported as a result of this program. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is long overdue and, I know, is supported by members on both sides of the House. Last month, along with members from both sides of the House, I attended a rally in Adelaide in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We heard and saw firsthand the families and people who will benefit from the investment of money into this scheme. I believe that, if those of us who attended the rally were not convinced of the need for the scheme, we never will be. Quite frankly, not only is it long overdue but our neglect of people with disabilities has gone on for too long and it is time for governments at all levels to do whatever they can to ensure that the lives of people with a disability and their families are given greater assistance. I also welcome the $3.7 billion of funding towards aged care in Australia. Again, like disability, it is an area that has been neglected for far too long. It is an area where the demands on families have exceeded the ability of many families to cope with them. I frequently talk to people in this sector. It is an area that I am personally familiar with because my father spent the last few years of his life in a nursing home. I saw the care that he required during that period—care that my brothers and sister and I were able to support him with but which, in many cases, is simply not there. There may not be the family network support to assist the person in need, and so we rely on a system to provide that support, a system that has been straining under the weight of demands: financial demands and more general demands and, in many cases, not even having sufficient staff. The $3.7 billion of funding will not only provide better care for people in nursing homes; it will also ensure that more of those people remain in their own homes.
Lastly, I want to comment on a matter that I was somewhat disappointed with: that we were not able to fund our overseas aid commitment that was committed to last year to the level that I would have liked. The total overseas aid budget has risen by $300 million, and I acknowledge that. It went from $4.9 billion to $5.2 billion. In dollar terms, that is the largest aid budget in Australia's history and, at 0.35 per cent of gross national income, the highest proportion since 1985. There is continued growth and, in three years, we will be the sixth largest donor in the OECD, up from 10th largest today. We are on track to reach $7.7 billion, or 0.5 per cent of gross national income, by 2016-17. Whilst I would like to have seen more money put into that area, I acknowledge the additional funds that have been committed. (Time expired)
WYATT ROY (Longman) (10:17): Hope, reward and opportunity—they may be three small words but their meaning represents values far greater. Hope reward and opportunity: this is what our country needs right now and this is what the coalition can deliver to the people of Australia. The Australia that I know is one with hope for every young person to be rewarded for their efforts with endless opportunities for their future, and an Australia that allows any young person with the desire to achieve and the hard work to go with it to enjoy a comfortable life. That is the Australian dream.
To maintain this dream we need a nation not afraid to be bold in its vision and a government that can foster such a society. It is for this reason that I rise to speak today, because the coalition has a vision and a strong plan for Australia's future: a plan to restore hope, reward and opportunity. The coalition has a strong plan that will see Australians have confidence in their economy, confidence in their government and confidence in their future—a strong plan that will see the carbon tax and the mining tax abolished and swift action to reduce the overbearing cost of living and ease the burden on Australians.
The coalition has a proven fiscal record. In my lifetime, the coalition has delivered 10 budget surpluses while Labor has delivered 10 budget deficits. We know that just as families need to live on their means so too do governments. In the coalition, we are governed by a belief that governments do not have any money of their own: they only have the people's money held in trust, and this money should be used wisely and sufficiently. We respect taxpayers' money, which is why a coalition government will eliminate government waste and mismanagement. We will boost productivity, deliver lower and simpler taxation and improve public finances.
Our vision for the future is for an even better Australia: one with secure jobs and a healthy small business sector, and one which looks after its most vulnerable with a hand-up instead of a handout. The coalition will provide practical and real environmental action to protect our irreplaceable natural environment, in stark contrast to Labor's carbon tax, which is little more than socialism masquerading as environmentalism. We will implement real measures, sensible measures. We will take genuine action by introducing incentives to boost renewable energy use and reduce emissions from the oldest and most inefficient power stations. We will go about this in a way that protects jobs and energy security while keeping electricity prices in check. We will invest $100 million each year for one million solar energy homes by 2020 and will support initiatives to plant 20 million trees in available public spaces. We will establish an emissions reduction fund to support the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from business and industry. Through the fund, we will support 140 million tonnes of abatement per annum by 2020 to meet our target of a five per cent reduction. All of this will be done with carrots instead of a heavy-handed stick.
As a nation we have a responsibility to provide a security net for our most vulnerable and in need. In this vein, a coalition government will make a strong investment in mental health. We will put forward $1.5 billion for a mental health plan that will establish 20 early psychosis prevention and intervention centres with 800 beds for acute and subacute care, as well as an additional 60 headspace sites providing young people with support and services for mental health and general wellbeing.
The coalition will also build a strong future with a hand-up for Australian families. Our paid maternity plan will provide real support for families with 26 weeks of paid parental leave at full replacement wage. We recognise the need for a plan to tackle the challenges that lie ahead, to manage our population, productivity and workforce participation. The coalition's plan is about genuine assistance to enable women to remain in the workforce if they so choose.
The coalition will also provide a hand-up for our health system. We will build a stronger health system by handing power back to communities. Australians do not want their money being wasted on layers of bureaucracy. Australians would be best served by those on the ground—the doctors and nurses who know our hospitals best—those professionals who are the ones best placed to make day-to-day decisions to maximise the responsiveness and efficiency of our hospitals. These professionals will be part of community boards filled with community representatives who have real financial, managerial and medical experience.
The coalition will give a kick start to the future of infrastructure by declaring the coalition government's priorities publicly within 12 months of taking office and, in consultation with the states, announcing construction timetables. We will have the Productivity Commission examine possible means to get more private funding into high-priority infrastructure projects.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:23 to 10:35
WYATT ROY: As I was saying, a coalition government will have the Productivity Commission examine possible means to get more private funding into high-priority infrastructure projects and a coalition government will task Infrastructure Australia with preparing a rolling 15-year national infrastructure plan with designated priorities based on a publicised cost-benefit analysis.
We believe in a stronger economy built on an efficient government, not on waste and mismanagement. This is why a coalition government would establish a once-in-a-generation commission of audit of all government—all arms of agencies of government—to ensure that there is no waste and no mismanagement, to ensure that taxpayers are getting the best value for their hard earned dollars.
A coalition government would waste no time in getting started on the job ahead. On day one, we would order the carbon tax repealed. Within a month, the commission of audit would be making government more efficient. Within three months, the parliament would be dealing with the carbon tax, the mining tax and border protection legislation. It will take a coalition government, a government from this side of the chamber, with a proven track record on balancing budgets, to implement these programs.
We on this side of the House will not simply wait around for this bad government to pass. Already the coalition has begun work. In fact, the coalition's deregulation task force has already started work to meet its goal of identifying $1 billion worth of red tape that can be cut per annum. We will restore hope and reward. Australians need hope. They need hope when they open their mail to find that their electricity costs have gone up again. They have gone up 66 per cent since Labor took office. They need hope when they see their gas prices have gone up 39 per cent and that their education and health costs have gone up 25 per cent since Labor took office.
Seventy years ago yesterday, the forefather of this side of the House, Sir Robert Menzies, spoke of the forgotten people. I believe the people of Australia have once again been forgotten by a Labor government, and they have no hope that this Labor government is fighting for them. It is little wonder that Australians feel this way. Under this Labor government they have been hit with 26 new and increased taxes. The costs of living are increasing for everyday Australians. Home ownership is less affordable. Interest rates have been going up and wages have declined. Real household wealth has declined, net job availability has declined and productivity has stagnated. This does not paint a good picture for the future of Australia.
Despite its 26 new grabs at families' back pockets, this Labor government has delivered the four biggest budget deficits in Australian history, with a $44 billion deficit this year alone. This is a government that has turned a $20 billion surplus into $174 billion of accumulated deficits. It has turned $70 billion of net assets into what is climbing to a record $144.9 billion of net debt. It has managed to tally up daily interest bills of $22 million. And now it wants to increase Australia's debt ceiling to $300 billion, almost four times higher than it was in 2008. This government wants to increase the limit on Australia's credit card so that it can continue to rack up an interest bill and a debt burden that will be carried across generations of Australians to come. Now we are looking down the barrel of the world's biggest carbon tax. On 1 July this year the carbon tax will push up prices, including the costs of everyday essentials—electricity, groceries, and health care—for all Australian families. This great big new tax will push up electricity prices by 10 per cent immediately. How many Australian jobs will suffer because of this great big new tax? How many businesses will feel the pain as their overheads increase and their ability to employ, prosper and create wealth is once again diminished by this incompetent Labor government?
There is a better way. We need a government that will scrap unnecessary taxes, cut wasteful spending and reduce the tax burden on business. We need a government that is guided by the belief that governments do not have any money of their own; they only have the people's money held in trust. We need a government that is prepared to restore hope, reward and opportunity. We need a government that understands that a hand up is better than a handout. We need a government that understands that opportunity is always better than subsidy. We need a government that understands that all Australians should have freedom of choice. We need a government that rewards hard work instead of penalising it. These are the fundamental principles that will always guide us as Liberals. They are the principles that the Labor Party will never understand. While we will always believe that Australians know how to spend their money better than anyone else, the Labor Party believes that the government knows better than the people. It will always be driven by a desire to spend more and more of Australian's hard earned tax dollars.
Let us look at Labor's record. We have seen constant examples of waste and mismanagement from a government that refuses to rein in its spending on poorly planned and executed programs. Over the past four years we have seen a program giving away set-top boxes at $700 each—something that could have been purchased and installed commercially for less than half the price—we have seen $1 billion spent on installing pink batts in homes and another $1 billion to pull them out again, and we have seen the blatant disregard for taxpayers' money that was the school hall rip-offs. Now we are seeing broken promises from the Labor government. We have seen in this cook-the-books budget broken promises on foreign aid spending, broken promises on company tax cuts, broken promises on Defence Force funding and of course the biggest broken promise of them all: the carbon tax. Australians deserve better.
The debt that this Labor government has accrued in just a few short years has a generation of Australians destined to spend their entire working lives repaying it. This Labor government has left my generation to carry the burden of its reckless decisions. We will carry that burden for the course of our working lives. It is clear that this Labor government has forgotten the people of Australia and what they want.
The locals in my community have a fair expectation that their government should take the pressure off in budgets, that their government should facilitate a prosperous economy that has increasing job opportunities, that their government should live within its means as they have to—not on the credit card—and that their government should value their money and deliver better services and infrastructure. Australians want a government that can deliver an economic strategy that builds a stronger Australia, with a broad based economy that reduces cost-of-living pressures and creates secure jobs. A coalition government will do just this. A coalition government will value the hard earned dollars of the Australian people.
Our country will face challenges in the future. My generation will carry the debt burden of Labor. My generation will see the challenges of an ageing population, where we will inevitably have a greater burden on government drawing from a smaller tax base. We will face the challenge of a post-mining-boom economy. As a nation we must meet these challenges from a position of strength. We must take advantage of the opportunities we have now. To meet these challenges we need to grow the productive capacity of the economy; we need to see more Australians earning higher real wages.
It is here that we see the fundamental philosophical divide in our nation. While Labor still believes that it can tax a nation into prosperity, we Liberals know the exact opposite to be true. As the great forefather of the Liberal tradition in this country, Sir Robert Menzies, said, 'We are a tax reduction party'. Menzies understood, as the coalition does today, that 'tax reductions would be the best of all incentives to increase effort, earnings and production.'
As I said in my first speech in this place, it is the Liberal side of politics that is the side of opportunity. We are the party based on encouragement rather than subsidy and on a hand up rather than a handout. It is because of these philosophical beliefs that we will always fight for lower taxes, smaller and more efficient government and the individual's right to choose. (Time expired)
Mr GIBBONS (Bendigo) (10:44): For the entire time we have been in government, the opposition, aided and abetted by the right-wing media and commentariat, have pursued an agenda of maliciously discrediting Labor's economic management. At times the nature and scale of the misinformation coming from the other side has been such as to make any independent observer wonder if they are actually talking about the same economy as the rest of us. Today, as we debate the current Treasurer's fifth budget, I want to take some time to set the record straight about the federal Labor Party's economic record.
First let's look at some longer term trends. Since 1984 Australians have benefited from economic performance that has been better than that of most other major countries in the world. Using one very basic measure, according to the OECD, our gross domestic product increased 133 per cent between 1984 and 2011, compared to an average increase for the seven largest OECD economies of just 78 per cent. In 1983-84, again according to the OECD figures, our unemployment rate was 9.6 per cent, compared to an average for the seven major OECD countries of 7.3 per cent. By 2010-11, our rate had dropped substantially to 5.1 per cent, below the seven-country OECD average of 7.9 per cent.
These are just a couple of indicators of an impressive economic performance over the past 28 years. Of course, for 17 of those 28 years Labor treasurers were custodians of our economy. During that time, two of those treasurers were independently recognised as the world's best, winning Euromoney magazine's prestigious Treasurer of the Year Award—Paul Keating in 1984 and the current Treasurer, the member for Lilley, in 2011. Those opposite like to designate the former member for Higgins as the greatest Treasurer this country has ever had. The trouble is that is only their opinion. It is clearly not one shared by Euromoney, which never saw fit to bestow its Treasurer of the Year Award on Mr Costello. As I have said, two Labor treasurers have been the recipients of this highly respected award, but no Liberal or coalition Treasurer has ever warranted this recognition by one of the world's leading financial journals. Those opposite also like to anoint Mr Costello as the longest-serving Treasurer in Australian history, but we all know longevity of service is not necessarily a measure of competence or ability. After all, Colonel Gaddafi was the longest serving Libyan head of state, Hosni Mubarak was the longest serving Egyptian head of state in 150 years and Robert Mugabe is the longest serving president of Zimbabwe and still in office.
Mr Neville: They were all bad, though.
Mr GIBBONS: Yes. But of course there are exceptions, I remind the member for Hinkler—not least the current member for Bendigo! But I digress from my main point, which is that the only two Australian treasurers who have been independently recognised for their achievements in managing this nation's economy are from the Labor Party.
I turn now to some more recent comparisons. Despite all the claims from the opposition, real interest rates have been lower under Labor since 2007 than they were under the coalition. According to the analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and figures from the Parliamentary Library, real housing interest rates averaged 4.6 per cent during the term of the Howard government, compared to 4.2 per cent since 2007 under Labor. Big business is paying less under Labor as well. The real interest rate for large business loans has fallen from 4.6 per cent to 3.5 per cent.
The number of people unemployed increased during the 11 years of the former Howard government by an average of 6.3 per cent a year, but it has fallen by five per cent a year since Labor came to office in 2007. Within those figures, the increase in the number of long-term unemployed fell from 25.1 per cent a year to 17.3 per cent. Under Labor, the increase in the notoriously difficult categories of young and mature age unemployed has seen a modest but welcome slowing down. Teenage unemployment under the Howard government increased at an average of 22.8 per cent, and this has fallen to 21.6 per cent under Labor, while the increase in mature age unemployed has slowed from 4.1 per cent to 3.1 per cent.
To be fair for a moment, there is no doubt that Australia's economy did improve in the latter years of the Howard government—indeed, dare I say it, while Mr Costello was Treasurer. But it is hard not to preside over a flourishing economy when you are riding on the back of a commodities boom. There is no escaping the fact that it was Paul Keating's stewardship of the economy that laid the foundation for the relatively good economic conditions Australia experienced under the latter half of the former Howard government.
Speaking of commodities, what did the country's longest serving Treasurer do with the proceeds of the previous resources boom? He squandered them—he squandered them away on tax cuts and handouts that were so big that the International Monetary Fund warned him that his last budgets were fuelling inflation and the Reserve Bank of Australia had to raise interest rates 10 times to try to contain the damage. According to respected Australian economist Saul Eslake, the last four Costello budgets were a lost opportunity in nation building. Mr Eslake told the ABC in 2008:
It also would have been possible to set funds aside for future tax reform, for rebuilding the nation's water supply, dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin problems, dealing with climate change and the like, as well as for spending on infrastructure and education and hospitals.
Mr Costello likes to take personal credit for establishing Australia's Future Fund. We must of course acknowledge his hand in this, but the purpose of that fund has nothing to do with nation building. It is specifically earmarked to pay for the unfunded superannuation of federal civil servants that will become due in coming years. In fact there is an argument that the money to meet these superannuation liabilities should not be in the Future Fund at all but should have been invested through the various Australian government superannuation schemes that have the liabilities. Nonetheless Mr Costello did set up the Future Fund structured in 2006, but it took a Labor government and a Labor Treasurer to set aside money for future nation building.
In 2008, in the midst of the developing global financial crisis, Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan established three funds which are now under the stewardship of the Future Fund: the Building Australia Fund to improve and develop major infrastructure such as roads, rail, ports and broadband; the Health and Hospitals Fund to provide increasing spending on hospitals, medical equipment and other health facilities; and the Education Investment Fund to provide capital investment in higher education and vocational education and training. At the end of March this year the values of these funds were $6.7 billion for the Building Australia Fund, $3.9 billion for the Health and Hospitals Fund and $4.6 billion for the Education Investment Fund. These funds represent a substantial allocation of current government income to investment in this country's future and its future infrastructure and it was a Labor government that followed the advice of economists like Saul Eslake in funding these nation building initiatives.
When the worst economic crisis in more than 80 years hit in 2008, it was a Labor government that took early and decisive action to mitigate its worse effects. It was the unwillingness of governments to take effective action that contributed to the severity of the global recession in the 1930s, but the investment spending by Labor from 2008 stimulated economic activity and kept firms in business and people in jobs. The results are clear to see. We have the lowest debt and deficit of all major advanced economies; we have the lowest unemployment rate of all major advanced economies; we are the only major advanced economy to avoid a recession. Labor's response to the crisis was endorsed by international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and countless economic experts such as Nobel prize winning Professor Joseph Stiglitz. He told ABC's 7.30 Report :
... what your government did was exactly right. So Australia had the shortest and shallowest of the downturns of the advanced industrial countries.
The opposition—aided and abetted by a partisan right-wing media—are still desperately trying to make out that Australia has a runaway debt problem. How much you can borrow responsibly can depend on how much you earn and your ability to pay the interest and repay the loan—just like when you take out a mortgage to buy your own home. Australia has borrowed a very small amount compared to its annual income and compared to major economies such as the United States and the United Kingdom—who are borrowing 60 to 70 per cent of their annual income—and Japan, who is borrowing even more.
If there was any concern about Australia's level of debt, our credit rating would have been downgraded like that of Greece, France and other European countries. This has not happened and Australia is still a AAA-rated credit risk. After this year's budget statement all three major rating agencies reconfirmed our AAA status with a stable outlook for the future. We are now one of just eight countries in the world with such a rating. I would remind the House that the opposition voted against Labor's stimulus package and against virtually every other piece of economic legislation in the past five years. Let us recall some of the forecasts from the opposition's leadership team. In February 2009, the Leader of the Opposition said, 'I think what we're going to get is massive debt and a deep recession.' In April 2009, the member for Goldstein said, 'The recession will be deeper and longer because of the misguided spending.' And Senator Joyce's prediction in March 2009, 'We're heading towards a recession,' was about as accurate as former IBM chairman Tom Watson's forecast:
I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
There can be no doubt that, if the opposition had been in charge of Australia's economy over the past five years, we would have been in a downward spiral of lower incomes, lost jobs and reduced services.
This year's budget will ensure Australia retains its status as one of the world's strongest economies; it embodies everything that I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House entered politics for. It will spread the benefits of the current resources boom by delivering much-needed new financial relief to families and businesses under pressure. It will return to a surplus, as promised, to provide a buffer in the face of uncertain global conditions, and it will give the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates further if it needs to. It will protect low- and middle-income Australians and our community's most vulnerable with reforms like the historic first steps towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme, aged-care reform and a blitz on dental waiting lists. It delivers a surplus through targeted and responsible savings, while still protecting the front-line services Australians rely on, as well as helping less well off families with cost-of-living pressures.
The budget will deliver much-needed cost-of-living relief to thousands of central Victorian households in my electorate of Bendigo. For many of my constituents—as in other areas of the country—electricity, rent, mortgages and the cost of groceries and petrol are putting serious pressure on household budgets. Among those to benefit are 12,000 local families who will receive an increase of up to $600 in family tax benefit part A payments from 1 July 2013. More than 10,000 families in central Victoria are expected to share automatically in a total of $10.6 million of assistance through the new schoolkids bonus payments, without the need to keep receipts and submit claims. And about 11,000 local young people, single parents and the unemployed who currently receive allowances to meet the costs of essential services like electricity, gas and water will receive a new supplementary allowance of $210 for singles and $350 for couples. In addition, from 2012-13, there will be tax cuts for all taxpayers earning up to $80,000, including a tripling of the tax-free threshold and increases in the pension.
These new measures are good for families, for students and for low-income Australians because they will help them make ends meet and get ahead in their lives. They are good for the central Victorian economy because people will have more to spend on local retail, manufacturing and other businesses that risk being left behind because of the high dollar.
In summary, this is yet another responsible budget from a first-class Labor Treasurer, and it follows the heritage of world-class, responsible economic management that the Labor Party has delivered to this country over the past three decades. I commend it to the House.
Mr NEVILLE (Hinkler—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (10:58): The Treasurer's opened his budget speech by saying that, over the next four years, Australia would enjoy surpluses and that they were:
… a powerful endorsement of our economy, resilience of our people, and success of our policies.
I think that is a sweeping assertion that is unlikely to be fulfilled this year, much less in the following three years. Why do I say this? Because of the appalling performance of the government since it came to office. There is no certainty that any of its targets will be met. Just look at the deficits for the last four years alone. The blowout of this year's deficit from $23 billion to $44 billion means more borrowing and more debt for future generations to repay. All of this is despite the fact that in real terms the government is experiencing the fastest growth in revenue since the mid-eighties. It is not as though it is being constrained on the income earned. This is the fourth Labor deficit in four years, and those four deficits together now total $174 billion. As I said, this 2011-12 budget deficit has blown out in three stages—from $12 billion to $23 billion to $37 billion to $44 billion—and the end of the year has not yet come. It may even go further.
It simply proves the inability of the government to reach even modest targets. Why should we then believe that it is capable of delivering a $1.5 billion surplus next year? Worse than that, the surplus that is promised is contrived. It is a fudge. In fact, the overall 2012 budget is $26 billion worse off in cumulative terms than last year's budget. So, against this incredibly poor performance, we are asked to believe that everything is sweetness and light and we will come out into the Elysian fields of a surplus in 2012-13. Even if this surplus is legitimate, it is going to make precious little by way of a dent in the government's debt, which will reach $145 billion in 2013-14. In comparative terms that is as bad as the Keating debt of $96 billion which he left the Howard government. This government will probably leave an Abbott government somewhere in the order of $140 billion to $150 billion in debt. It took the Howard government eight years to pay it off. I imagine that $145 billion would take even longer.
People reading or listening to this speech may say, 'How does that affect me?' It means that the government has to borrow to support this debt and that means it is spending $8 billion a year, or around $22 million a day in interest payments alone. Think what that $8 billion could do for hospitals, or the disabled, or improvements to our national highways, or pensioners on the breadline—and we have plenty of those at present. People tell me they are down to one meal a day. That really makes me angry. All these areas are constrained because of poor management and the profligate spending of the government.
After all that, the so-called surplus still remains a mirage. I will explain a few examples of that. This financial year we will spend $6.2 billion on roads but next year, when you would think there would be at least the same sort of demand if not slightly more, we are only going to spend $2.6 billion. Obviously, the figures have been moved from one year into the other. Why would you not be spending around $4½ billion per year? Put yourself in the situation of a main roads planner or engineer, someone who works for the RTA or the main roads departments in the states. How do you think they plan with $6.2 billion in one year and $2.6 billion the next year and so on? It would be like being on a roller-coaster. Little wonder we have this stop-start mentality on roads like the Pacific Highway and the Bruce Highway.
There are other examples of this. With local government payments, $1.1 billion is being brought forward to this year and that will mean a lesser deficit, or this wafer-thin surplus that the government is planning for next year
Queensland will also receive $1.4 billion in disaster relief this year. There will be allocations of $1.8 billion for infrastructure and $1.4 billion for compensation for pensioners and welfare beneficiaries as an offset for the carbon tax. Another example of doctoring the budget is in the coal sector. Payments will go from $220 million this year right down to $10 million next year and back up again to $250 million the next year. That is so blatant that it is farcical. It is obvious the government has resorted to these accountancy tricks and money shuffles to manufacture the appearance of a wafer-thin surplus of $1.5 billion for 2012-13.
If the government really believed it could deliver a surplus, why is it moving to increase the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion? That is four times the level of 2008, which was not that long ago. If the government genuinely expected a series of surpluses, why in heaven's name would that be necessary? In fact, it has buried this proposal in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013 to avoid any proper scrutiny and a specific vote on the debt limit. When the Treasurer was challenged about this, his glib throwaway line was, 'It's no big deal.' We are borrowing $50 billion and lifting our limit to $300 billion and it is no big deal. I think that is emblematic of the attitude of the government to financial control. It would seem that the government is embarrassed about its debt levels. It does not seem to care how much worse they get—so much so that the Treasurer did not even mention his plan to raise the debt limit in his budget speech. Why wouldn't you mention it? There was not even a mention.
And so it was with the carbon tax, the tax that dares not speak its name, the tax that every one of the government's senior ministers assiduously avoids, a tax that is barely five weeks away. To soften the impact, we have had this cash splash, which many members on the other side have spoken about as if it was some great act of generosity to pensioners and low-income earners. It is not. It is an offset and it is a one-year offset, but those electricity bills, gas bills, transport bills and all the other things will be there to haunt them in subsequent years.
Let me move to small business, because this is an incredibly important sector in my electorate of Hinkler. I know the government's negative attitude resonates strongly in my small businesses, amongst shopkeepers and in tourist attractions in Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Bargara. Shop closures are a testament to the fact that there is a weakness in the availability of the disposable dollar. When people will not go out for dinner or will not go out to coffee lounges, you know there is something seriously wrong in the community. It is also reflected in the fall in tourism. Some motels tell me these are the worst periods since the economic downturn, the GFC. In their worst years they have had occupancies as low as 30 per cent. So a lot of tourists have either shortened their holidays or deferred them. In a place like Hervey Bay or Bargara, that is the bread and butter of the community.
The Prime Minister herself said on 14 March:
If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs.
Yet, two months after that statement, she reneged on the promise to drop one per cent off the company tax rate and saved herself a notional $4.8 billion. I would have liked to see some of that $4.8 billion in my electorate, to help businesses and to get industry to a vibrant level again.
We should also recognise that, while there will be some compensation for pensioners and low-income earners, there will be no carbon tax concessions for small businesses, who are already seeing the effects of the carbon tax in their electricity, gas and transport costs. The councils in my area are deeply disturbed by the drop in business and the lack of opportunities for new business. This budget gives them very little hope.
I was pleased to see one thing in today's media. The Cassowary Coast, which was going to be charged a carbon tax offset of $1 billion for cleaning up the rubbish in its local tip, will now have a 12-month period of concession, a window of opportunity, in which to do that. But, at the end of that time, councils who have rubbish tips that give rise to emissions will be penalised on an ongoing basis.
In the minutes that remain for me to speak, I would like to talk about the Bruce Highway. Nothing could have more starkly demonstrated its vulnerability than the floods last year. It was cut off many times, in four, five, six or seven places. You cannot have that in the main artery from Brisbane to North Queensland and, in particular, the areas that have not been receiving attention, from Cooroy to Cairns. This lifeline connecting all the major provincial cities in the most decentralised state in the Commonwealth is a ramshackle roadway. Quite apart from the bodgie spending on roads in the current financial year and the next financial year—as I pointed out before, there is only $2.6 billion going into next year's funding—there is no new money going into the Bruce Highway in this budget. There is no new money. The neglect is there for all to see.
When the state's Traveston dam was on the agenda, section B of the highway, from Cooroy to Curra, went ahead at a frenetic pace. But, when the dam was aborted, the whole thing slowed down. I want to see that picked up again. I want to see the road to Gympie completed, I want to see the Gympie bypass completed and then I want to see the road upgraded from Gympie all the way through to Apple Tree Creek near Childers. This is very important not just for the people who live in that area, not just for safety and not just for tourism but simply for commercial facilitation.
No, this was not a good budget. No-one should be taking pride in it. (Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley—Government Whip) (11:13): I would like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer on the budget he delivered in the House two weeks ago. This budget is astoundingly good on so many levels and will help not only the nation but also communities like the ones I represent out in Western Sydney. Despite economic conditions that have seen government revenues fall by $150 billion, the Treasurer was able to put together a budget that delivered a surplus on time, as promised. Although the Treasurer faced an imperative to find savings in the budget, he managed to achieve this while continuing to share the benefits of Australia's mining boom. While there will be those who will paint a picture of the economic landscape as being worse than it actually is, draped in doom and gloom—arguing this mainly because of their political priorities rather than based on what the nation needs—the economic reality is somewhat different. The greatest economic challenge Australia is facing comes from the relative strength of the Australian dollar fuelled by the growth of the resources sector. The dollar's strength in recent times has dampened Australia's export earnings, increased the cost-of-living pressures and also made it difficult for manufacturing. Labor understands the pressure many families are facing and that is why it is important we delivered a budget that was both responsible and supportive. Returning the budget to surplus provides a buffer in uncertain global economic times and gives the Reserve Bank room to cut interest rates, a theme or an issue that I would like to come back to later in this contribution.
It is worth bearing in mind that interest rates now are lower than at any time under the previous government and that a family on a $300,000 mortgage is paying around $3,000 a year less in repayments. Commenting on the merits of achieving a surplus, the International Monetary Fund said:
In the case of Australia, we welcome the authorities’ commitment to return to a budget surplus by 2012-13 to rebuild fiscal buffers, putting Commonwealth government finances in a stronger position to deal with shocks and long-term pressures from an ageing population and rising health-care costs. With little evidence of inflationary pressure, the RBA cut its policy rate by 50 basis points last week to support demand.
That was the IMF.
While we are delivering a surplus through targeted and responsible savings, we are protecting the frontline services Australians rely on as well as helping families with cost-of-living pressures. The budget ensures that the benefits to our strong economy of the mining boom are shared with all Australians to help them meet these cost-of-living pressures. I endorse the measures announced by the Treasurer in the budget aimed at helping families, understanding full well the relief it will provide to them.
There are a great number of measures in the budget that will provide real assistance to families living in the Chifley electorate. Fifteen thousand, one hundred and fifty local families in Chifley are expected to receive a total of $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in high school. The schoolkids bonus that has been announced as part of the budget will replace the education tax refund from 1 January 2013 and will be paid to families of about 26,650 local kids in school. Under the existing system, 2,450 families in Chifley have not been claiming what they are entitled to, mainly because they could not afford the upfront costs involved in educating their children or, in some cases, they have not had access to accountants who can help them with this type of refund. Under this new system, there is no need to keep receipts for vital education resources; it will be paid automatically into the bank accounts of eligible families.
In my electorate I know that this money will be used where it is most needed. Representing one of the lowest SES electorates in the country, I was quite frankly offended at suggestions that families would waste this money on plasma TVs. It is an offensive suggestion that families that want the money to be able to help their children with their school costs would be frittering this money away, and I find it hard to believe that the Leader of the Opposition could really be so out of touch in making those statements. I can certainly tell him that there are many families, not only in the electorate that I am proud to represent but right around Australia, who are holding out for this payment. Changes to the family tax benefit part A, which will flow from 1 July next year, will provide families with much-needed relief, with more than 19,000 families in Chifley receiving up to a $600 increase in their family tax benefit payments.
The cost pressures that affect most families in Chifley are the rising utility prices and, for those most vulnerable—the unemployed, students, parents on income support with young children—those pressures are hard to absorb. In Chifley, we are delivering vital assistance through this federal government to help with the cost of living and this will be provided to 17,240 local young people, single parents and the unemployed who are currently receiving allowances, and we will be doing this by providing cash payments to help them meet the cost of their essential services like electricity, gas and water. Singles will receive a supplementary allowance of $210 and couples will receive $350, with the first payment commencing March 2013.
Chifley has a large number of vulnerable families and there are large numbers of children whose parents have never completed school. UnitingCare Burnside runs a tremendous program in Bidwell known as HIPPY, which stands for the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. I have had a chance to visit that program and I have seen with my own eyes the great benefits that this program provides. This two-year program helps parents and carers take an active role in their children's education and provides access to a tutor and practical learning activities and materials. In order that this program be expanded to assist additional families in need, the government committed a further $55.7 million to ensure that Australia's most vulnerable children are better prepared to start school.
I was also delighted to see the government commit its share of funding to build a National Disability Insurance Scheme. I advocated for this scheme over the past two years and I applaud the Gillard government's investment of $1 billion over the next four years. From the middle of next year selected launch sites around the country will begin serving people with a disability, expected to number 20,000 by 2014. This is a significant social reform delivered by a Labor government in the same tradition as Medicare and paid parental leave. In my electorate of Chifley, groups like the Endeavour Foundation, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, have welcomed this NDIS initiative and they, along with a number of other groups, have been vocal champions of the NDIS. I thank Kathy Breen and Ed Mason from the Endeavour Foundation for their passionate advocacy in our local area for this initiative. Many families in Chifley will also welcome the $500 million boost to dental health. This will deliver a blitz to reduce public waiting lists where people are waiting for dental health care assistance. It will also tackle workforce shortages in dental health.
I am disappointed, however, that more credit has not been given to the crucial reform the government has announced for aged care. A new $3.7 billion funding commitment towards aged-care reform will see more in-home care and support so that people can live independently longer and will not be forced to sell the family home to pay a bond. Again, when I speak about this with many residents in my electorate of Chifley, they welcome it. Most people, rightly, share a concern and a desire to see that their parents, as they age, have quality, accessible care for the years ahead. With an ageing population expected to increase enormously in the coming years and life expectancy continuing to increase, the existing aged-care system would not be able to cope with the demand. That is why it is important that we develop new support services to allow people to live at home for longer.
While this budget has been unapologetically family focused, we have not forgotten that small business is feeling the pressure of a patchwork economy. The Treasurer announced a measure to allow companies to carry back tax losses by providing a tax benefit of up to $300,000 per year. Businesses are currently able to carry forward their tax losses to offset future profits and reduce future tax liabilities. About 110,000 small businesses across the country will be able to benefit from this and they will be able to carry back their losses, offset past profits and get a refund of tax previously paid on those profits.
From 1 July 2012 the 10,000 or so small businesses in Chifley can expect additional benefits. For example, the government will deliver tax breaks for small business such as an increase in the instant asset write-off threshold to $6,500. For those businesses seeking to purchase new vehicles—for example, tradies wanting to purchase a new ute—they will be able to write-off $5,000 from that purchase. Again, 10,000 businesses in Chifley will take advantage of these measures.
Not only is this budget, as I have indicated before, family friendly but it is business friendly. The measures I referred to a few moments ago are quite obvious. The economic climate we are promoting has higher growth and is beating most advanced economies, with inflation contained and unemployment down to 4.9 per cent. By way of contrast I put this to the chamber: imagine the type of political discourse in this country if we were to be experiencing an unemployment rate equalling that of Spain right now—20 per cent unemployment compared to 4.9 per cent in Australia. Our unemployment rate is phenomenal. The economic conditions we have provided are tremendous. On top of that the assistance that I have mentioned earlier in this speech that is being provided to families provides a further important platform for economic growth and is of potential benefit to the retail sector. It is worth bearing in mind that, when the GFC hit, when the financial system froze, when mistrust and risk aversion began to choke our economy, this government provided vital economic stimulus through fiscal policy. With conditions exceptionally better, now is the time to pare back that spending. That is what this budget does.
With the economy strong, especially relative to the subdued conditions affecting other economies, the time is now right for further investment and development—and it is right that we focus on monetary policy and what it can do to drive further growth. When we focus on monetary policy, we naturally need to focus on the actions of the Reserve Bank of Australia. I often have businesses, small and large, smaller businesses and major corporates, tell me that they are wanting to invest and that they are ready to invest but that finance is hard to come by and they believe interest rates are way higher than they should be. I have raised this previously and I say it again: my view is that the RBA effectively has a sleeper hold on the economy. They are moving too slowly on the issue of interest rates. They should be moving to reduce rates. Businesses of all sizes are saying that this is the right thing to do.
This week I wrote in the Daily Telegraph that I thought it important the Reserve Bank recognises this demand. Given that our economy is strong relative to many parts of the world, this is, as I have said, the time for us to provide that interest rate cut for businesses, particularly those on the eastern seaboard of Australia, to enable them to take advantage of economic opportunities now. What I am most worried about is that the RBA will be slow on this issue of interest rates and only move when it is absolutely forced to.
Inflation is contained, as I have said. The IMF recognises that as well. Why the Reserve Bank walks with clay feet on this issue astounds many, particularly in business. Cutting interest rates would provide a shot in the arm for confidence, it would provide a platform for investment and it would help the economy drive further growth. Why we would be holding back further cuts is a source of bewilderment for many. There have been calls for the Reserve Bank to broaden and balance out its view—rather than just having an absolute driving focus on inflation, it should look at employment too.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:27 to 11:39
Mr HUSIC: Before the break I was mentioning the room to move to reduce interest rates, particularly when you compare what is happening overseas—Canada: interest rate one per cent; the UK and US: half and 0.25 per cent respectively. We certainly have the opportunity with our cash rate at 3.75 per cent to move below that and be able to provide the impetus and the confidence for business to invest further. We know we have $450 billion in the investment pipeline but, again, it is about both sides of our continent being able to flex their industrial muscle, for the benefit of the nation.
This budget does ensure we go to surplus, does pare back fiscal policy at a time when the conditions warrant it and does provide support for business and for families. We will now ensure our focus on monetary policy remains there and, given that those other economic conditions are ripe, time is ripe too for further cuts in those rates to benefit business and drive further economic growth. I commend this budget to the House and certainly commend it to the residents and businesses of the Chifley electorate I am proud to represent.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:40): It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and associated bills. Governments are best judged by the relationship they build with the people they represent. Good governments are those that have earned the trust of the electorate. Good governments are those that do what they say. Good governments are those that put the interests of the nation ahead of politics of the day. On every available test, this government fails.
This government has lost the trust of the Australian people. This government is pathologically incapable of implementing what it promises—and even when it tries it gets things wrong. If there is a choice between principle and short-term political advantage, this government will pick political expediency and spin every time. There is no better example of this government's failings than the budget that is before us today. Make no mistake, this is one of the worst budgets this nation has ever seen. Driven by cheap politics, this budget has been drafted like an advertising campaign for a discount warehouse. Forget the economics but find the 10-second grab. Forget the interests of the nation but find a simplistic plausible message—right or wrong.
Lo and behold, this Treasurer and this Prime Minister have come up with 'a surplus'. Sounds good. The focus groups will like it. But they made it happen by creative accounting: bring forward handouts here; defer a submariner defence project there—and throw in some free steak knives for good measure. No messy principles to get in the way of this budget. Just focus groups and spin. This government has all the direction of a runaway train and all the integrity of a former HSU official.
It would be entertaining from our side of Australia's political debate if not for the simple fact that it is our country we are talking about. I echo the words of the member for Goldstein: this federal budget has sunk like a stone with the people of Australia. For the people of Australia and the constituents of Ryan, this budget is one of cooked books, broken promises and direct attacks on the fiscal bottom line of all Australians. They are not bothering to investigate the details of this unbelievable budget because they do not want to know the extent to which this budget will impact upon them.
Australians have disengaged with this budget because this Gillard Labor government stopped engaging with them many years ago. They stopped listening to Australians, and with the formation of the minority government in 2010 they stopped listening even to themselves. When the Prime Minister said: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' Australians took her words at face value. Unfortunately from 1 July 2012 Australians will be lumped with the world's biggest carbon tax, the world's only economy-wide carbon tax and a deceit of the highest magnitude. Apart from the many calls my office has received from constituents expressing their hopes of a replication of the Queensland election result at a federal level, my office has received only one call—one call—from someone inquiring about the actual details of a budget proposal announced on 8 May.
The main issue with these appropriation bills is that the facts, figures and forecasts announced by the Treasurer are inexact. The current Gillard-Swan government has predicted a manufactured surplus out of thin air. As many members on this side of the House have noted, they have completely cooked the books and have created what many commentators have called the fudge-it budget. I ask the government: why is the true cost of what you plan not revealed in the budget estimates? Why has the government not truly accounted for the $50 billion-plus cost of the National Broadband Network? Why has the government not truly accounted for the $10 billion they plan to spend on the Clean Energy Fund? Where is the funding for the many billions of dollars they plan to spend on new submarines? Why, instead of truly cracking down on spending, have they merely deferred spending into the forward estimates, which will in turn increase the cost of these projects?
The only way the Treasurer has been able to claim a budget surplus for next year is by omitting the accurate operational costs of the NBN and by bringing forward two programs into the 2011-12 year—the 'back to school' payments and Commonwealth grants to local government—which would cancel the Treasurer's $1.5 billion surplus completely.
Similarly, if as Mr Swan claims this is to be his first budget surplus of many—a laughable claim—why did the Gillard government announce that it will increase Australia's debt ceiling from $250 billion to $300 billion, a debt ceiling four times higher than it was in 2008, only four years ago? The government's estimated deficit for 2011-12 from 18 months ago has blown out from $12 billion to $44 billion—and, somehow, they expect Australians to believe that a government spending $100 billion more per year than it was four years ago, a government borrowing more than $100 million per day and a government that has accrued the highest ever net debt of $145 billion will magically achieve a forecast surplus for the 2012-13 year.
These are the questions that must be answered openly and honestly by the Treasurer so that Australian families can be confident of the stability of the Australian economy and how it will affect their future. Australian families can rely on strong economic management from the coalition, unlike the bribes and deceitful creative accounting that we get from the Treasurer.
Fundamentally, it is the individual that must make his own way while knowing that he is supported by the rest of his community and, indeed, supported by his government. This is why we have important safety nets to support those in need, from Medicare to free state education, and that is why we believe in vocational and tertiary education to support the long-term Australian economy.
The Labor Party try to claim that they are the friends and defenders of workers. They may claim that, but what they cannot claim is that they are the friends and defenders of the aspirational class. They do not support those Australians who dream of bigger and better things, of working hard at their job, of being successful and of one day achieving their dreams for themselves and their families. The coalition believes in a hand up, not a hand out. May I remind the Labor Party that it is the aspirational 'class' of Australians who are being attacked in this budget. If you are successful in the mining industry, you are slugged with a tax. If you are fortunate enough to be able to save the taxpayer money by taking out private health insurance, they are taking away your rebate. And, if you suffer from a disability, the government does not have the resolve or the empathy to support you.
The Productivity Commission recommended that, over the forward estimates, the federal government should commit $4 billion to the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Instead, they have only allocated $1 billion, and they have not indicated where the bulk of those funds will come from. The coalition is a big supporter of the NDIS and we, like all Australians, understand that if you refuse to properly fund your promises it is as good as breaking your word. Sounds familiar!
Every member of this House recognises that Australia has an ageing population and that we must devise an appropriate policy that deals with the consequences of such an ageing population. Australians will require more and more funds to ensure that they will have a comfortable retirement. Let me remind this government: Australians do not retire at 50; they do not stop planning for their retirement at 50. Yet this budget has no relief for seniors over 50 who do want to do the right thing and plan for their ultimate retirement. In particular, it will now be more difficult for self-funded retirees because this Labor government is reducing the higher tax concession for contributions of high-income earners and deferring higher concessional contributions caps for the over-50s with less than $500,000 in superannuation. Therefore, the cap for concession contributions will be $25,000 and there will be no relief given for seniors over 50.
The Treasurer has been very quiet about the other ways this budget neglects older Australians. Not only does this budget penalise Australians who are in fact planning for their retirement; it also penalises seniors who are trying to get back into the workforce. Successive governments have identified the inherent discrimination against older Australians evident in the Australian labour market, yet this Gillard government is abandoning the mature age worker tax offset. This measure previously supported mature age workers to remain in the workforce in the form of a $500 tax offset, but unfortunately it is now being phased out from 1 July 2012. The Treasurer has also broken another election promise by abandoning More Help for Mature Age Workers and is transferring $66.9 million in lip-service funding. The government have tried to focus on the $1,000 that they plan to give to employers who take on a mature-age worker over 50 years of age for just three months, but they plan to give these funds to only 10,000 businesses, meaning only 10,000 employees and only a $10 million bandaid solution to endemic problems in the labour market. On the other hand, the coalition has a policy that is truly designed to move older Australians from welfare to work. The coalition will pay $3,250 to an employer who takes on a mature-age worker who is on an existing welfare payment so long as they employ that person for more than six months. With $10 million that is supposed to be directed at employing older Australians, how do the government propose to spend the other $56.9 million? Well, $4.7 million will be used to operate the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing so that they are able to conduct another talkfest—another discussion about legislation. Clearly this money has been allocated to talking about the problem of discrimination, not fixing the problem.
The Gillard government attempts to claim by evidencing policies including the carbon tax that it is a forward-looking government and that it is worried about devising policies for the benefit of future generations of Australians. Well, there is one elephant in the room that the government is not talking about and that demonstrates why this government is failing in this regard: the lack of commitment to research funding. Last year around this time the Treasurer tried to gauge the opinion of Australians about a $400 million cut to medical research before budget time. Australia was fortunate that the Gillard government, for the first time, listened to the incensed reaction from the medical community. I spoke in the House on 21 May of the enormous benefits that even a $26 million annual increase in funding for dementia research could have for the future health of Australians. This would be a small budget item.
Australians need a government that takes responsible action. We do not need more taxes and we do not deserve more empty promises and political tricks. This budget for 2012-13 is one of the most heinous political tricks that Australian families have ever seen—a budget designed to cover up gross economic mismanagement and attempt to hide the disastrous effect of the many taxes they have introduced and plan to introduce in the future. The main message from the budget is: never, ever underestimate the incompetence of the Australian Labor Party.
Nobel-Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said:
Most of the energy of political work is devoted to correcting the effects of mismanagement of government.
Should the coalition be elected by Australians at the next federal election, this will certainly ring true as we try to unravel the damage that the Labor Party has inflicted on Australians. The Australian people know that the coalition will leave them in a better position. They know which party will leave families better off. When it comes to sensible economic management and market reform, the coalition has a track record of achievement—a track record built upon by the shadow Treasurer and a track record which gives hope, reward and opportunity to Australian families who have been so badly let down by this sad and tired Labor government. Many, many Australians looked to this government with hope and expectation. Many, many Australians voted for the members opposite. Yet the tragedy for those people and for all Australians is that this government has let them down so badly. I am not someone who believes that this government deliberately lied during the last election. However, I do believe, as so many Australians believe, that this government sees promises as mere words. It sees integrity as an obstacle and the national interest as subservient to its political interest. Yet it seems genuinely at a loss to understand why Australians get angry when they are treated so shabbily. So is it too much to expect honesty and integrity from the government of this nation?
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (11:54): One of Australia's more serious journalists, Lenore Taylor, commented in the Sydney Morning Herald of 12-13 May:
… Abbott is so confident he delivered only generalities. He said his aim was to grow the economy, which is laudable, but the only policy he advanced to do this was the abolition of the carbon tax, and his criticism that the government had no plan for growth was a little undermined by the fact that the economy is forecast to grow by 3 per cent or more for the next three years.
He said he would deliver bigger surpluses, which would also be a very good thing, but it's unclear how that fits with his support for new family payments which add at least $1 billion a year to the budget bottom line, while also abolishing the mining tax.
She went on to say that his only positive idea was to encourage Asian languages and all he was going to do was talk to a few people in state governments. There was no estimate of the costs and no appraisal of how we would train the number of teachers required et cetera. Similarly, the Sydney Morning Herald in its editorial commented:
The other negative was the opposition's reply to the budget. Tony Abbott continued the tactic he used last year, offering not a detailed alternative program but a comprehensive rubbishing of the Prime Minister.
It then demolished again his concept in regard to language.
We are fortunate that there are some independent commentators beyond the rhetoric that we have heard from those opposite in regard to the Australian economy and the budget. The IMF, while speaking of a fragile and vulnerable international picture, commended this government and the manner in which the economy as a whole is progressing. We have very timely comments from the OECD. Its Economic Outlook of May 2012 comments:
Australia’s economic fundamentals remain strong, with our economy expected to grow more strongly than every single major advanced economy over the next two years.
This is contrasted with a 'fragile recovery in many other advanced economies'. It went on to provide a litany of statistics to evidence that. Similarly the OECD's Better Life Index ranked the 34 member countries on categories like housing, jobs, education, health, environment and work balance, and Australia's cumulative rank rises to No. 1 according to the OECD website, even advancing in front of Norway, which by any standards, because of its oil and gas, has been a leader in economic advances in recent decades.
So we have the OECD and the IMF commenting, and there are some statistics out there. From the parliamentary briefing paper on the budget we note that last year's averages for this country were GDP growth of three per cent, unemployment of 5.25 per cent throughout the whole year, and inflation of 1.25 per cent. These figures cannot be produced by any other advanced economy in the world. While the Labor government has been in power, 27 million jobs have disappeared internationally. What is the reality in this country? The creation of 800,000 jobs. I note the recent index in the Sydney Morning Herald of 69,100 extra jobs since April. We note that there are 22,000 a month to 13 May.
These are the realities out there. We can contrast them with other situations around the world. We can look back to when Australia's unemployment rate was 5.2 per cent—as you know, it is lower now—and at that time the rate in the United States was 8.3 per cent, the UK 8.2 per cent, Canada 7.2 per cent, Germany 5.7 per cent et cetera. Whether you look at the most extreme examples in Europe—such as Spain, with 52 per cent of its under-25 population unemployed—or at countries that are regarded as reasonably well holding the line, Australia's picture is very strong.
We have had those opposite say that the mining industry should not be taxed and that there is class warfare involved. I want to briefly digress to talk about some other realities in this country. I heard the member for Brisbane saying, 'Oh, how dreadful it is. They are starting to talk about class war. This hasn't happened for so long.' Perhaps it is worth putting on the record some realities that have occurred in this country. I refer to Dissent magazine of autumn/winter 2012. It notes:
Over the five years from 2005 the net real worth of the household wealth of the lowest quintile increased by 4 per cent or $1,000, the third quintile increased by 11 per cent or $44,000 and the top quintile increased by $192,000.
These are statistics that can be investigated, analysed and questioned but, quite frankly, they are correct. The same article continued:
For Australia, the key finding was that the richest 1 per cent of Australians doubled their share of national income from 4.8 per cent in 1980 to 8.8 per cent in 2008. Furthermore, the incomes of "the richest 0.1 per cent rose from 1 per cent to 3 per cent [of national income] …"
At the same time, the top marginal rates of income tax, of course, dropped. That was from an OECD report. In that same article, journalist Kenneth Davidson made the point on the ABS figures about the overall situation of the Australian people, that during the course of the government household net worth was $720,000 in 2010, up 14 per cent from 2005. So we have a picture of a very successful economy overall, but within that a degree of inequity growing in this country. I strongly support measures in this budget which go towards the question of reducing the tax concession for superannuation contributions, changes to the net medical expenses tax offset et cetera. These are measures which go to equity.
And similarly with regard to the mining tax, when this was first suggested there was a degree of opposition in the electorate, but those opposite know that since then there has been an explanation of what it is doing for the Australian people. I will be very surprised if Clive Palmer is endorsed as a candidate in this next election, despite all the billboards and despite all the bucks. Quite frankly, they know that one of the things they are carrying very heavily in a climate that is largely going their way is their association with the big end of town.
If we talk of what has happened in this country because of the mining boom, I note that Professor Gregory at the Centre of Economic Policy Research noted that it has been so important in the growth in living standards and terms of trade in this country, and that the overall living standards of Australians as compared to the United States between 1959 and 2003 were 92 per cent and are now 215 per cent—a 25 per cent improvement in the condition of the Australian people overall.
Very importantly, I have heard some references to the question of interest rates now leading to a $3,000 reduction in people's payments per year on a loan of $300,000. We can contrast that with overseas patterns. In the United States, large numbers of people are going into negative mortgages. Their properties are now worth less than the mortgages that they hold. That is the reality internationally.
We had to put this budget in context with regard to what is happening around the world. The opposition would like to say, 'Oh, some of you are not as happy as you should be, despite the latest survey by the OECD'. However, one would think that this economy was not affected by the international financial crisis. One would think that nothing had happened. One would think that revenues for the government with regard to taxation take had not been severely impacted upon. They do not think it happened! They think that either it did not happen or nothing should have been done. I have more respect, quite frankly, for Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve. He thinks that there was a financial crisis in this world. He thinks that Lehman Bros actually did collapse. In an article by James Macdonald in the London Review of Books, Paul Volcker said that incidents such as this existed:
By the time Goldman itself went public in 1999 its capital had swelled to more than $6 billion, almost exclusively through internal growth. Going public allowed a further exponential leap in capital and profits. But such growth could not be fuelled simply through the traditional business of investment banking: it involved taking ever greater risks with the firm's own capital. In 1970 Goldman's assets were 6.5 times its capital. By the 2000s this had risen to 30 times, and like most other investment banks, Goldman was essentially operating as a hedge fund for its own account, while simultaneously providing services for its clients.
In the real world there was an international economic crisis and there was a government in this country which decided that employing people was worthwhile, that it was beneficial that people went to work each day, that people who were doing traineeships and apprenticeships could finish them, that building supply companies could survive and that people could go into shops and try to keep retail surviving.
They suggest that it is the end of Western civilisation that government debt has increased. It is still exponentially below all other First World developed countries, and yet this government has in that period made sure that people were in employment. And they do not seem to think that this is in important issue, that people keep jobs.
On the other side, Volcker, in the New York Review of Books of 24 November last gave an analysis of what had happened with regard to the United States and what had caused this crisis. He was well cognisant of the impact it was having on Western economies. He said:
It should be clear that among the causes of the recent financial crisis was an unjustified faith in rational expectations, market efficiencies, and the techniques of modern finance. That faith was stoked in part by the huge financial rewards that enabled the extremes of borrowing, the economic imbalances, and the pretenses and assurances of the credit-rating agencies to persist so long. A relaxed approach by regulators and legislators reflected the new financial zeitgeist.
This government has persevered to ensure that there is employment and that industry can still function.
I said the other night that I feel some sorrow for the shadow Treasurer, Mr Hockey, the member for North Sydney, because we have seen from the opposition consistent calls for a balanced budget and consistent denunciation of government spending. I have heard only three speeches by those opposite during the course of this debate. The previous contribution from the member for Ryan, Mrs Prentice, went down the same road. She was advocating increased expenditure. She complained about the disability initiatives of this government—legendary, the first time this has happened, despite decades of talk—and that the Productivity Commission said we should have put $4 billion into the scheme. She said it was lamentable that we were putting only $1 billion in this year. So there is another $3 billion which Mr Hockey is going to have to find. She went on to complain that dementia research was not being supported strongly enough and that older Australians were not getting enough assistance with employment. That is the kind of pattern we have from those opposite. We know that the opposition leader and his shadow Treasurer have not enunciated any measures. Besides sacking public servants, their only other initiative is to increase spending; impliedly, by putting money into Asian education.
The member for Brisbane was lamenting the fact that Co.As.It, the Italian welfare organisation in Brisbane, did not get money. And last night we had a very elucidating contribution from the member for Kalgoorlie about the need to fund cane toad restrictions. We are hearing from all of them how we can spend more money, how we can make sure that taxpayers are funding these kinds of proposals—because it is really nice to pretend we are going to fund all these things—while saying that government expenditure is too low.
I want to talk about HIPPY, the Home Interaction Program for Parents and Youngsters. I know that my electorate is well aware of the figures, the tens of thousands of people who are assisted by other government financial measures. HIPPY is a program which tries to ensure that parents who are disconnected from the education system can help their children get used to going to school. This government is devoting $56 million to that. I met last week with Macarthur Diversity Services, a defunded organisation operating in Claymore, an area with 86 per cent public housing, a median age of 20 and low educational accomplishments. They say very clearly that 56 per cent of their students have graduated, that 125 families were affected, that 11 of the parents became tutors—one of the concepts is that parents are helped and brought into the system to become tutors—and that 80 per cent of the tutors got jobs. I very much commend that government initiative in the budget.
Overall, we know that large numbers of Australians are assisted by a variety of taxation measures, by the schoolkids bonus—and those opposite oppose that. They are hinting that they do not like this or that, but we really have not had any thorough comments from the shadow Treasurer as to where the reductions they are allegedly going to accomplish are to occur.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (12:09): Driving around my electorate of Riverina, the third largest by size in New South Wales and the 14th biggest in Australia, has given me plenty of thinking time in recent months. This is because the mobile telephone coverage is not what it ought to be and certainly not even what it once was. I was once able to name all Riverina's mobile coverage black spots and they included but were not limited to Murrulebale north of Marrar, Tooma near Tumbarumba and pockets around Gundagai, Borambola, Grong Grong, Humula, Sebastopol, Tallimba and Tarcutta.
Happily, a new tower has been erected at Mangoplah, which was one of the problem districts, and this will be officially opened on Wednesday, 6 June. Unfortunately, in recent months Riverina mobile coverage elsewhere has deteriorated to the extent that if you get just a few kilometres away from a built-up area you lose reception. Because of the drastic loss of coverage, instead of being able to use my hands-free phone whilst driving, I have to wait until I am in a town to retrieve messages and return calls. This is a great inconvenience. I say this because, at the same time, this government is pumping $37 billion of borrowed money into a broadband network we cannot afford. Mobile services across regional Australia are going from bad to worse. While it is merely an inconvenience for me, for many others it is a safety issue, and that is deeply concerning.
Many of the calls of complaint to my office lately have suggested that country mobile services are being downgraded as part of a strategy for people to get on board the new technology rollout, which might be all right for those fortunate enough to be in the designated areas for the first phase but is tough luck for those who are not. Telstra officials have admitted to me that the mobile coverage in the Riverina is not as good as it ought to be, and the corporation's commitment to my region has not, I feel, been strengthened by the fact that the general manager for Riverina-Murray, based in Albury-Wodonga, has been replaced by someone looking after a far bigger area and working out of Canberra.
This has everything to do with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and related bills before the House because huge money is going into ripping out the copper wire network, which has served us well, to be replaced by optical fibre, when wireless technology would have done the job and funding could have—and I would argue, should have—been given to installing telecommunications towers to serve regional and remote communities.
The government has resorted to accounting tricks and money shuffles to manufacture the appearance of a wafer-thin budget surplus of $1.5 billion in 2012-13. But the appearance of a surplus is really just an illusion. Whilst the Treasurer and Prime Minister tell us that budget 2012 was a tough budget, the reality is that Labor is spending money at an unprecedented rate and its economic malaise is hurting Australia, particularly regional Australia. It is hurting families and hurting Australian workers and it will continue to do so for generations to come. Indeed, it would take Labor 96 years to pay off $144 billion of net debt, based on the Treasurer's tiny surplus announced in his 8 May budget.
Budget 2012 delivered Australia the world's biggest carbon tax, a record debt ceiling of $300 billion, a record net debt of $145 billion, higher unemployment and Labor's fourth massive deficit in four years. Labor inherited $70 billion of Commonwealth assets and a $20 billion surplus from sound fiscal management by the coalition yet has produced the four biggest deficits in Australia's history.
In the past four years, Labor has delivered cumulative record deficits of $174 billion, and interest payments on Labor's debt alone are set to reach $8 billion per year by 2015-16, and that equates to $22 million a day on interest payments. As a fuel outlet proprietor from Narrandera said to me yesterday, 'Our great-grandchildren will still be paying off Labor's waste.' The blow-out in this year's deficit, from $23 billion to $44 billion, means more borrowing and more debt which future generations will have to pay. All of this is in spite of, in real terms, the government experiencing the fastest growth in revenue since the 1980s.
Five days before the last election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led. Therefore, it is not surprising that this tax is not wanted by the Australian public. There was no need for the government to waste $1 million commissioning a report to be told this. It would have known this from the start if it was actually listening to the Australian people. But Labor has not listened to the people; instead it takes its cues from the Greens. The result is that people stopped listening to Labor a long time ago. An election cannot come soon enough.
The carbon tax is going to send energy bills soaring. The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal hearing into the draft increase of 16 per cent was told that the prices needed to go higher, with Australian Power & Gas wanting prices to increase by 25 per cent. Energy companies will need to increase prices to cover infrastructure upgrades, and the additional cost of the carbon tax is making things worse. It is natural that a company passes on its costs to the consumer, but in this case it is the government imposing the cost, unnecessarily, on the Australian public in the first place.
Wagga Wagga City Council—and, moreover, the hardworking residents, families and ratepayers of that fine city—has been declared among eight councils on Labor's hit list of the 248 so-called biggest polluters. How a regional council based in a city of 63,000 people, good people, can be considered a dirty polluter is beyond belief. That residents will be slugged with annual carbon tax bills of $660,000 plus—that is the amount in the first year, and it will only increase—just for taking their rubbish to the Gregadoo Waste Management Centre would be laughable if it were not so serious. That money would be far better spent on fixing potholes, buying library books or on maintaining the city's beautiful open parks and gardens than sending it offshore to Bolivia, Nigeria or Russia to buy carbon credits courtesy of some nonexistent carbon sink. Now we find out from Senate estimates on Monday that Coolamon Shire Council and Griffith City Council are also in Labor's carbon-tax crosshairs. There are 112 councils in total in Labor's sights, 79 per cent of which are in regional Australia. There are eight that the Clean Energy Regulator wrote to last month and they are included in the initial list of 248 entities to pay the tax. There are also another 104 councils that may be liable to pay the tax.
While the government is giving councils a 12-month reprieve and is assisting them to determine how much methane over 40 to 60 years is likely to be emitted from waste decomposition, it cannot give them any advice as to what the price of those emissions might be in 33 years time. The government does not even know what the price will be in three years time. The key thing here is that you get to charge for waste disposal only once, when it is dropped off, but the liability will be with you for 40 to 60 years. As the 7 May editorial in the Wagga Wagga newspaper, the Daily Advertiser, declared:
Wagga City Council is being forced to pay $23 per tonne carbon tax. What a load of rot! This climate change nonsense is now totally out of control.
… … …
Really, there is no need for this tax.
… … …
For heaven's sake, just what is the federal government thinking?
Well written!
This government has also wasted money on the tangling bureaucracy which surrounds the set-top box program. Almost a quarter of the $308 million to put set-top boxes in pensioners' homes was spent on administration. The cost to the government of having a set-top box installed is about $350 per box. Harvey Norman in Wagga Wagga can do this for $99. It could install three boxes for less than the cost of one of the government's boxes. Disturbingly, the government also appears to be being charged for work that is not completed by contractors. I have a constituent who recently had a set-top box installed in his home by two contractors. On completing the installation they laid out equipment which they claimed was a safety check and then had him sign a job form. At the time his wife was gravely ill and he was in the process of taking her to the hospital, so he did not pay too much attention to what he was signing. He informed me that the contractors laid out an aerial and cable and took photos of these, and he was concerned that the government was being rorted by contractors who were charging for services and equipment which had never been supplied nor installed.
My constituent was also concerned about the way in which the ease of installation and explanation is portrayed in the television advertisements yet when he asked to be shown how to use the new system he was told, 'You'll work it out'. Where is the accountability for these services being rendered? What safeguards are in place to ensure taxpayers are paying only for what is being carried out? Furthermore, my constituent felt too scared for me to name him in this speech for fear of having a brick thrown through his window. He believes that many elderly people feel they have no choice but to sign the forms, no matter what they say, as the contractors make them feel intimidated and if they do not sign they will take the set-top box away. However, it is not only the set-top box program that has been problematic for people in the Riverina. With the digital switchover, many residents who currently receive a perfect analogue signal will be left with a bad or no digital reception.
One constituent, Marie Chilton from Book Book, is having a great deal of difficulty sorting out television for the digital switchover. She had a contractor come to install a set-top box but was advised that she had no signal whatsoever and would have to get a satellite dish. As there is no assistance for the purchase of a satellite dish Mrs Chilton will face the cost of this herself. Additionally, she rents the property and therefore cannot claim the tax back that homeowners can get. Her landlord refuses to pay to install the satellite dish. I have written to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy on Mrs Chilton's behalf and was advised by his staff that she may—and I reiterate 'may'—qualify for assistance with the installation of a satellite dish but will have to cover the cost of the dish herself. Mrs Chilton does not understand why the government would spend all this money switching over when she currently receives all the channels perfectly via analogue, yet she is facing so many hassles to switch to digital. This is another example of this Labor government not considering the impact of its actions on regional Australians and senior Australians.
That said, Riverina secured nearly $17.5 million in health infrastructure funding despite what was a tough federal budget—the toughest federal budget in a quarter of a century. The Griffith Community Private Hospital development was allocated the $11.388 million it needed for the project and Hillston's multipurpose service redevelopment received $6 million. I know how much this will mean for those communities who worked so hard to ensure their submissions were successful. Having updated decent facilities in centres in the western Riverina also eases the pressure on Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, which gained $55.1 million in last year's budget as the major health facility in our region. I acknowledge the local health funding. However, the budget was not otherwise friendly for regional Australia. Labor has stripped $5.5 billion from defence, which, considering that Wagga Wagga is a tri-service city, is sure to have an impact. The cuts ensure that as a percentage of gross domestic product spending on defence is now at its lowest level since 1938—the year before World War II began. Twenty Army major capital facilities projects have been delayed by up to three years, including the construction of Kapooka's working accommodation. There is the removal of recreational leave travel for single members over the age of 21. They were entitled to go back to their next of kin once or twice a year but that has now been cut. They cannot travel back to see their next of kin, because Labor cannot stop spending. The gap year program for Air Force, Army and Navy, to give young people leaving year 12 the opportunity to go into the military for 12 months, has been axed. There is a 10 per cent reduction in Army Reserve training salaries—so 10 per cent of our Army Reserve is being cut. What will that do to our regional communities and to our men and women who do so much to help serve their nation?
Labor has badly let down the disability sector, giving just $1 billion over four years to start the National Disability Insurance Scheme, when the Productivity Commission said $3.9 billion was needed. Whilst Labor members might say that Labor is doing everything it can and that the coalition is doing nothing, the National Disability Insurance Scheme does have bipartisan support. I was the first federal parliamentarian in New South Wales to sign up to the program.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: The member for Kingston can complain all she likes, but there is bipartisan support—and to go down that path of using the most vulnerable members in the community is absolutely shameful. These people absolutely need security on their funding and they will receive it, as there is bipartisan support.
The government has deferred $941 million of vital Murray-Darling Basin infrastructure money to 2015-16. Yet money for buybacks is still very much on the table. I just had a group of schoolchildren from St Patrick's Primary School at Griffith visit, and one thing the adults accompanying those children wanted to know was what this government is going to do with the Murray-Darling Basin. I have to say that I do not know. This government does not recognise the fact that farmers grow the food to feed this nation. These people know how to use water very economically. They need the water to be able to grow the food to sustain our nation and other nations into the future, but they are being hit hard every which way they go. This government has not provided the sort of money it needs to for vital infrastructure which would put environmental water back into the system. But no—this government just continues to buy back water from the productive farmers and take money away, which is nothing short of theft.
In this budget, spending on roads is the lowest it has been in a decade, and that is just shameful. Aged care will cost a whole lot more thanks to this budget—which, overall, is a figure-fixing exercise in order to produce an illusionary budget surplus. I question Labor's claim of achieving a surplus when Labor has increased the Commonwealth's borrowings limit by $50 billion to $300 billion. It is like a bank overdraft. Anyone in business and anyone who has ever run a small business knows that you should not spend beyond your capacity to pay back your debts. But, unfortunately, not many on the Labor side have actually ever run a business. They have never grasped that you need to actually make money to be able to pay your debts, because a lot of them are, unfortunately, people straight from the unions—union hacks—and they have no idea about how to run a business and therefore they have no idea as to how to end up with a black line on the bottom of their profit and loss statement. And that shows, because all we ever seem to get is a red line on the bottom of Labor's budget.
There is no business acumen in this reckless and wasteful Labor government. This budget has badly let down regional Australia. It has badly let down Australia as a whole. Unfortunately, our defence and our security will be the poorer because of this budget, as will small business—and families certainly will be because of the impending carbon tax, which is only a little more than a month away. That is going to have a very harmful effect on people's ability to meet the high cost-of-living pressures into the future.
Mr SYMON (Deakin) (12:24): I do not support the amendment to these bills moved by the member for North Sydney, but I do speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2011-2012 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2011-2012, as moved by the Treasurer. These appropriation bills build on Labor's election commitments made at the 2010 election and provide much needed assistance and services not only to the constituents of Deakin but to everyone across our great nation of Australia.
Since the last budget debate here in May last year I have opened 15 new Building the Education Revolution Primary Schools for the 21st Century projects in my electorate of Deakin. In addition to that, another two were opened with representation in the electorate and we have also opened a new trade training centre. For most of these schools, especially in the government and Catholic sectors, this was the first major spending on infrastructure for many decades—and for some of them the first since they were built. For anyone who doubts the benefits of the Building the Education Revolution I have a simple challenge: get out there and have a look. Have a chat to the school principal and to the teachers. Talk to the school community and see the difference that the $16 billion that we invested in education has made to our nation's primary schools.
Although I have often spoken about the opening of BER buildings at many schools in my electorate, I have not completed that task in full as yet, due to time limitations in this place. So I will list for the House the schools that have opened their BER buildings in the last year in Deakin. We have Livingstone Primary School in Vermont South, Blackburn Lake Primary School, Rangeview Primary School in Mitcham, Antonio Park Primary School in Mitcham, Nunawading Christian College Primary School, Croydon Special Development School, Ringwood Heights Primary School, Weeden Heights Primary School in Vermont South, Dorset Primary School in Croydon, St Phillips School in Blackburn North, Heathmont East Primary School, St Timothy's School in Vermont, Tinternvale Primary School in Ringwood East, Vermont South Special School, Mullum Primary School in Ringwood, Vermont Primary School and Yarra Valley Grammar School.
These local state government, Catholic and independent sector schools have built brand new functional buildings that have helped to bring their schools into the 21st century. Some have done absolute wonders with existing spaces and some have started from scratch. But, in particular, it must be noted that these buildings were done with thought—and that is a good thing. It meant that there were not mistakes made due to rushing headfirst into a new building project. Most of the problems, though not all, were sorted out at the design stage—and, of course, in construction there are always problems that come along that are unplanned for. But, in every case, these new learning and activity spaces have made the school better for students and their teachers, and I think they have helped to encourage a sense of pride and ownership in the wider school community—after all, it is an asset that they get to keep and use.
These buildings utilise modern designs and have features such as passive heating and cooling and especially modern interiors. I am always particularly taken by the amount of light in these new BER buildings—which of course is natural and not artificial light. I think open teaching and meeting spaces certainly suit the way that our children are taught in schools these days—to the point where many old schools are knocking walls down between classrooms. I think that is certainly a change from the time that many of us were at that level of schooling.
Three of these buildings were the local Maroondah template, which was designed specifically for schools in my area. That was designed for schools that did not qualify for the Victorian state government's full-size building template. It allowed schools to get a larger building and allowed schools to be able to do refurbishments on top of their building. Looking at recently built school halls already around the area and adapting the design to fit the BER guidelines, schools like Ringwood Heights, Rangeview Primary and Dorset Primary were able to get a full-size indoor facility. In the case of both Ringwood Heights and Dorset Primary that was instead of a half-size facility, and in the case of Rangeview and Dorset Primary, they both got to do extra works—whether that involved refurbishment of existing administration wings or classrooms. So they really got two projects for the price of one. There are only 10 such buildings in Victoria, with eight of them either in or near the electorate of Deakin. I think they are a great result. They show how work between the federal government and the state government and the community of those schools has achieved a fantastic result for those schools in the electorate. There are many more schools in Deakin that are awaiting their official openings. Last time I counted, there were about 10 still to be officially opened. As far as I understand, they are all operating, with the exception of one which still has some planning issues. I look forward to informing the House of these openings in the near future.
It should never be forgotten that the Liberal Party, and their partners the Nationals, opposed these wonderful local projects and voted against the funding in this very place in 2009. If the Liberal and National parties had had their way, these buildings would never have been built and schools in Deakin would have been worse off to the tune of $80 million in infrastructure. I have highlighted these BER projects, as they show how Labor in government has delivered and continues to deliver for our local community in Deakin. These projects have made a real difference to the quality of and access to education and training right across the electorate.
This year we have continued our proud record of delivering better access to education for our community by introducing the schoolkids bonus, a payment made to families who receive Family Tax Benefit Part A. At $410 per year per primary student and $820 per year per secondary student, the schoolkids bonus will replace the education tax refund. Unlike the education tax refund, the schoolkids bonus does not require receipts for eligible items to be kept and then claimed at the end of the year on a tax return. The education tax refund was introduced by Labor as a key measure to help families nationwide cover the costs involved in educating their children. Although it was a great measure, it did not completely hit the mark. It is estimated that 1,150 families in my electorate of Deakin have not claimed the education tax refund for the 2010-11 financial year despite being qualified to do so and that a further 3,800 families have not claimed the full amount available. The schoolkids bonus extends the education tax refund concept and provides more money to families with children at school. It will help to cover the almost never-ending stream of expenses that arise from educational activities.
Meanwhile, as good as this Labor initiative to introduce the schoolkids bonus is, in Victoria the Baillieu Liberal government, with no regard to the cost of starting a child at primary or secondary school, has just cut back the education maintenance allowance for local schools. So some parents might see what has been given with one hand being taken away by another. That is not under our control here in federal parliament, but I can say, from a federal government perspective, that we are doing a great thing for families with children in school—not only in Victoria but right across Australia.
It is estimated that over one million Australian families will benefit from this change to the education tax refund and they can look forward to receiving their upfront payments from 20 June this year. Just as we saw with the BER program, the Liberal Party voted against the schoolkids bonus program in this parliament. I think that is because they do not care about the cost-of-living pressures that families across the country are facing—not only when it comes to education but with all the other day-to-day bills households accrue.
This budget will also deliver, through Family Tax Benefit Part A, an increase of between $100 and $600 per year from July 2013 to further assist families with the costs of raising children. At least 1.1 million families will receive at least an extra $300 per year as a result of this increase to the maximum rate of the Family Tax Benefit Part A. Another 460,000 families across Australia will receive at least an extra $100 per year from this measure.
This budget has many benefits for local families and it also has benefits for small business. As we in this place know, some of the proceeds of the government's minerals resource rent tax were going to provide a tax cut for businesses. But this could not happen without the support of either the Liberal and National parties or the Greens in this current parliament. I and many others still cannot believe that the Liberal Party would oppose a cut in company tax rates. I really do wonder who they actually represent—other than themselves. The Leader of the Opposition's company tax policy is to put a 1.7 per cent extra tax on the 3,000 biggest companies in Australia to fund paid maternity leave at a rate of up to $75,000 for six months. W e hear a lot about the impact of carbon pricing, but that impact is nowhere near the magnitude, when it comes to its impact on business, of the opposition's proposed 1.7 per cent tax increase. That will have a huge impact . Whereas we proposed tax cuts, the Liberals were proposing tax increases on business. Because we were unable to get that measure through parliament, this budget introduces a loss carryback scheme in place of those company tax cuts that will allow companies to carry back losses of up to $1 million against tax that they have already paid. The instant asset write-off for small business for items up to $6,500 each commences on 1 July this year and can be accessed not only by those who have companies but also by sole traders, partnerships and trusts. In total, over 2.7 million small businesses Australia wide will be able to take advantage of this tax break.
In the time remaining I must also mention the improvements that this government is making to superannuation for Australian workers. Superannuation is a subject I have spoken about at length in this place, and I will continue to do so. Although superannuation is now taken as a workplace right, I am old enough to remember when it was a workplace privilege. When I started full-time work in 1982, superannuation was generally only for government employees or for management in private industry. Fortunately times have changed, but it took a lot of effort to get that change. If you were not in one of those groups, you generally got nothing in the way of super.
Although I was fortunate to be in an industry that started paying super in 1985, it was at a very low rate. The majority of the population had to wait until the Keating Labor government passed the Superannuation Guarantee Act in 1992. When that came in the standard was three percent, whereas now the standard is nine percent. It took an awful lot of incremental increases to finally build up to that nine percent. The Gillard government has now introduced measures to increase the superannuation rate from nine percent to 12 percent, again through incremental increases, over the next seven years. It will not be until 2019 that we get to the 12 percent super guarantee for workers in Australia.
Another important change to super is that workers earning up to $37,000 per annum will effectively pay no tax on their super contributions from 1 July this year. This change will provide for higher retirement balances for full-time workers on or near the minimum wage and for many part-time and casual workers. It is often forgotten when we talk about super and the balances peoplemight have at retirement and how they can use those funds that many people will never get to that satisfactory level, for all sorts of reasons. Some people spend many years out of the workforce; some people will miss out on super because they work in low-paying jobs; there is unemployment; and there are all sorts of reasons that mean that when a person hits retirement age they will not have what we regard as an average expected balance and therefore income from their super savings.
The changes we are making now are long-term changes. They will take a long time to work through the system for the benefit of every working person in Australia. That is a great thing. As I say, it takes a long time but taking away the tax disincentive for the very lowest income earners is one of the best measures in this budget. It will certainly impact very positively on many people I know of in my electorate of Deakin who do part-time work, who do not have big incomes. I am sure it will make their lives in the future a whole lot better, as it will for low-income earners right across the country. I commend these bills—but not the second reading amendment—to the House.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (12:38): I rise to support the amendment to the motion that Appropriation Bill (No. 1) be read a second time. It is an incredibly important amendment because it goes to the heart of transparency in how the nation's finances are handled. We especially need transparency at the moment.
Before I go into the specifics of the amendment, I would like to spend some time talking about the budget. We have global economic uncertainty, especially with the uncertainty of whether the Eurozone will hold together or not, and we have ongoing political turmoil, with changes of government and changes of view about how austerity measures should be dealt with. Here in Australia we needed in this budget an economic plan—some vision, some leadership, a way forward. We needed a demonstration that, in particular, the Treasurer knew what the hell he was doing. Sadly, what we got was no such statement, no such vision, no such leadership. We got a budget which offered no plan, more debt and continued on the path to delivering, come 1 July, the carbon tax.
I would like to look first at what the budget did for my electorate of Wannon. The No. 1 issue at the moment in the electorate of Wannon—it has been for some time—is how we can get more money from federal, state and local governments into our road infrastructure. There has been a road infrastructure deficit now for some years, and we need to get funding to address that deficit. what did this budget do to help in that regard? Sadly, road funding will be cut from $6.2 billion in 2011-12 to $2.6 billion in 2012-13. That is a $3.6 billion shortfall. It is a key infrastructure demand—something which will drive productivity and help this nation deliver its goods and services to export markets to make sure that our domestic economy functions coherently and increases productivity, and what has the government done in this important area? It has cut its spending by $3.6 billion.
We see that impact more specifically when it comes to how the Western Highway will be funded. The Western Highway will not get the full amount of funding that had been promised to it each year for the next four years. Instead the books have been cooked. I understand that there have been some environmental planning issues which have led to some delays, but that does not mean that the Treasurer should cook the books so he delivers less funding next year to deliver his surplus and then puts extra funding in the outlying two years to help him achieve his wafer-thin surplus. It demonstrates quite clearly that the Treasurer has cooked the books when it comes to delivering his surplus, and we are highly unlikely to see it. As a matter of fact, if history dictates anything, we are definitely not going to see it. As we saw with the blow-out in the deficit in the last budget, which totalled over $20 billion, it seems almost impossible that the Treasurer can hang on to this wafer-thin, $1.5 billion surplus which he has announced for the coming financial year.
On that point, we also need to ask—and this is what the amendment we are debating today goes to the heart of: if the Treasurer is determined to deliver his wafer-slim surplus, why is he asking for an extra $50 billion credit limit to be placed on the nation's credit card? Why is he asking for that borrowing limit to be raised from $250 billion to $300 billion? It just does not pass the common sense test. It does not pass the pub test. If you are telling people you are going to deliver a surplus, why then would you be also saying, 'Oh, we need to sneak through this little increase in our credit card limit'? And this 'little increase' is $50 billion. Something just does not stack up, and I think we all know what does not stack up. It is the Treasurer's ability to deliver a budget which will achieve what it sets out to do and which shows any sort of vision for this country.
We also see, despite the predicted growth rates, that unemployment is set to rise to 5.5 per cent. Last year's budget promised 500,000 new jobs over two years, but the government now expects to miss its target by 300,000 jobs. So once again it is hard not to be just a little bit cynical. We have a commitment to achieving 500,000 new jobs in the last budget and yet already, one year later, that target is going to be missed by 300,000 jobs. It does make it hard to believe the Treasurer when he says that we will get a surplus out of the next financial year. It makes it extremely hard to believe.
The other thing which makes the budget fairly dubious and raises a level of cynicism—that raises a level of mistrust, with how it has been cobbled together and what it sets out to achieve—is that we are assured that the carbon price—with no mention of the carbon tax, of course, but the carbon price—will only impact the 500 largest emitters. Yet, at the same time, it then goes on to explain what assistance would be offered to families to help them cope with the price increases from the tax that will not speak its name, the carbon tax—or the carbon price, whichever way we want to define it. So once again there is an inconsistency which has to raise a level of cynicism. It really has to make one wonder whether this Treasurer has any credibility whatsoever. Assistance to cope with the carbon price to families is clearly laid out within the budget yet the overarching statement is that the carbon tax will only impact on the 500 big emitters.
If there is a message that comes out of this budget, and if I could very humbly provide some advice to the Treasurer, it is that you need to get a consistency in your messaging. Otherwise, people are going to grow more and more cynical about what you are trying to achieve. I think that has been clearly established. We have a budget where the government is saying, 'This is what we are saying, but this is what the result will be.' What is being said does not fit with what the results or the outcomes are. It is a real tragedy that that is the case, because at this time, more than at any time, at least since the GFC and before it, the Asian financial crisis, we needed a clear economic statement—a clear economic message—which showed the way forward for this nation.
We have set out a vision as to how we would increase the productivity of our capital, how we would increase the productivity of our labour and how we would deal with the ongoing stormy seas which are surrounding us, especially the stormy seas surrounding Europe. But this budget does not do this. What does it do instead? It engrains the carbon tax. In my electorate of Wannon, that means extra cost to our dairy farmers; extra cost to our beef producers; extra cost to our land producers; extra cost to our manufacturers, large and small; extra cost to local government, especially when it comes to waste disposal. On that point, it adds not only extra cost but also extra confusion, because none of the people who manage waste fill in my electorate have been able to get a clear idea from this government as to how the carbon tax will work in this area.
With this budget we get record debt. We get a ceiling of $300 billion—four times what it was in 2008. We also get a level of net debt which is increasing to $144.9 billion. It is important to pause and think about what this means. It means that the government will be spending over $8 billion a year, or around $22 million a day, on interest payments alone. Just stop for a minute and think what could be done with that $8 billion. We could make serious headway with the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We could start to address the infrastructure deficit which is beginning to hurt regional and rural Australia in particular. Eight billion dollars is a lot of money. That is $22 million a day. That money could be put to productive use. Instead, it will be put towards paying off interest. Let us not forget that in 2007, when Kevin Rudd came to power, that level of debt was zero. The books were actually showing a positive position. That is the turnaround. Since 2007, $8 billion a year in interest payments has been incurred.
In conclusion, I think that this budget showed once again that what this country needs is an election. We have a government which does not know how to run the government's finances. We have a parliament which is beset by issues and problems of its own making. What the Australian people need is an election, so that we can get on and decide what is the economic vision that this country needs and set about delivering that economic vision so that people—especially people in my communities—do not continue to have the worries and the economic concerns which this government is placing upon them. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms AE Burke ): Order! The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day at a later time this afternoon.
Sitting suspended from 12 : 54 to 15 : 57
Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr KEENAN (Stirling) (15:57): I rise to talk briefly on the Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. This bill seeks a rather simple process which is to merge two arms of the Parliamentary Counsel, which is part of the department that does legislative drafting and publishing on behalf of the parliament. Currently, responsibility for legislative drafting is split between the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing is a division within the department comprising 23 legislative drafters and 50 staff responsible for drafting subordinate legislation as well as the registration, editing, compilation and publication of all Commonwealth laws.
The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is an independent statutory agency consisting of a First Parliamentary Counsel, two Second Parliamentary Counsel and 55 staff. Its responsibility is the drafting of government bills and amendments. Most other Australian jurisdictions combine the drafting of bills and subordinate legislation in one office. That recommendation for the Commonwealth to do so was contained within the strategic review of small and medium agencies in the Attorney-General's portfolio, the inquiry which has recently been conducted, and a merger was recommended in order to realise efficiencies in the use of specialised technology and to achieve uniformity in drafting practice for principal and subordinate legislation.
This review has not been made public and it is not clear to the opposition why it has not been released by the government. Clearly, when bills like this come up—although, on the face of it, it is pretty uncontroversial—it would be welcomed by the opposition if we did actually get a chance to have a look at the report. It is very difficult to see why a report of this nature would not be made publicly available and I would call upon the government to consider releasing it. Notwithstanding that, the coalition does welcome any move that identifies efficiencies within the drafting process and, as such, we will not be opposing this particular legislation.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:00): As the Attorney-General said in her second reading speech, the Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Parliamentary Counsel Act 1970, the Acts Publication Act 1905, and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to enable the functions of the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing in the Attorney-General's Department to be transferred to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. As the Attorney-General went on to say, and as the previous speaker has already stated, the two functions are currently separate and, in effect, this legislation brings them together under the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Parliament could not function without the professionalism and competency of the people who work behind the scenes in support of the parliamentarians who are elected to this place. As parliamentarians, we come to this place with ideas and beliefs, ideas which may become policies. To give effect to those policies we then enact laws. In doing so, there are three important considerations that immediately come to my mind: firstly, that the laws enacted accurately reflect the intent of the policy; secondly, that the laws enacted can be clearly interpreted by the courts; and, thirdly, that the laws enacted are not in conflict with other laws. I will briefly speak to each of those three considerations.
Firstly, as we all know, from time to time disputes arise with respect to laws of the land and, in handing down judgments it is not uncommon for judges of the day, or people who sit on the bench, to rely on the intent of the legislation when it has been passed in parliament, whether a federal or a state parliament. So the intent of the legislation becomes an important consideration. It is therefore important that the laws that are drafted and subsequently passed by the parliament accurately reflect the intent of the parliament. It is also in the public interest to clearly understand what that intent is, because whether you are a citizen of the land, a business operator or any community organisation for that matter, our laws govern the general conduct of yourself or the organisation and therefore to understand the clear intent of the law is important for everybody.
The second issue relates to the courts and their role in disputes, and both the legal profession and the courts have an interest in this matter. The legal profession have an interest in advising their clients. The courts have an interest, because they try to interpret the laws and it greatly assists them if the laws are written up very clearly in a way that everybody can understand. If they are written clearly and without ambiguity, then it makes the job of both lawyers advising clients and the courts much, much easier—and certainly it makes the role of those people who seek the advice of the lawyers, who in turn then have to decide whether they will go to court, much easier also. The third issue is conflict. Again, this would be an incredibly difficult role for anybody: to ensure that any law that is passed is not in some way in conflict with another law of the land. I have to give credit to the people who advise this parliament and who draft our laws for the work that they do because it would be fair to say they do an excellent job in trying to ensure that that is not the case. If it is the case, again as we have seen from time to time, laws are then challenged because they are in conflict with another law of the land.
For those reasons, this particular aspect of the support that is provided to parliamentarians is absolutely crucial. It does not affect just the parliamentarians who come to this place. It ultimately affects everyone throughout the country. By transferring the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, we have brought the two sections together. That, in my view, makes eminent sense because whether you are drafting primary or subordinate legislation it seems logical to me that both have to be compatible with one another. The best way to ensure that compatibility is to have the same department drafting the original law or subordinate legislation and regulations that flow from it.
It makes sense. It ensures that the same person who understands and who has put the work into drafting the original legislation perhaps has a role in ensuring that the subordinate legislation is consistent with the primary legislation. It is also a much more efficient process, in my view, and that was clearly the outcome from the review carried out by the Attorney-General. For those reasons, I believe that this legislation not only makes sense but also is good legislation for everyone concerned. I commend it to the House.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:07): I speak in support of the Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012. We are dealing with legislation that affects people's lives. For example, the explanatory memorandum makes the point that the Office of Parliamentary Counsel consists of 55 staff employed in both drafting and non-drafting roles, and the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing consists of 23 legislative drafters and 50 staff responsible for the registration, editing, compilation and publication of legislation.
When we say it is an office I want no-one to be under any illusions that we are drafting with quite significant statutory authorities or offices that are within the purview and remit of the Attorney-General's portfolio. The Office of Parliamentary Counsel is an independent agency—we know that—which is responsible for drafting all government bills. The Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing is a division within the department and has the responsibility of drafting legislative instruments. There is a recommendation that this takes place. I do not know why in the history of the Commonwealth there were two complete departments that merged and ended up involved in this legislative drafting process. Certainly, in other jurisdictions it is not the case—I am aware of that.
There is a recommendation from the Skehill review of small and medium agencies in the Attorney-General's portfolio that there be more efficient management and prioritisation of drafting functions. I imagine that style would be something that is likely to be more coherent and consistent if the same people are drafting both. This is important, as the member for Makin said, because laws affect people. We are a nation of laws. We do not rule by the gun; we do not rule by the bullet; we do not rule by the fist. We actually rule by laws. The preparation of subordinate legislation, of laws, is particularly important. It is a key element of any legal education that drafting is taught. I can recall vividly when I was at law school—back at the University of Queensland—that there were people who aspired to do this type of work, and did it. They left the University of Queensland and came down here to Canberra to work.
This is an important reform because laws affect people's lives and every community across the country. This is a reforming government in the area of law. The bill is a small part but an important part. We have seen, today, legislation introduced in relation to privacy law reforms. We are building our National Disability Insurance Scheme, which will have an impact on the laws of this country. We are passing legislation in relation to people trafficking and other areas such as consolidation of antidiscrimination laws, including a commitment to a truly national legal profession, which is important as we have to get rid of the dingo fences that have, in the past, meant that people had to register across different jurisdictions.
This is a small piece of legislation. It affects dozens and dozens of public servants who toil away and make us look better and make the laws look good. It is important because it will improve efficiency in the legislative drafting process for better management of Commonwealth government resources and in the circumstances I commend the legislation to the House.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Cabinet Secretary, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Parliamentary Secretary for Industry and Innovation) (16:11): I thank the honourable members who have spoken on this bill for their contribution to the debate. The Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 enables the functions of the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing to be transferred to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel thereby increasing the flexible and efficient use of the Commonwealth's drafting resources. The proposed transfer of functions was recommended to the government as a means of enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the Commonwealth statute book and optimising its drafting resources. The government has accepted this recommendation and this bill gives effect to the reform.
I take this opportunity to thank all those from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing who have assisted in the development of this bill and who are working to implement the transfer within a short time frame. As the Attorney-General noted when introducing this bill, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel has a long, distinguished and central role in giving effect to government policy. I would like to commend both drafting offices for their excellent work behind the scenes to enable the government to efficiently and effectively carry out its legislative program time and time again. These two offices have operated side by side over many years to draft high-quality acts and subordinate legislation and to ensure that our laws are continually advancing, accurately reflecting government policies and are easy to understand.
By pooling the Commonwealth's specialist drafting functions into the one office the government will ensure that it makes the most effective use of both our highly skilled drafters and the specialist IT systems that support the drafting and publishing of Commonwealth legislation. This will improve drafting capacity, raise consistency across all forms of legislation and make our laws clearer and easier to understanding.
I am aware that both offices have already begun working together to streamline drafting styles and practices and to work more closely on particular projects. I am confident that the transfer of functions will progress this work and ensure that all legislation, whether bills, regulations or other subordinate instruments, will be drafted at a high and consistent standard in the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
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.
to which the following amendment was moved:
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."
Mr MURPHY (Reid) (16:14): I rise to support Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2012-13. The 2012-13 budget will deliver much-needed cost-of-living relief to thousands of households in my electorate of Reid. This budget is all about making sure all Australians share in the benefits of the mining boom and a strong economy, not just the fortunate few. The budget will spread the benefits of the mining boom to help everyday Australians with cost-of-living increases.
In my electorate of Reid, the budget will deliver a new cash payment to 6,850 families with kids in school. Parents will receive $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in high school as part of the new schoolkids bonus. The budget will increase family payments by up to $600 for more than 10,000 families in my electorate. Starting in July next year, this extra support will be made to families currently receiving family tax benefit part A payments. The budget will provide extra money to help pay the bills to 11,000 young people—single parents and the unemployed—currently receiving allowances in my electorate of Reid. Singles will receive a $210 lump sum payment, while couples will receive $350.
We are also returning the budget to surplus on time as promised. Returning to surplus gives the Reserve Bank maximum flexibility to cut interest rates again. Interest rates are now lower than at any time under the Howard government and a family on a $300,000 mortgage is now paying around $3,000 a year less in repayments. The federal Labor government is also delivering reforms which promote a stronger community and a fairer society. These are big reforms such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme, a great new investment in dental health and the fantastic aged-care package.
In relation to the schoolkids bonus, I take this opportunity to expose the opposition's real intentions on this matter—that is, the opposition has confirmed that they will oppose the government's new schoolkids bonus. What does this mean? It means an Abbott government would take away the new schoolkids bonus from the 6,850 families of the 12,050 schoolchildren in my electorate of Reid. An Abbott government would also take away the automatic cash payment of $410 for each child in primary school and $820 for each child in high school. This would amount to more than $7 million being taken from my electorate.
The government's new schoolkids bonus replaces the education tax refund. Under the education tax refund scheme, some 5,150 families in my electorate failed to get the full amount, including 1,100 families who made no ETR claim at all for the 2010-11 tax year. Our new payment will ensure that families are getting every cent they deserve upfront—when they need it. It makes it easier for families because there is no paperwork and no need to keep receipts, just a twice-yearly cash payment for every child at school. The opposition would like to deny families this money to pay for the cost of essentials, such as school books and uniforms, because they seem to think families cannot be trusted to spend this extra money on their kids.
I will now look in some detail at what this budget does to help small businesses, because there are about 22,000 in my electorate. Small businesses have approached me for more information. It is no accident that most small business operators voted Labor in 2007 because they had suffered from years of neglect under the Howard government, which favoured the big end of town—as the opposition still do. The budget will help small business to invest by allowing companies to carry back tax losses to get a refund against tax paid in the previous year, providing a tax benefit of up to $300,000 per year. From 1 July this year, the budget will deliver tax breaks for small business, such as increasing the instant asset write-off threshold to $6,500. The government will provide $8.3 million over four years to establish an Australian Small Business Commissioner to provide advocacy for and representation of small business interests and concerns to the Australian government. Funding will also be provided for a national information and referral service to allow small business owners to get access to information and advice and referral to external services such as dispute resolution. This measure will also extend to 2015-16 the existing Small Business Support Line, which provides advice to small businesses on issues such as obtaining finance, cash flow management, retail leasing, personal stress and hardship counselling, and promotion and marketing.
The government will provide $27.5 billion over four years to continue the Small Business Advisory Services program and make it an ongoing program. The SBAS program will help small business to improve sustainability, productivity and growth through providing access to low-cost business advisory services and activities to enhance business management skills. Grants will be provided through a competitive merit based process to third-party service organisations to provide small businesses with access to general face-to-face business advisory services including information and referral services. The government's Small Business Advisory Committee will be expanded to strengthen its work on cutting red tape for small business.
Australia's 2.7 million small businesses will be given a direct voice to the Australian government through the appointment today of the first national Small Business Commissioner. Labor understands how vital the small business sector is to the Australian economy, employing almost five million Australians and making up a third of the economy. The small business sector has been calling for better advocacy, advice and information at the federal level, and our government has taken notice. This new commissioner will provide small businesses with a voice to highlight their issues to the Australian government. The commissioner will also provide a one-stop shop for small business services and information. Furthermore, the commissioner will ensure the interests of small business remain at the forefront of government policy-making.
Australia's more than two million small businesses are made up of hardworking men and women who are putting in long hours to build better futures for their families. By acting as a one-stop shop for small business people the commission will be representing their concerns and interests directly to the government. Small-business owners will have access to information and advice, which I have alluded to, and have access to external services such as a dispute resolution service. The commission will also work with the minister for small business to ensure government agencies take into account the needs of small businesses, including ways in which we can better manage the regulation of small business. The commissioner will report directly to the minister, who will liaise directly with cabinet colleagues about issues important to small businesses. The commissioner will also be able to take up individual cases with relevant government agencies. The commissioner's office will work with state and territory small business commissioners to ensure services to small businesses are simple and easy to access and minimise duplication across jurisdictions. The office will also simplify advice to small businesses, including advice on dispute resolution, making the advice more readily available online and via the hotline.
Labor has always taken the needs of small business seriously. We appointed the first ever small business minister, as I have alluded to, and we made that portfolio a cabinet appointment earlier this month. This announcement was in response to the Australian government's review of small business dispute resolution programs and options, which reported in 2011. I say again that Labor understands and supports the aspirations of working people who want to run a decent small business, and that is why we are also increasing the small business instant tax write-off from $1,000 to $6,500 and introducing a $5,000 tax break for motor vehicles. Both of those measures are opposed by the opposition.
The budget also provides for improvements in infrastructure, both large and small. While the government is already providing $840 million to improve the main northern rail freight corridor from Strathfield in my electorate to Broadmeadow to remove bottlenecks and enhance freight capacity, availability, reliability and journey time, it is also providing much-needed funding for local roads. Funding from the Roads to Recovery program is largely provided to local government authorities to assist them to maintain and upgrade their local roads. The Treasurer announced that the 2012-13 federal budget provides a further $350 million per annum from 2014-15 to 2018-19. The portion of this roads funding allocated to councils in my electorate of Reid for the next financial year is $668,630, and the amount for 2014-15 to 2018-19 is $3,984,000. I strongly welcome the government's commitment to maintaining funding of this important program for local roads in my electorate, and so do my constituents.
The government has stated quite clearly that it is building a new Australian economy based on highly skilled workers, high-technology, fast broadband and clean energy. We are ensuring Australians possess the skills they need to get the jobs of tomorrow by reforming our vocational education and training system and building on our record investment in skills and training. In this budget, $18.1 million will be invested to establish three Australian skills centres of excellence, in partnership with industry and training organisations, to give Australian workers access to cutting-edge education to prepare for roles in emerging industries. There will also be a $35 million boost to the National Workforce Development Fund to help ensure more mature-age workers can reskill or upskill in areas of skill shortage. Employers will continue to work in partnership with the government to ensure training is targeted at skills demanded by industry. A further $19.4 million will provide training to newly qualified tradespeople to help them establish their own businesses. Business and finance training will also be funded for those completing their apprenticeship skills that are critical for running a successful small business.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority will receive $4.2 million over four years to support high-quality training through the national regulator. More than $6 million will be invested for the continuing development and expansion of the My Skills website to be launched later this year. This one-stop shop will help people wanting to reskill and keep track of their training over the course of their working life. Labor's continuing record investment in skills and training is driving fundamental economic reform in this country. You can see it with the confidence expressed through the OECD. Labor is giving more Australians than ever before the chance to access high-skilled, high-paid jobs of tomorrow.
My main concern is to get the best for my electorate. That is what we are all elected to do in this place. In addition to the measures I have already outlined, 1,309 local families in my electorate of Reid are benefiting from Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme delivered by Labor, a program I am very proud to be associated with. One thousand four hundred and twenty-three local families benefited from the baby bonus last year and many of these families received $500 more of their payment upfront to help pay for initial costs. Six thousand one hundred and seventy-one local families are now benefiting from Labor's increase in the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of parents' out-of-pocket costs and the increase in the maximum payment of $7,500 per child per year. These families now have the option of claiming their childcare rebate payment fortnightly rather than having to wait to the end of the year, so it is easier to make ends meet. Eighteen thousand eight hundred local pensioners are now benefiting from Labor's historic pension reforms, including the biggest increase to the pension in 100 years. Single pensioners on the maximum rate are receiving an extra $154 a fortnight and couples on the maximum rate are receiving an extra $156 a fortnight combined.
With this budget the Labor government has delivered four years of surplus, despite big revenue losses, while also finding room to deliver reforms which make for a stronger community and a fairer society. We are delivering a surplus with targeted and responsible savings, while protecting the front-line services Australians rely on, as well as helping families with cost-of-living pressures. We have set in train the first historic steps towards the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We are reforming aged care to help senior Australians stay in their own homes. We have made a new big investment in dental health to deliver a blitz on waiting lists. The Labor government has made big investments in our health system with 76 major projects in regional Australia.
This is all part of Labor's commitment to manage the economy responsibly in the interests of working Australians and not just for a fortunate few, which the coalition seem more intent on representing. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn) (16:29): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills. I oppose these bills. I rise to speak on certain aspects of the budget that affect industry, small business and jobs in my electorate of Flynn. How will this budget return confidence to the businesses and individuals which are so sadly lacking in Flynn and in the rest of Australia?
The budget cannot be trusted. The surplus cannot be counted upon. Can we have faith in the budget papers? The answer is no. The budget is based on 3.25 per cent GDP growth in the first year, up from three per cent. Why I query that is that commodity prices are down—coal prices are down, iron ore prices are down, and aluminium prices are down very much due to a glut in the world aluminium market. The strong Australian dollar is not helping our exports. The interest bill alone is already about $8 billion a year. The debt ceiling has been raised from $250 billion to $300 billion. Why is this happening if we are going into a surplus budget? I would like that explained.
Australian companies are moving offshore. Overseas companies are investing in other parts of the world. The carbon tax and the MRRT will have negative effects on this budget. The car industry in Australia is in trouble, as is the steel industry, and big and small retailers are in trouble. Sadly, in the aluminium industry we heard the announcement yesterday of the closure of the Kurri Kurri smelter. These are issues that will affect the budget very much and that is why I do not think a budget surplus can be achieved.
As I have said many times before, my electorate of Flynn is the carbon capital of Australia. Boy, everyone in my electorate knows what a carbon tax will do to their jobs, to their industries and to their businesses. Flynn is home to two aluminium refineries and one aluminium smelter, Australia's largest cement works, three coal-fired power stations, 20-plus coal mines—and still going up, if they can get their fundamentals right—and three major LNG plant developments, which are costing about $65 billion to construct. There are several new coal loading facilities going in at Gladstone. Our small to medium business sector is vibrant but, as is the case in all areas of Australia, there are streams where some sectors are doing well, others sectors are doing okay and other sectors are performing badly. Also in our electorate we have dairy, citrus, beef, pork and cropping, and many other industries.
The carbon tax is the worst possible policy to bring in right now. The timing could not be worse, and $23 a tonne is too high when you compare it with other nations. Also, that $23 a tonne will grow in the next three years. The timing just could not be worse. We have got to remain competitive. We are on the world stage with a lot of our exports. Australia is also lagging behind in terms of productivity. The carbon tax is anti growth. And I believe you cannot talk about an MRRT on its own, because companies have also got to face the carbon tax, the renewable energy tax, state royalties, staff superannuation increases, payroll tax, a GST on goods they purchase, workers' compensation and community projects, which actually should be funded by the governments, but as the governments are all broke the mining companies and resource companies get behind the communities in every way they can and do spend a lot of money on projects like parks, gardens and hospitals. They actually bring doctors into these towns, which helps their company employees but it also helps towns like Emerald, Blackwater and Biloela.
I believe the budget did not address royalties for regions in any way, shape or form. In fact, when it comes to roads in my area, Panorama Creek at Rolleston, which blocks the inland highway up the centre of Queensland from north to south, was not addressed. The Yeppen flood plain, on the Bruce Highway at Rockhampton, cut the state in half again in 2010, and there is no funding for that. Fortunately, money has come out of the 2011-12 budget for the Gin Gin roadworks and Calliope crossroad projects. Hospitals and aged-care facilities—apart from Rockhampton and Bundaberg, to the north and south of Gladstone—did receive good funding. There was none for Gladstone. You must remember that Gladstone is the hub of all this new industry, yet it missed out. There are many small towns in my electorate that have low-key hospitals, but all of them have aged-care facilities and there was no funding for those. They are crying out for extra rooms in most facilities in my area. The superclinic at Emerald has been on the backburner for a long time now, at least four years, and there was no mention of that.
With regard to the people of Flynn, full pensioners did okay. They are going to get some of the costs of the new carbon tax refunded. But self-funded retirees are going to miss out completely, as are workers. Workers in Flynn, who are generally high-paid workers—but they do work very hard for their money—are going to have certain benefits taken off them. I do not think this is fair to those workers. They work hard, they do shiftwork, they work around the clock, and it puts a lot of pressure on their families. Generally speaking, I am so proud of the workers in my electorate that I think they deserve every bit they get. They are on a higher-than-average income, I would imagine; they are well paid, but they do pay a lot of tax to the Australian government. They will be stripped of Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits et cetera.
I want to talk a little bit about superannuation in the budget. The amount you can contribute on a yearly basis has been cut from $50,000 to $25,000. Now, this is a travesty, an injustice. The thing about putting money into one's superannuation fund is that it does not really happen very much until a person reaches the age where he has got rid of family commitments—the kids have come out of school or university and he has paid off the house. Then, finally, when he gets to the age of 50 or 55, he has a little bit of money left over to put in his superannuation fund, because he wants to get ready to retire in 10 to 15 or 20 years time. Cutting the maximum superannuation contribution from $50,000 back to $25,000 does not leave you much to retire on. Keep in mind that, since 2004 or 2005, superannuation funds have not been returning very good profits at all. In fact, my superannuation fund returned 1.7 per cent last year, which is pretty ordinary; the year before that, it returned a positive 15 per cent; but, the year before that, it returned minus 28 per cent. So you could say that, over the last three years, my superannuation fund and the superannuation funds of most people I have talked to have gone backwards at a rate of knots.
That is why, if we want people to be able to afford their own retirement, we have to encourage them, by way of incentives, to keep their fund active and profitable. And we cannot keep changing the rules for superannuation; otherwise, people will lose confidence in the super funds and they will elect to invest their money elsewhere. I want to know where 'elsewhere' is, because I would be very interested in that! But, as I said, at the moment super funds are not returning good results. Even the hit we took last week gave another knock to the super funds. It gets over one hurdle and there is another. On small business, there was no reduction in taxation from 30 per cent to 29 per cent, which small business was promised. I know those opposite said that we did not support that. What we did not support was a mining tax. The reduction in tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent for small business was put into that one package. The coalition did not support the mining tax but we did support the drop in tax for small companies from 30 to 29 per cent. It is still very hard for small business to borrow money from banks. I do not think the banks at the moment are confident of Australia's future. When it comes to a small business borrowing from banks—as you know, any business generally always has to borrow to get going—now they must have a cash flow backed by assets. It is not that easy. A lot of people with assets but no cash flow go to banks and they get knocked back.
When you see companies like Retravision and Reed Constructions—a big construction company in New South Wales and Queensland—go into receivership owing their workers and contractors a lot of money—over $100 million—then things are not right. I know that some small businesses are badly run but we are not helping them with 16,000 new regulations being introduced in the 43rd Parliament. As the previous speaker mentioned, we should have a war on red tape. I do not think that has been addressed properly. There has been a lot of hearsay but it has not been addressed properly at this stage.
Big business faces a high Australian dollar, the carbon tax, the MRRT, uncertain global markets, high wages, poor productivity and increased input costs. Investments overseas are becoming more attractive to big industries. I know Vale and those big companies have set up shop in places like Mozambique. Our coal-fired power stations—there are three of them in Central Queensland—are under the hammer if the Greens get their way. Cement Australia cannot compete with a Chinese competitor coming in and our aluminium industry faces huge stockpiles around the world. The European and Chinese economies are very uncertain. We had a big hiccup last week in China. It is still very unstable. If things go really bad in Europe that will flow back to China and then flow on to Australia. Our exports to that part of the world will surely suffer.
In conclusion, the very fact that I have raised concerns about a fair share for Flynn shows why a royalties for regions scheme is very important. We need people to come to those regions and work. A man or a woman will not bring their spouse to these country towns unless we have certain facilities for them. This is not happening. If a woman wants to come to Emerald or Blackwater, she needs proper care if she or her family gets sick. They want to see good schools, good hospitals and good roads. These are the issues that face my electorate and I do not think a lot of them were addressed in the budget. That is why I oppose it.
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (16:43): I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related legislation before the House and to the budget. The areas that I will concentrate on are health—one of the big issues, as always, in my area and with some much needed services and funding—and some of the capital expenditure on schools, roads and the regions, and the NDIS.
I will start with health. The Friday before the budget was a great day in the Northern Rivers region because I was able to announce that there would be $60 million in fully budgeted federal funding towards a decent start on the long awaited stage 3 of redevelopment of Lismore Base Hospital. It is a project that the community has lobbied for for a long time. I have been leading that lobbying. Really, some of these things should have happened at state level and they had not—other things had happened but not that. Under the Health and Hospitals Fund, $475 million was prioritised to the region. The Lismore Base Hospital redevelopment went forward as a project and got through on its merit and we were able to get $60 million. It means that the emergency department will be able to get started. There are a few other areas, but the emergency department is very important. I feel good at being able to announce it. It was a pleasure to host the federal Minister for Health, Tanya Plibersek. She was with me at the Lismore Base Hospital. As well as thanking her I also thanked the previous health minister, Nicola Roxon, who recognised my efforts to keep this vital health infrastructure project on track.
I have got many health services in my seat of Page but Lismore Base Hospital is a key referral hospital. From that perspective it can be seen as a national priority. So the redevelopment is a great win for the community, health planners, doctors, nurses, support staff and even our local newspaper, the Northern Star, who worked on that campaign as well. They all worked with me and with the community towards securing this funding breakthrough.
I was also proud that, as a result of my strong lobbying for other things in the community, some additional money was granted, with $2.5 million in federal funding going to St Vincents Private Hospital in Lismore, a hospital that for a long time has sat alongside our public hospitals delivering complementary services. That money will go towards building two new operating theatres for general, neurological and ophthalmic surgery and relocating and refurbishing an existing endoscopy suite. The hospital also put in some money—it was a half-half situation.
There was a trifecta of health announcements, with $4.3 million in federal funding to build a new community health centre in Yamba. That will offer outpatient clinics and facilities, and mental health and dental services. I want to pay special tribute in this place—I have done so publicly—to Yamba based health advocate Jim Agnew OAM. He has for many years led the community campaign for this much needed facility, which will be a base for community nurses working in the Lower Clarence. Since my election in 2007 I have had many meetings with Jim. I strongly lobbied both health ministers—firstly Minister Roxon and then Minister Plibersek—in order to keep the project on the radar for federal support. It had huge support locally. Bless Jim: he had even drawn up his own plans. I used to say, 'Jim, really, we need to leave that to the health experts,' but he drew up his own plans as well. I have to say he has done well. He has learned a lot about health over the years. He previously lobbied for the ambulance station. That was something he had turned his mind to. That went on for years and when we got it he turned his mind to the community health centre, and we worked together tirelessly on that.
Minister Plibersek, our health minister, was in my electorate, so to make the most of the visit I took her to Grafton Base Hospital, where the redevelopment is going on. A lot of it is done but there is still some underway. Twenty-nine million dollars is going into that project, $4 million of which came from the previous state government. After that, the health minister officially opened the $5 million Grafton GP superclinic. Both of those projects were major election commitments of mine, so it was very pleasing and exciting, and it was just wonderful for the local community.
In speaking on health, I also want to talk about the dental announcements that were in the budget. I was so pleased to see the money that was announced, the way it has been divvied up and the number of areas it is covering. First of all, there was $345.9 million for the public dental waiting list. According to the national dental advisory council, that will address the current 400,000 people on waiting lists around the country. Then there was the $10.5 million for oral health promotion, to develop a national oral health promotion plan, and funding of $35.7 million for expansion of the Voluntary Dental Graduate Year Program. That is a really good program, because that will offer up to 100 places per annum to increase the dental workforce to be able to deliver more dental services through a national scheme. Also, there is the funding available for the rural and remote infrastructure and relocation grants for dentists. That is an important project, because we have seen that work with local GP clinics in our areas. We have seen it all over Australia. There is no reason why that should not operate as well for dental practices. So it is good that that is in there. Then there was funding of $450,000 for non-government organisations to coordinate further pro bono work by dentists. There are a lot of dentists who are providing that wonderful work pro bono, but it does require administration. There is always a cost with administration, just to organise it and make sure it flows properly. So that money there to facilitate that is really helpful. It just means that that project can continue and those dentists who provide that pro bono work will be able to do that without that extra cost.
It is good to see these things happening, particularly in my region. I see them in other regions in Australia, but obviously for me as the member for Page it is great to see them happening in my electorate. They are things that we work for and that I worked for—and worked with the community for, because when I work on these projects I do not do it single-handedly; I do it with the community in a sense of community. It just demonstrates that it is a real need and has that widespread support. That is really important, as everybody knows. As every member in this place knows, when we are lobbying it is really important to show that that support is always there.
I want to talk a little bit now about the investment in the schools through the BER project. In the Page electorate, there has been an investment in schools as capital investment in new libraries, classrooms and halls. Quite a large number of the schools were able to get what I call some of those extras. They were very clever in the way that they were able to design and build those new buildings, being able to incorporate other uses into halls, extra rooms, walkways and all sorts of things. It has been really pleasing as I go around to the opening ceremonies and also the recognition ceremonies to see how creatively some of them were done. Also, I have been involved in quite a lot of them as they were being done and have been giving some assistance.
Last Friday I was at two: one in Nymboida in the Clarence Valley and the other at St Joseph's Primary School, two different schools of different sizes. Nymboida is a small country school and a beautiful school. They even have their own chooks, their own eggs and things like that, so it is a delightful school. I saw what a difference it made by having a new room, a library, an interactive whiteboard and things like that. When I am in the schools I always ask the children what they think. The children tell you very honestly and openly exactly what they think of everything, so it is always good to get their feedback. They rattle off a whole a lot of things: 'It is better to be in,' 'We can put our books down,' 'We've got more books,' 'We've got the interactive whiteboard,' and 'It's just a nice building to be in.' It is better for the teachers.
I was also at St Joseph's Primary School in South Grafton and opened that. Often, when I open them in the Catholic schools, the bishop is there to do a blessing. I just want to read a little bit here. The Diocese of Lismore—that is the diocese that handles the buildings; it is the diocese that covers the area across the North Coast and organised the BER project across the North Coast—also produced a report. It is a great report, and they highlight how everything worked and cover each project in each school. The then Director of Catholic Schools was Dr Anne Wenham. With the report she sent a letter to the Prime Minister. It said:
Dear Ms Gillard
… … …
It is my pleasure to enclose a copy of the Diocese of Lismore Building the Education Revolution 2009-2012 Report.
She went on to say that:
… this Report is an important record of the response of parish school communities to the opportunities presented through the Building the Education Revolution program.
This unprecedented funding of schools throughout Australia was a strategic and much appreciated investment in schools as well as a significant support for the local economy through employment opportunities.
That is exactly what is was designed to be. It was stimulus money. It was to get the money out there into the community for the local economy and for employment, and it was an investment in our schools which will last way beyond the GFC. It worked, and I talk about that when I am in the schools. I say that that is what it was designed to do and that is what it did. It is so pleasing to get around the schools and see the result.
In the report there is a covering statement from the Bishop of Lismore, Geoffrey Jarrett, and I will quote a few things from it. He starts off with:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,—
Then Bishop Geoffrey goes on to say—
From the outset I stipulated that BER funds be applied in a considered and equitable manner;
He talked about the common good for each decision and said:
A management system was then developed that was robust yet flexible with clear policy in key operating areas.
He also said:
The Commonwealth Government can be assured that the BER funds provided to the Diocese of Lismore have been put to good use.
I can attest to that, having seen the investment and also read a lot of the documentation. He went on to say:
… the Building the Education Revolution program has succeeded in providing Australian families with much needed school facilities and stimulating business activity in local areas.
He further said:
To all involved "congratulations on a job well done!"
I say the same to everybody who has been involved in the BER program in all the schools. I know there was a lot of commentary about it, particularly in the Australian newspaper. I was involved behind the scenes, and when I went to the schools I saw that everybody was happy with having that investment in their school.
Sometimes I read about issues with the BER, but they are things that happened with building projects. I have never seen a building project where you did not have to get the builder, the plumber or somebody else back to do something. That happens when you do things at home. You had to differentiate between what was happening when some people were talking about issues in schools. I saw some of that. It was a great project.
I only have 20 seconds left, so I mention the NDIS and the statement that Minister Crean put out for stronger regions and a stronger nation. I am pleased to see some of the funds flowing to the regions and, as the minister says, with some of that mining boom coming to the regions.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:59): Strangely, I find myself agreeing with the Treasurer and his comment about this budget. This is, indeed, a very Labor budget. With an elaborate system of smoke and mirrors this Labor government has managed to create an illusion of a wafer-thin budget surplus—for a couple of hours, at least. But do not underestimate the Australian people. They know full well that Labor has cooked the books here. Costs have been shuffled out of next year, shuffled into this year and shuffled into the following year. In some cases, such as the NBN, they have shuffled clean off the deck. There has been more shuffling going on than with the three-card-trick hustler in Vegas. What the Australian people cottoned onto very quickly is that splashing money around in a blatant attempt to buy votes and to compensate for the carbon tax actually achieves nothing at all. They understand that cooking the books does not actually make anything better.
I am no fan of cooking the books, but a guy as big as me is a fan of baking pies, and I know a fair bit about pies. No matter how you slice a pie, I know you are still going to run out of pie at some stage. The concept of creating a bigger pie so there is more to go around is lost on this government. For four years the government has tried to make a bigger pie by borrowing more pie from overseas, but sooner or later it has to be paid back. Already the interest is eating into our pie, and what this government has done is to commit the Australian people and their children to years of financial pain, as it will be they who have to pay it all back. If you dish out pie so you can collect pie just to dish out more pie, as this government is doing with the carbon tax, all you are actually doing is circulating the same pieces of pie, and every time it changes hands another piece of it falls on the floor. Labor is incapable of making the pie bigger, but it is truly world class when it comes to wasting it.
Let us not forget the Greens' influence. If there is one thing that the Greens hate, it is anyone with a bigger slice of the pie. They do not care how they got the big piece. They do not care if they baked it themselves, worked long and hard, mortgaged their house to buy the oven and gave almost half their pie to the government; they still end up with a big piece, and the Greens absolutely hate it. Now it seems the Australian Labor Party hate it too. They want to take the big piece of pie from that hard worker and give it to everyone else, not because they want everyone else to have more pie but because they just do not want anyone to have a big piece of pie. That is not socialism; that is just pie envy.
Taking the incentive away from the bakers of this country, most of whom are in regional Australia, is a recipe for a smaller pie. My constituents in Dawson can vouch for that, because they are the bakers. The Mackay region and the adjacent mining region around Mackay are the bakery of this economy—of this pie. But Labor is shredding their hope for the future. Labor is stealing their reward for hard work. Labor is robbing them of the opportunity to create wealth for the nation. Families in the Mackay region are paying the high price of creating that wealth. They pay exorbitant rent. They pay more for their fuel. They pay more for their groceries. They work long hours at shift work, often living away from home and the family. They have access to fewer services—health services, recreational services and things that capital city MPs in this place take for granted. Yet they are penalised because they have that bigger slice of the pie.
What these people expect to see in the budget is funding for infrastructure and for those services that others take for granted—facilities like the Mackay Showgrounds, which have begun a long, arduous and expensive redevelopment into what we hope will become a regional entertainment precinct. It is being done with funds raised through the community and some funding from the Queensland government. In regional centres like Mackay, the showground is a critical piece of infrastructure because it is where the community comes together. It is where events like the major Queensland Mining and Engineering Exhibition connect people and organisations that help drive our economy. But we did not see specific funding for the showgrounds in this budget. The people of my region do not deserve to be ignored and forgotten, as with the long-lost Labor promise of a GP superclinic. Labor promised it and Labor has not delivered it for the Mackay region. It is 20 months since the promise was made, and we have not heard a peep about funding for Mackay's GP superclinic.
But I would like to talk briefly on another project that I and concerned locals will no doubt have to fight hard to see delivered. The Blacks Beach spit is an area of coastal land with important environmental qualities that will be destroyed if it is allowed to be developed. As a councillor on the Mackay Regional Council, I lobbied for the council to purchase the Blacks Beach spit to ensure that that area was protected. It is time for this Labor-Greens government to return some of the funds to the economy's engine room, the Mackay region, so it can make a genuine, real investment in the environment. So the Mackay community actually did not get much in this budget, especially when you compare it to the electorates of Lyne, New England and Denison. It is funny, that! It seems that to get any investment in our community of Mackay it takes the whole effort of the community. In that vein I would like to commend the team of people who helped fight for a headspace youth mental health centre for Mackay, a facility so badly needed in a town where social disadvantage adds further fuel to a suicide rate that is just so unacceptable. Mackay was promised a headspace, with the funding to happen sometime in 2013, and I want to put the government on notice here that I want to see those funds starting to flow from the first day in January. I fought very hard for this centre, so did our daily newspaper, the Daily Mercury, and so did Sandi Winner, then from the Mental Illness Fellowship of North Queensland. There was also a collaboration of other local mental health workers, GPs and youth organisations.
What the people of Mackay find especially perplexing, though, is this government's reluctance to invest money back into other parts of the economy that are actually producing the money for the nation. Continued ignorance of this economic fundamental absolutely will result in a shrinking economy and a smaller pie for everyone. There is no point sending truckloads of money from Central Queensland and North Queensland to Canberra if there is no road for the trucks. This budget's neglect of the Bruce Highway is an absolute insult to Central Queenslanders and North Queenslanders who drive, or try to drive, on that highway on a daily basis. They know that congestion around Mackay is absolutely out of control. They know that they have never seen so many potholes before in their lives. They know that they had to pay a flood levy out of their own pockets to get repairs done on that road.
During the recent Queensland election, the new premier, Campbell Newman, actually committed $1 billion to the state controlled but federally funded Bruce Highway. And what did Labor put in the budget for the Bruce Highway? What new thing did they put in this budget for the Bruce Highway? I can tell you: it was nothing. There was no new money for the Bruce.
We did not need less investment in infrastructure, we needed more. We need funding for the duplication of local access streets into Mackay's industrial hub of Paget. A huge increase in heavy traffic servicing the resource sector has had such an impact on roads like Connors Road, Paradise Street and Milton Street, which are the main roads into the industrial centre, that the lacework of potholes actually joined up and the bitumen disappeared.
Former Mackay Regional Council mayor, Col Meng, put a duplication of this road on his wish list to state and federal governments, and I am inclined to believe that such infrastructure is absolutely essential. I think we should be doing that for Connors Road, Milton Street and Paradise Street. And as much as this Labor government thinks it is spreading the wealth of the mining boom around by throwing money at people for no return, it is actually missing the point. Some of that wealth needs to be reinvested in future wealth and to creating that bigger pie.
Just as importantly, if you want to talk about a two-speed economy, why are you not investing wealth poached from the mining sector into the sectors that actually are struggling? For instance, tourism in my electorate in the Whitsundays is on its knees. After weathering this barrage of natural disasters and associated damage to its image the industry actually faces now a high Australian dollar, and that drives tourists overseas. But in addition, this budget increases the passenger movement charge from $47 to $55 per passenger and it reduces Tourism Australia's budget by 6.2 per cent—or, in real terms, $8 million. It passed on the $118.1 million in costs related to the Australian Federal Police security in airports, which will actually go on to increase ticket costs. And on top of that, in just 39 days from today, I think, our tourism industry will be slugged with a carbon tax. I note that Cruise Whitsundays, which is an operator in my electorate, estimates additional costs of $770,000 over just three years as a direct result of the carbon tax and what it will do to marine diesel.
Tourism is an export industry, and I note that the government has moved to compensate other export industries for the carbon tax. So why not the tourism industry? Why does the Labor-Greens government hate tourism? Why does it not extend the regional investment and innovation fund to the Whitsundays, or areas like Cairns, where tourism is vital to the local economy and employment? That fund currently operates in the Illawarra, the south-east of South Australia and in Tasmania—all good Labor heartlands. But why not the Whitsundays or Cairns, where tourism is weathering the perfect storm and people are actually losing jobs? From my perspective, I am actually not convinced the fund is the best means of assisting industry, but that is the Labor way. That is how Labor deals with regional downturns, so if they are doing it in the Illawarra then they can do it for the Whitsundays and Cairns. I prefer to advocate for a different method of help. One of the ideas that have been put to me is a domestic holiday tax break to encourage Australians to holiday at home. Costs would be incurred as a result of keeping money in Australia, which helps. Profits would be made as a result of keeping money in Australia, and that helps to offset the cost.
But helping industry and encouraging growth, development and contribution are not in Labor's repertoire. Labor's modus operandi is industrial terrorism. While most Australians understand that our economic prosperity is underpinned by mining, Labor and the Greens have focused on undermining. Prime Minister Julia Gillard and the Greens have undermined our future. They have undermined mining itself. They undermine the resources sector with the mining tax. They have undermined exporters with the carbon tax. They have undermined investment and productivity with red and green tape. We saw with the Abbot Point multi-cargo facility—which carried the hopes and dreams of so many North Queenslanders, families and residents of Bowen—that they stalled it for 17 months, with the application gathering dust on the Federal environment minister's desk. The extreme Greens, whose mission in life is to stop anyone from making money, enlisted the help of a herd of extreme left-wing organisations and rabid environmental groups, using deceitful tactics to prevent any kind of development they could. Their mission was to kill the very industry that creates the money that this government funds them with. It does fund them through the tax-deductibility status that a lot of them have. These are groups that were supporting and bankrolling a campaign to bring Abbot Point to its knees. It seems to me that this government is adept at shooting itself in the foot by aligning itself with these people, as it has in this parliament. It is time we reviewed the register of tax-deductibility for these extreme environmental groups and struck off any organisation whose operations are not in the best interests of the Australian people.
This government continually says one thing and does something so completely different. It says it wants to protect the environment and invest in renewables. If that is the case, why is this government—especially the Greens—not backing a national ethanol mandate? They want us to use renewables, but they cannot afford to be seen to be adopting coalition policy like direct action. Ethanol is a known and proven technology. A national ethanol mandate would secure the future of the proposed ethanol plant in the Burdekin and also the operating plant we have in Sarina. Australia currently produces less than 50 per cent of the oil that it consumes, and dependency on exports is expected to reach 80 per cent by 2030. While I acknowledge the retention of the ethanol excise rebate, the problem is that there is no stability in terms of demand. It will no doubt come back to the state government to maintain diversity for sugar by bringing in a state-based mandate. I think an incremental introduction could be achieved by introducing a regional mandate from Bundaberg north.
One area north of my electorate is Townsville. The government is determined to trash the Labor brand in that area. Townsville is actually home to the 3rd Brigade and the 11th Brigade at Lavarack Barracks, as well as 10 FSB and the RAAF base at Garbutt. On their behalf, I have a message for the Prime Minister. North Queensland is immensely proud of its Defence Force, as is the rest of the nation. Men and women in the armed forces devote their life to this country. They earn our respect and they always have, yet we have had almost $5½ billion cut from defence while our soldiers are overseas serving. It was disgraceful. The Prime Minister and the defence minister were in Townsville on the weekend. There was a welcome home parade, but they could not bring themselves to attend it, even though they were down the road waiting in a hangar for a plan to take off that afternoon. They could have attended it. The Prime Minister and this government have done nothing for our servicemen and servicewomen in the past. This Labor government is almost worse than the Taliban for the ADF, and the cuts are testament to that fact. (Time expired)
Ms O'NEILL (Robertson) (17:14): I rise to speak on Appropriations Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013 and related bills. As the member representing the electorate of Robertson on the Central Coast, I fully support this legislation and the budget it supports. It is a Labor budget that reveals Labor values. It is all about spreading the benefit of the boom to all corners of our country—to families and to small businesses in particular. It will return us to surplus and allow the Reserve Bank all the room needed to cut interest rates if they need to. This is a critical budget for Australia and it is a great thing that we have a Labor government right now making sure we continue the excellent work that was undertaken during the global financial crisis. I say that it is a Labor budget that reveals Labor values. There is considerable literature about what happens to people's values responses when they hit a crisis situation. It is very clear to the Australian public now that when the GFC hit Australia Labor reverted to our values. We kept Australia working. We kept Australians learning. In this budget, we have made sure that, while we have been extremely fiscally responsible and cut $33 billion to enable us to come back to that surplus, we have stayed true to the things that we believe in. We have continued to support jobs. We have continued to support and enable economic growth because we believe in Australia's capacity to innovate and be successful in industry and business in this sort of climate. We believe in families, we believe in education and we believe in health. All these things are in the budget and we are funding to support growth and the necessary development in those areas.
One of the things that is very troubling at this time in politics in Australia is the incredible gap between what really happens here in Canberra and what gets reported in the gossip-scandal cycle. Of course, we should shine a light on all elements of the parliament. But when we look at the budget, when we shine the light carefully on that, we see what the real things are that this Labor government is doing for Australia. There are so many good things to flow into the life of our community, to the families in my seat and to the families in the seats of the other members here in this chamber, to those who employ so many people, our small businesses, and to young people, who need education, support in to work and training. There is money in our budget to support the aged and infirm who need care and healing. All of these things are within the budget and vitally important to communities such as mine.
Our Labor budget is a budget in globally uncertain economic times. It delivers essential infrastructure and services as well as help for families and households who need it because we understand the real lives of ordinary Australians. This is a budget that brings the benefits of the mining boom to the doorstep of the Central Coast. The resources sector is not a pillar of the Central Coast economy but, thanks to the Labor government, we in Robertson will reap the benefits of our nation's mining wealth. There will be benefits for locals from Kariong, Springfield and Erina who will access the wealth of this mining boom through Family Tax Benefit Part A payments which will see an increase of $600 for more than 10,000 families in the seat of Robertson alone. Benefits from the mining boom include a supplementary allowance for more than 9,100 young people, single parents and unemployed people in Robertson.
This is real money for real people, delivered by a Labor government that accepts the responsibility of moving all Australians forward together and not leaving some behind. We understand that people who need a hand to pay for essential services like electricity, gas and water will benefit from money that is flowing to them from this budget not only because they need it to help them manage their lives but also because it is a sense of belief in their capacity. It is looking after those who might have fallen on hard times until they are able to pick themselves up and move on. Singles are going to receive a supplementary allowance of $210, while couples will receive $350.
In addition, we are investing in our kids. The schoolkids bonus, which I can hardly believe the opposition voted against, will provide assistance to about 1.3 million Australian families, with about 2.2 million Australian children ready to be advantaged by this. This bonus, which we absolutely believe parents will be well and truly able to spend in their own child's interests, will pay for things such as uniforms, school shoes, textbooks, stationery and camps. As a former teacher, I can tell you what a relief it will be to teachers across this nation. The parents of children who once upon a time would have been coming to school looking for a little bit extra to be able to go on an excursion because their parents were so disadvantaged that they were unable to have the money in the bank to help their kids will now be able to allocate funds to ensure that their children do not miss out on the vital learning that happens when you take a school group of kids on an excursion.
This is not a small amount of money, and it is a significant investment in parents, who are going to have $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in secondary school. Because the payment is made up-front and is automatic, it is quite different from the education tax refund. Parents do not need to keep receipts anymore. They will have this guaranteed payment up-front so that they can have the money and plan for spending it appropriately on their kids. Already, in schools in my electorate, principals are speaking with one another about how they might be able to provide some financial guidance to parents about the things that are on the horizon. Kids who once upon a time could never have thought of going on an overseas excursion with their class—to the Western Front, for example, to go and see where our soldiers died; an enrichment learning opportunity to understand their history and the history of the world—can begin to think that maybe it is possible for them. For the first time, this is going to happen for many, many young people.
Parents will receive the full amount every time. So families will not miss out if they lose receipts, as has happened in the past. Importantly, this bonus, which will come to families as of 20 June this year, will continue in the new year, being paid in two amounts: at the beginning of the year, in term 1, and then again in the middle of the year, in term 3, which is usually when I find that the school shoes start to wear and the books start to look a little ratty, and when, if they have been working very hard, they need replacement texts to go on with. There are also changes of courses that happen for students in the middle of the year.
I also think that the amount of $820 to help parents with bringing up a teenager is a really significant help in communicating to the kids the value of education—to say to them, 'The government believes in you; they believe in you so much that they are going to give us $820 to help you get through school.' If the kids are anything like my teenagers and the teenagers I have spent so much of my life teaching, I am pretty sure that they will be watching to make sure that they get their fair share of that $820 and directing the way in which it might go.
As for other important efforts that have been made in this budget to make sure that all Australians move forward together, I turn now to the real infrastructure that we are supporting. We are really committed to making sure that communities such as mine are able to go on with developing things in the community. So, in my local area, key projects such as the Macmasters Beach surf club upgrade, the $2 million Ettalong Beach foreshore redevelopment project, the Umina surf club upgrade, and the refurbishment of the Coast Community Centre in Gosford, known to locals as Coast Shelter, were all funded in this budget. These are projects that I have worked hard alongside the community to deliver, and they have a commitment from this government that those funds will be paid. That will change the lives of all of the members of the community who interact with those services and places of gathering in the seat of Robertson.
Through this budget, delivering on the commitments to my local community and extending them, community infrastructure support funds will be given to Gosford council in the amount of $1.808 million from the Gillard government through the Roads to Recovery program. This is an important grant for the council to assist with the maintenance and upgrade of local roads through the Roads to Recovery program. There is also the $5.5 million allocated to progressing the Gosford passing loops as part of the Northern Sydney Freight Corridor upgrade. Also, as we know, the delivery of a dedicated line for rail freight north of Sydney will certainly help improve the reliability of the passenger rail networks for Central Coast commuters. It is frustrating enough that workers travelling from the Central Coast to Sydney spend dozens of hours a week on trains supposedly running on time; they certainly do not need the added inconvenience of a freight train breaking down and causing delays on the passenger line. In relation to infrastructure, perhaps the most significant point in the budget for the Central Coast is the $150 million contribution by the Gillard government towards the F3-M2 missing link, as well as the offer to the NSW state government of $25 million to establish a special purpose vehicle which would bring financing of the F3-M2 project to the market. This project is long overdue, especially for the suffering Central Coast road users who travel to Sydney's west or beyond on a regular basis, either to places of employment or to do their business.
The allocation by the government puts the ball squarely back in the court of Barry O'Farrell in the New South Wales state government. Barry O'Farrell and his Central Coast Liberal representatives have been extremely coy on this issue. If they are going to walk away from the federal government's money then they need to stand up and say that to the local community. They need to look the community in the eye and explain why, currently, they refuse to support the F3-M2 missing link. This is not just a project for road commuters; it is a project that will improve the productivity of the Central Coast business community and make the Central Coast so much more accessible to people who want to come for holidays. Any local business who moves goods or supplies in and out of Sydney or through Sydney to the south of the state has a huge stake in seeing this project delivered. Every time you see a truck bound for the Central Coast stuck in gridlock on Pennant Hills Road, all you see is productivity essentially washing down the drain.
While the New South Wales Liberal government dithers on this issue, the Labor government is continuing to invest in business innovation. Over the coming years more than $1.2 billion in grants will be available for industry through clean technology programs for manufacturers to improve their efficiency and competitiveness. I am very pleased to inform the House that businesses in Robertson have received more than $3.8 million from Auslndustry since 2007. And, since 2007, Labor has supported 51 programs promoting business innovation in Robertson, totalling $1.87 million. A further five manufacturing programs have received assistance totalling more than $1.2 million. We had the most amazing innovation summit just last week, with my local community delighted that the NBN is rolling out in our area. That, again, is another transformer of the community—a sound, productive investment by this Labor government.
More than 15,600 small businesses exist on the Central Coast. We put $27.5 million into business advisory services, and our local business advisory service will stay alive and active. We are also providing a $6,500 instant asset write-off for eligible small businesses to help with cash flow and promote investment in pieces of equipment that are essential to the success of small business and to improving their productivity. We have also put in a loss carry-back scheme. In 2012-13 companies will be able to carry back tax losses of up to $1 million so that they get a refund against the tax they have previously paid. From 2013-14 companies will be able to carry back tax losses for two years, and that will provide a tax benefit of up to $300,000. This will certainly help companies to finance the investment, training and restructuring that is needed to improve their competitiveness, and this will certainly support productivity and promote employment.
At the core of this Labor budget is a budget for people, including support in the form of increased and improved health services, such as the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. In my electorate, 18.9 per cent of people are over the age of 60, and they stand to benefit from that. Labor will also deliver a $500 million blitz on dental care. The COAG agreements have seen $21 million go to the GP helpline. I have got a $28 million regional cancer clinic and a $21.5 million investment in bringing back the rehab unit.
This budget is a proud Labor budget. It is a budget that will make a difference to the people of the Central Coast. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)
Mrs MOYLAN (Pearce) (17:29): This budget can only be described as an opportunity lost. Rather than promoting growth and providing opportunity, it has delivered savage cuts and broken promises. It has failed to do much to improve productivity. Incredibly, the deficit has soared to $44 billion for this year, and $200 million will be cut from job service programs just when the economic outlook is so uncertain. Families are struggling with the rising costs of living and business confidence is at an all-time low. There are no coherent strategies to deliver economic growth and no agenda to tackle the structural problems that remove barriers to workforce participation. In workplace relations, the pendulum has now swung too far, with unions back in the driver's seat. Our national airline was crippled by protracted disputes going unresolved until the extraordinary shutdown of the airline propelled the government to take control. BHP has experienced 3,200 industrial episodes in the Bowen Basin alone and the union works on a threatening, stop-start process, where it begins an action and then calls it off.
Historically, unions have been pivotal to improving the lot of workers, but we must be wary of allowing the pendulum to swing too far. Our collective concerns should rest primarily with the right of workers to a fair wage and decent and safe working conditions. We cannot allow our enterprises to be held to ransom and we cannot continue to sanction action which sees a doubling of the number of lost working days due to industrial disputes, as the ABS reported for the period of 2010-11.
In these troubled financial times, we need people with clear heads and fair minds that can end the adversarial mindset between industry and unions. I noted the OECD's qualified confidence in the direction of Australia's financial management, which was reported in today's Australian. However, there are also warnings. There is an acknowledgement that Australia will rely mainly on the mining sector to meet its growth forecast. Personally, while as a member from Western Australia I certainly recognise the mining sector's contribution, I believe we should be working harder to diversify our economy and concentrate on lifting our productivity. Lifting productivity requires a long-term strategy. The US economist Paul Krugman said:
Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.
The key elements to lifting productivity are health and education. The average level of human capital, which refers to the skills and knowledge of individual workers and their ability to use them, is a critical element of productivity. Some earlier studies comparing Australia's low productivity to that of the United States suggest that it is due to the fact that the average level of schooling in the working age population in Australia is about half a year lower than that of the US. The conclusion is that, had Australia achieved similar average years of schooling to the United States over this period, Australia's gross domestic product might have been around two to three per cent higher than was recorded.
While recently the government has spent big on overpriced school halls, we missed the opportunity to spend where it really counts. That is on the best teacher education money can buy, including continuing in-service training and the retention of students in the education and training system, with a strong emphasis on science and technology training and education. While I note that we have given massive handouts to businesses, including $275 million to General Motors, $100 million to BlueScope Steel and $64 million to OneSteel, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, DSTO, funding has again been cut despite an election promise in 2010 that they would receive an extra $138 million in the funding period between 2011-12 and 2012-13. Their budget will in fact be reduced by just over $22 million in that period up to 2013. Although $54 million has gone to encourage studies in maths and science, about $40 million of that will be clawed back in increased HECS fees for students of maths and science. It seems to me that this budget has a lot of pea and thimble tricks incorporated into it. While there has been a token increase the science and technology research, some of the very top science programs and organisations have been scrapped or had their funding scrapped. One of the key ways that we could lift productivity in this country is to remove the barriers to employment for those who are not working and who are currently relying on government pensions, so I was dismayed at the cruel result in the budget on single parents—and it is really cruel. I find it sickening. I heard the Treasurer, in his Press Club speech, talk about the difficult job of raising children and how it is the most important thing that most families do. So why does this government propose to move single parents from a social security pension to a Newstart allowance? They will have to somehow pay rent, food, utilities, fuel and schoolbooks on $265 a week, or $38 a day. I would like everyone in this place to try and live on that.
Such a cruel and unjustified move was not enough to bring the budget into surplus, so the government is also cutting the extra payment designed to help people gain skills or support to study in order to improve their financial prospects and to gain employment. Cutting this benefit will consign single parents raising children to the lowest-paid jobs in society, as they simply cannot afford to upskill or to gain a university degree. Rather than supporting people to gain financial independence, the government is perpetuating the cycle of poverty and reliance on welfare so that it can claim it is delivering a surplus.
It seems strange logic. This is a policy that is unjust beyond belief, and I will not support any legislation that seeks to enshrine these measures in legislation in this place. In the end it is not just single parents who are affected, because we all live together in society and this can only perpetuate cycles of poverty that give rise to many of the social problems we are all affected by today.
As a parent I wholeheartedly agree that raising children is the most important mission that we have, and an incredibly difficult task. So why would the government take $60 a week off 100,000 single parents when their youngest child turns eight, when some of the most challenging years of child rearing lie ahead?
I just listened to the member for Robertson talking about how schools might pool together and use the benefits that the government is now paying to families out in the community; that they might go to the Western Front with this money. I can say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that these kids of single parents will not be having any holidays, and they will not be doing any school excursions because their parents will barely be able to keep a roof over their heads, put food on the table and in their mouths and clothe them. That is a fact.
Compounding the problem for those on low incomes in this country, particularly single parents, is the lack of affordable housing. I would draw the attention of this House to the rental affordability snapshot report by Anglicare, because it makes very sobering reading.
The other component to a productive nation, though, is health. Very often this is also linked very strongly to those families who are on low incomes and who are struggling. They are struggling to eat healthy food and they are struggling to go to the doctor for a health check-up. So health is also very important to all of us, and last month I had the extraordinary privilege of being a guest of Novo Nordisk at the European Diabetes Leadership Forum. Australia was invited as a member of the OECD. Novo Nordisk is a world leader in diabetes care, and it employs some 30,000 people in 74 countries around the world, including Australia. Corporate social responsibility is at the foundation of all that it does, and in this respect no stone was left unturned to bring the world's leading researchers and clinicians to address this forum. I do thank the managing director in Australia, Petter Solberg, for affording me the opportunity to participate in this outstanding forum.
The theme of the forum was 'Today, we can change tomorrow'. The outcomes of the forum are the subject of a draft document—the Copenhagen Roadmap. This builds on the United Nations Resolution 61/225 on diabetes, to which Australia was a signatory, as well as a recent political declaration of the 2011 UN high-level meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. The concluding summary of the forum determined that good health equals wealth and that without a strong national policy to put diabetes and associated non-communicable diseases at the forefront, the increasing debt burden threatens to cripple both developed and developing countries.
Diabetes is a silent killer which is a leading cause of major complications such as blindness, limb amputation, cardiovascular disease and renal failure, just to name a few of the complications. This can mean a person must retire prematurely from the workforce. It may mean that another member of the family must leave the workforce to care for them. There is a personal cost attached to the difficulties of people with diabetes as well as a national cost. Undetected and untreated, the malevolent march of diabetes will require a higher cost of intervention. It is important to note that the highest costs associated with diabetes are for the treatment of complications rather than the initial cost of medication that may help to keep a person well.
As obesity is one of the key drivers of diabetes and indeed of non-communicable diseases, I refer members to the excellent paper presented by the OECD called Obesity update 2012. This paper highlights the costs associated with diabetes and the complications that may keep people out of the workforce and ultimately affect our national productivity.
The clinical based evidence presented in the forum once again highlights the urgent need for Australia to restate its commitment to a national diabetes plan and for that plan to be properly resourced so that we can prevent the escalation of diabetes. Unchecked and untreated diabetes threatens individual quality of life, it threatens the financial stability of individuals and families and it becomes an increasing cost burden on the nation.
It is a great concern to me that, although we have had over many years strong bipartisan support for making diabetes a national priority, that seems to have slipped in recent years. One of the programs that we worked hard to fund was the insulin pump program, particularly for children. That has gone through at least one review that I am aware of to make it more accessible. That program seems to have had cuts applied to it in the budget. I met today with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's national Chief Executive Officer, Mike Wilson. He tells me that currently they are providing about 15 pumps a month for children with type 1 diabetes. They are very important for people who have brittle diabetes—that is, diabetes that cannot be treated in the normal way. The government is going to severely limit the number of these pumps that can be provided on the subsidised program to about 50 or 60 a year. This in no way will meet the current demand and it certainly is not providing best practice medicine for children in this country who, sadly, live with the serious impact of type 1 diabetes in their lives.
Finally, I would commend the House to read the full report on the Copenhagen Roadmap and to read the OECD report on obesity and diabetes. (Time expired)
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (17:44): Amid all of the political noise, rancour, mud-slinging and dirt, we should remind ourselves where we are as a nation. If any of you look at the two books that have been published on this subject at the moment, The Australian Moment by George Megalogenis or The Sweet Spot by Peter Hartcher, it is difficult to believe that Australia is in such strong circumstances, that we are so highly thought of all over the world, that we enjoy the best lifestyle, the most human rights and are some of the happiest people on the planet.
Looking into the Australian parliament, that has descended into a pit of acrimony since the current Leader of the Opposition took over and since we have had the unfortunate circumstances of a hung parliament and a minority government, you would never understand that reality. I actually give those two books to foreign dignitaries, not just as a patriot but as a person who is very proud of the economic reforms that Australia has undertaken and the tolerant lifestyle that we have; the determination of people here to see that people of all backgrounds get on and, as the great Martin Luther King said, judge people by the content of their character, not by the colour of their skin.
Australia is one of only four countries whose economy has grown since 2009. The others are South Korea, Poland and Israel. We have 4.8 per cent unemployment—the lowest unemployment rate in the industrialised world. Our interest rates are lower than at any time under the previous government. As the Treasurer said the other day, people are saving $1,300 a year compared to the interest rates under the last period of the previous government. Our growth rate is projected at 3.1 per cent. Our projected budget surplus is $1.5 billion due to measures that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Expenditure Review Committee took—to cut very severely $44 billion to achieve it.
We have 3.2 per cent economic growth, less than five per cent unemployment and a budget surplus—other countries would kill for these circumstances. When you look at the poor people of Greece or Spain—even our friends in the United States, with eight or nine per cent unemployment—they marvel at Australia. Of course we have been the beneficiaries of the mineral boom. But look at the sordid front page of any of the newspapers—and I have to agree with the Acting Speaker about the Murdoch press—you would never recognise the country that we live in. People overseas, as I say, just marvel at what a great country Australia is.
The OECD report today—that Australia is set to grow at the fastest pace in the developed world and that the combined debt of Australia, state and federal, is the lowest of any member nation of the OECD—says that Australia is expected to grow more strongly than every single major developed advanced economy over the next two years. As the Treasurer announced in question time—I do not think any members of the opposition listened to it—we have 9.6 per cent of debt to GDP, again the lowest in the world. The Italians have 100 per cent and Japan 200 per cent of debt to GDP, yet we have all of these siren calls from the member for North Sydney and the member for Goldstein about the level of debt that Australia has. In 2008 this Labor government, like all governments at the time, was faced with a global financial crisis. The crisis sent the share market crashing and caused 25 per cent unemployment in Spain—it is actually 50 per cent in some places in Spain, especially among young people. In Barcelona, 50 per cent of people under 30 are unemployed. It crippled the United States and caused growth to slow in Japan and South Korea—our strong trading partners.
In short, no corner of the globe was spared from the crisis. Here in Australia, yes, we were left a surplus by the previous government, but armed with the right policy and the will to act, Labor ensured that the Australian people did not feel the adverse effects of the financial meltdown. The member for Lilley has been recognised by Euromoney magazine and virtually all serious financial commentators around the world as having done a splendid job in steering Australia through the GFC, continuing to run tight budgets, keeping the pressure on interest rates down and seeing that Australia continues to proposer through this period. If Australia had not done that, we would have faced a very different and stark economic reality here at home. Where government can help, it should. The budget delivered two weeks ago continues the tradition of ensuring everyone benefits from a strong and prosperous nation.
I note the strong changes in public opinion on the mining tax, and that underlines the fact that everyone wants to benefit from a strong and prosperous nation, not just some of our oligarchs who are fortunate enough to be in charge of large empires that are involved in mining. This government has introduced historic pension reforms, the biggest in 100 years of the pension. We have passed and implemented a historic paid paternal leave scheme without increasing taxation.
I do share the frustration expressed by Minister Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, on Insiders that the coalition, who now complain about the government not implementing the company tax legislation, said that they were going to oppose it in the Senate with the Greens. Of course we should be cutting the rate of taxation on companies in Australia to the levels of our neighbours in East Asia, but we cannot do that if a bloody-minded coalition wants to vote with the Greens. They are doing similar things with their hypocritical attitude on the so-called Malaysian option that we have. Here we have the coalition in bed with the Greens on opposing returning people to Malaysia who are asylum seekers but who may not qualify. They are again siding with the Greens on keeping the level of company tax up.
On top of that they have got this absurd levy—a 1.7 per cent increase in company tax—that they are going to put through to fund a parental leave scheme that is principally designed to alter the attitude of women towards the Leader of the Opposition. He knows from polling that the female part of the population is critical in their attitude towards him. Even Blind Freddy could see that this scheme of his, funded by this absurd extra levy on business, is designed to affect his image.
Labor has initiated the biggest infrastructure projects this country has ever seen: the National Broadband Network, sending engineers, construction workers and builders to work. We do this to ensure that the student living in the country can take his classes at home, online, without having to travel four hours to the nearest city, and to enable the entrepreneur to reach out to investors across the world with the touch of a button. The investment in school infrastructure was forgotten and neglected under previous Liberal governments. As we expand our population with our immigration program of 180,000 a year, of course we have got to do these kinds of things. I am sure every opposition member who has gone along to a BER opening that they decry so strongly in the House of Representatives has been happy to stand there at the opening. They understand that this is not a waste of money, that this has provided infrastructure that we absolutely need all around the country, because we have more children as a result not only of a natural increase in our population but above all by our strong immigration program, which I support. If the coalition were honest enough to continue their support of the program, they would be consistent and support the expenditure on the new facilities that the government has helped to build via the Building the Education Revolution program. This government has passed historic healthcare reform, including investment in dental health. This year's budget includes the good work of $3.7 billion investment into aged-care reform. I am particularly pleased to see aged-care reform and the impact it will have on benefiting residents in my electorate. We are implementing the first tranche of the National Disability Insurance Scheme—a first for Australia and a reform worthy of any government that has the appellation 'Labor' on it.
In my electorate of Melbourne Ports, extra support has been given to low- and middle-income families. Four thousand local families will see increases in family payments of up to $600; 2,850 local families with kids at school will receive the schoolkids bonus, giving extra support to families who need it the most; and 6,331 young people—single parents and unemployed—who receive allowances will get extra support.
We have seen the Clean Energy Bill aimed at reducing our carbon emissions, historic tax cuts to families and students, a further pension increase and assistance to single parents. The Liberal Party would see all of these increases ripped away. I know they love the term 'clawback'. They applaud it during question time when the minister uses that expression. They get very excited by it. But that is precisely what they would do. Their ridiculing of the schoolkids bonus was shameful in the sense that they said that parents would not use that money responsibly.
Finally, I turn to one area of funding that I am particularly interested in, in my capacity as Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, and that is overseas representation and funding for DFAT. The budget announced the funding of a couple of new embassies and consul-generals in Senegal and China. That is a good development. In the past 20 years, our diplomatic corps has shrunk too much. We need to re-resource DFAT. We have one of the lowest levels of overseas representation in the OECD. I know that the hate media of the Herald Sun, the Courier-Mail and the Daily Telegraph will denigrate this as 'tall poppies' wanting overseas trips. We are a big country; we are a confident country. We should have a proper level of representation overseas, befitting our size and our national interests, which are not simply those of Cabcharge journalists working for News Limited.
Even with the two new embassies that have been put into the budget, we have only 97 missions. The OECD average is 150. We need to seriously look at assisting the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. As my friend Dr Paul Monk has said, while the federal public service grew a whopping 25 per cent between 1996 and 2008, DFAT contracted by 11 per cent. Over the past 20 years, DFAT's diplomatic corps has shrunk by nearly 40 per cent, from 870 in 1989 to 537 in 2009. Although various amounts of money passed through DFAT for various purposes over the past decade, resourcing has shrunk from 0.43 per cent of the budget to 0.25 per cent of federal government spending. The most significant consequence of this reduction, both relative and absolute, is what the present Secretary of DFAT, Dennis Richardson, has described as the near incapacitation of our overseas representation. I think we should do more. The opening of the embassies in Dakar and Chengdu is a good measure. This year's budget ensures that Australia as a whole will benefit from a strong and prosperous economy. The government has a proud record of legislative reform, which I have outlined. All of these reforms have been achieved through the prism of a minority government. This should not be forgotten. Labor has been able to pass every single piece of legislation put to this parliament. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Murphy ): Before I call the member for Tangney, I want to assure the member for Melbourne Ports that I acknowledge his references to the media in the early part of his speech and, later, his concern about the role of the media and the importance of that in our democracy.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (17:59): The Treasurer has introduced his fifth budget, which he is proud to say stays true to Labor ideals. The key ingredient of Labor policy is the idea that all of society's ills can be cured politically, but this outlook leaves the budget with no coherent economic strategy to drive growth in the economy, to lift productivity or to create jobs. The government vaunts stimulus as the reason that our economy avoided recession. Any analysis of the degree of economic recession and the amount of stimulus pumped into other nations' economies demonstrates that stimulus was not an important element in staving off recession. Indeed, how could this be the case when the last of the stimulus projects was only finished recently, nearly four years after the onset of the GFC? It was not stimulus that saved our economy but the fundamental strength created by the Howard years—with the improvement of prudential arrangements, prudent financial management and record surpluses—that took the brunt of the Rudd stimulus spending spree. We need to compare our economy with those in our region that we are engaged with, not with OECD economies. Compared with them, our economy is no standout.
The government talks about its predicted surplus being good in terms of the Reserve Bank reducing interest rates. If a $1.5 billion surplus gives even a one-quarter per cent reduction in interest rates, surely the government can see that a $44 billion deficit in the last year and deficits for the past four years have put significant pressure on the economy the other way. The Treasurer is heavy on rhetoric about what he calls 'the big-spending Howard government', but, in all of his budget years, expenditure as a percentage of GDP has been well above that of the last year and the second last year of the Howard government.
In each sector of the economy, the Prime Minister and her cabinet have offered a vision at odds with the core principles of economic freedom. This obsolete vision favours politically well-connected unions at the expense of workers and small competitors. It is a vision that creates inequality by favouring organisations with the best connections over those with the best ideas. It is a vision that inhibits growth by increasing the cost of complying with growing government regulation, instead of leaving business with more money and more freedom to hire staff, create jobs and foster our economy.
This budget confirms that Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan have no plan to build a stronger economy, repay debt or create secure jobs. It is a blueprint for more borrowing, more taxes and record debt, with the world's biggest carbon tax and a record debt ceiling of $300 billion—raising the debt ceiling when you say you are going to get a surplus. Why do you need that? There has been a blow-out in this year's deficit, from $23 billion to $44 billion, meaning more debt left for future generations to repay. By 2015-16, the government will be spending over $8 billion a year, or $22 million a day, on interest payments alone. All of this is despite the fact that in real terms the government are experiencing the fastest growth in revenue since the mid-1980s. It is very hard for the government to ask Australians to live within their means while they refuse to live by their own gospel here in Canberra. This is Labor's legacy: waste and reckless spending. It is a tough argument to make that the spending priorities the Prime Minister is determined to protect are really so critical. In the business world—the real world, that is—few of the government's policies, programs, subsidies and handouts would pass an honest benefit-cost analysis. In this class-war budget, it is also a tough argument for the government to make that the wealthy do not pay their fair share, with the mining tax, the carbon tax, the cancellation of the cut to the company tax rate and a myriad other hits on business to redistribute income to those who seldom deserve it. Let me assure you: those who may be better off are paying more than their fair share. A wealth distribution bent is being manifested in all Gillard government policies: quick-fix tax-grabs to plug budget black holes and pay for idealistic—or, dare I say it, ideological—policies. The minerals resource rent tax, formulated without due consideration, is at the heart of this philosophy. 'Tax the rich to give to the poor,' says this government, 'and all of our problems will suddenly go away.' But, like any fairytale, it is not quite that simple. Mining accounts for nearly two-thirds of the value of Australia's exports of goods, and one-half of Australia's total exports of goods and services. Mining directly employs 224,000 Australians, and there are tens of thousands of additional workers, in manufacturing, mining services, construction and infrastructure, supporting the mining sector. That makes the sector a major driver of growth today, and investment in this sector will add to Australia's economic activity for many years to come. It is interesting: the government keeps hitting the middle and the big end of town with this budget, yet its fundamental success relies on the continued profitability of these taxpayers.
The mining tax is not the cure-all the Treasury is searching for to bring the budget into surplus, and its inequities greatly impact on my home state of Western Australia. Australia has retired the sheep and is now riding on Western Australia's back. Western Australia's role in supporting the entire Australian economy with growth, jobs and investment has gone from important to critical in the federal budget. But, rather than rewarding a booming state carrying our nation, Western Australia's share of GST revenue has deteriorated beyond any worst-case scenario. This year, it will drop to 55c in the dollar—a loss of $662 million overnight, leaving Western Australia with the lowest share of GST of any state, ever.
A GST slap in the face from the federal government means greater pressure is placed, unfairly, on all Western Australians to meet the costs of the national economy. Seventy per cent of all new jobs in the last year were created in Western Australia. In the year to February 2012, the only place where manufacturing employment grew was in Western Australia. Seven thousand manufacturing jobs were created in the last quarter alone. With just over 10 per cent of the nation's population, in the next year Western Australia will contribute 20 per cent of all company tax, around 60 per cent of the minerals resource rent tax and 40 per cent of Australia's total exports.
Fair and equitable federal policy would at least allow the nation's most productive state to receive its fair share of revenue, of Commonwealth infrastructure spending and appropriate funding for key policy issues such as jobs and trades training. But this budget confirms that core Labor policy is to penalise success and subsidise inefficiency. Their decision to cancel a company tax rate cut informs this House that the life of the Gillard government has been placed before the fiscal interests of the nation. Gone are tax cuts, replaced by handouts and enticements towards a Labor brand that is growing more toxic by the day. It is yet another broken promise from the government.
So is the Prime Minister engaging in class warfare? Definitely. Is she ignoring the waste of big government and idealistic social policy? Absolutely. Has she given up on reality? Certainly. To the detriment of all Australians, it is just political reality that now matters to the Gillard government.
The first broken promise of this government, the world's biggest carbon tax, is about to hit families, jobs and investment. The budget papers confirm that, despite falling international prices, Labor's toxic tax will go up to $29 a tonne in just three years. The biggest problem with a carbon tax remains that it makes our most important everyday utilities like power, gas and water more expensive. I know from meeting with families and businesses in Tangney that they do everything that they can to minimise their utility usage to reduce costs and cannot be accused of being wasteful. Labor said it would make heroic cuts to government to reduce the burden on all Australians. Well, all the cuts are being made, but they are being made by families. They are going to have to pay this insidious tax.
The list of problems inherent in this tax is quite literally endless. A threshold of 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent as a cut-off for determining which companies should pay this tax is entirely arbitrary. It distorts the competitive playing field of a free market by heavily taxing one company that is just above threshold while giving a massive competitive advantage to another company that is just below. This act is a disincentive for companies to grow, create jobs and foster the economy. Of the 248 companies determined by the government's Clean Energy Regulator to pay this tax, 93 are mining operations that will suffer hits to their productivity that will flow to the prosperity of our national economy.
Twenty-eight of the carbon tax companies are electricity providers and 39 are gas providers. These companies remain impervious to the carbon tax due to little competition in the energy sector. Any production price rises will be passed straight to households and businesses without a second thought. Australian households are set to suffer a 25 per cent increase in health costs, a 31 per cent increase in education costs, a 39 per cent increase in gas prices, a 59 per cent increase in water and sewerage prices and a 66 per cent increase in electricity prices—all with little or no difference to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The coalition will continue to fight this insidious tax in opposition and repeal it in government.
Julia Gillard has also broken her solemn promise, set out in the 2009 defence white paper, to increase defence spending by three per cent in real terms until 2017-18. Labor has cut a further $5.5 billion from Australia's defence budget on top of the $2.5 billion it cut last year. Defence spending has fallen below 1.6 per cent of nominal GDP—the lowest since pre World War II as a percentage of GDP. America is spending less on defence. China is spending more. There could not have been a better time for Australia to step up and be prepared to provide greater assistance to the US in stabilising our region. Labor has mothballed a substantial number of our armoured personnel carriers and tanks. Stage 1 of the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program will be pushed back by another two years, and the new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and Land 400 combat vehicles will be pushed back by a year. This ludicrous compromise of Australia's national defence and security is an affront to our national sovereignty for the sake of a paper surplus that will never see the stamp of the Governor-General.
It is hardly surprising that these horrendous cuts have been subject to widespread criticism from nearly all major think tanks and policy institutes in the country. The federal government has a critical role to play in safeguarding free enterprise so that corruption is punished, success is rewarded and the impositions of government are not skewed against small business people, the innovator or the worker. The Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility for Labor's budget shortfalls and instead continues to introduce policies that have put us on this path of debt and deficit. The coalition rejects this government's broken policies. The Liberal charter outlines our beliefs on this side. We believe 'in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and bureaucratic red tape' and that 'businesses and individuals—not government—are the true creators of wealth and employment'. As MPs we must always ask: 'Is this something that needs to be done by government or are we contributing to a wider problem of government growth and private enterprise subversion?'
We have a strong agenda to drive economic growth, productivity and employment. We have done it before and we will do it again. We will cut the waste, reduce the spending, pay down government sector debt and lower taxation to reward hard work and reduce the fiscal drag on the economy. A strong productivity agenda will drive higher labour force participation and reduce red tape. Australians want a government that can deliver an economic strategy to build a stronger Australia, reduce the cost-of-living pressures and create secure jobs. (Time expired)
Ms KING (Ballarat—Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Transport and Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) (18:14): I rise today in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2012-13 and the other appropriation bills. This is a budget that Labor people can be very, very proud of. It is a budget that assists families with the costs of living; it is a budget that invests in skills and training across the nation; it is a budget that invests in health, in ageing and in vital infrastructure; and it is a budget that will return our budget to surplus. It is a Labor budget. It is what Labor governments do when they are in government. It stands in stark contrast to both the commentary and the actions of the federal Liberal Party, and it stands in stark contrast to the state budgets of the Liberal Party governments who are in Victoria and in New South Wales. This budget is squarely focused on assisting families and low- and middle-income earners. It is a budget that generates wealth, but it is also a budget that is fair. It is a budget that focuses squarely on helping families. It is a budget that focuses squarely on low- and middle-income earners and those that might be left behind in our economy.
I want to focus on a few issues that to me are the crux of this budget and its assistance to families. The schoolkids bonus is one. Across the federal electorate of Ballarat, over 9,950 families are expected to receive $410 a year for each child in primary school and $820 a year for each child in high school. It equates to some $10.5 million going straight into the pockets of families who live in the electorate of Ballarat and who send their children to primary or secondary school. The payment replaces the education tax refund. It was estimated that in my electorate there are some 1,800 families who never claimed the education tax refund but who were entitled to do so. Structuring the schoolkids bonus in this way means that families do not have to keep receipts and do not have to claim; they will get this as an automatic payment. It is very important in my area—$10.5 million is being invested in local families, and that money will come into my economy. What we saw from the Liberal Party was that they opposed the schoolkids bonus. Apart from being a stunningly ridiculous political tactic, it just sends a very clear signal to all of those families in my electorate that the Liberal Party do not understand what is happening with families in the electorate of Ballarat. Their opposition to the schoolkids bonus stands in stark contrast to the federal government's proposal of the schoolkids bonus and the eventual passage of it through this parliament.
The other area which I think is very important for families in my electorate is the family tax benefit part A. The federal budget is focused on spreading the wealth from the mining boom to those families that need it most. We acknowledge that mining is a very vital part of our economy, but we also acknowledge that wealth that has been generated is not being spread evenly. We want to be able to make sure that people in our economy are not left behind, and it is very important that families do not get left behind. As part of our budget we are increasing the family tax benefit part A payments to over 12,000 families in my electorate. That is an increase of over $600 which will start flowing from 1 July next year and will assist families with cost-of-living pressures.
Very importantly, I was very pleased to see in the budget that we are investing $1.1 billion to establish a new supplementary allowance to assist those people who have been hit particularly hard in recent times by the rising costs of living, such as those Australians who are unemployed—and I think many of us in this place acknowledge how difficult it is for people who are on unemployment benefits. Students or single parents who are on income support will now have access to this new supplementary allowance. The allowance is $250 for singles and $350 for couples who will benefit, and that is some 11,000 families in my electorate of Ballarat. That allowance will assist people across my electorate with the costs of electricity, gas and water, to name just a few things.
The other area that I think has been very important and widely well received is aged-care reform. Of course, it comes on the back of our historic increases to the pension. It was a Labor government that for the first time in 100 years increased the base rate of pension, because that is the sort of reform that Labor governments do. It was a historic reform and it has increased the pension by an extra $338 a year for singles and $510 for couples as additional payments.
The foundation for the government's sweeping reforms in aged care is also contained in the budget. To support our region's ageing population a new $3.7 billion funding commitment towards aged-care reform will see more in-home care support so people can live independently longer and will not be forced to sell the family home to pay for a bond in a nursing home. It will make access to aged care simpler from next year and will ensure that older Australians can receive care at home through a dramatic increase in home care packages. We have the circumstance in many cases across the country where people are assessed as eligible for community aged-care packages or dementia aged-care packages but are not able to receive them because there is a waiting list for those packages. By doubling the number of those in-home care packages we are making sure that there are more older people who can have the choice to stay at home for longer. Over the next 10 years the government's reforms will more than double that number of home care packages.
The government is also funding its fair share of building a National Disability Insurance Scheme through an investment of $1 billion over four years to start the scheme. From the middle of next year selected launch sites across the country will begin serving people with a disability. Many of the 7,000 people who access a disability support pension across my own electorate will hopefully benefit from this investment. It is a historic announcement for our nation. The approaches we have had to disability services in this country, frankly, have been a disgrace. We all know it is time for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and I dearly hope that state governments will come to the party and pay their fair share of the National Disability Insurance Scheme as well. We have had the arguments about this and the time has come to actually deliver this to the many people who have disabilities in our country.
Employment training and skills is something that, again, I am particularly proud of with the record of this government. I am particularly proud that in this budget we have continued our ongoing commitment to skills and training. It follows on, obviously, from our $3 billion over six years in the previous budget to skill Australia's future workforce. As part of this budget we have seen the investment of over $18 million to establish three Australian skills centres of excellence which are giving 21st century education to workers to prepare for the latest emerging industries. In addition the My Skills website will be improved to give greater detail on the quality and location of training providers. It will assist those looking for training and jobs on the ground with the greatest possible opportunities for their future. The National Workforce Development Fund is receiving a $35 million injection that will see mature-age workers upskilled to reskill across a number of areas where a shortage in skills is identified.
In addition to this some $19.4 million has been allocated to tradespeople who have recently become qualified to start up their own businesses. This funding will be used to help those who are finishing their apprenticeships to train in business and finance. We are also providing some $4.2 million to the Australian Skills Quality Authority to support higher quality training. We are investing some $225.1 million over four years in the very successful and very important Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance Program. It helps parents on income support to receive the training and skills they need to re-enter the workforce. It is a very important program.
The Gillard government have also offered the Victorian government more than $2.2 billion to support their reform of the training system, because we know the importance of investing in the skills and training of the Australian people. It is really important to emphasise that. The cuts to TAFE funding we have seen from the Victorian Liberal government are, frankly, unbelievable. It is politically unexplainable and counter to all of the work that we have been doing as a nation in developing skills and encouraging people to get into training.
Last week the University of Ballarat—it is one of the few dual sector universities in the country; it has a university and a TAFE—announced that it will have to reduce its courses and jobs as a result of the cuts. It is a disastrous outcome and one which totally ignores the vital national drive to continue to develop the quality workforce which is being demanded by industry. The Victorian government needs to explain how TAFEs can retain courses and continue to deliver skills to industry, and support regions and communities like my own, in the face of these substantial cuts to funding. The TAFE network is an essential public institution and one which the Gillard government values very highly. We have invested some $224 million in TAFEs over the last four years through projects that have upgraded facilities and equipment in 39 campuses across Victoria, in addition to the $360 million in funding provided on average each year.
Recently, this government provided $25 million to the University of Ballarat to lift education participation across the region. We are one of the regions that has a very low participation rate of postsecondary education. When you look up in the west of Victoria, past my electorate of Ballarat, into the Wimmera, into the member for Wannon's electorate, and on into the member for Mallee's electorate, the participation rates are even lower still. We have provided $25 million to the University of Ballarat to work with other TAFE providers to actually get TAFE education into these regions, but the state government, at the same time as we are investing $25 million in the University of Ballarat, has cut $20 million—40 per cent of the TAFE funding to the University of Ballarat. It is unsustainable and must be reversed.
TAFE is absolutely at the front line when it comes to giving the people of Ballarat and the regions the skills that they need to get a job. The Victorian government is risking significant skills shortages with its budget cuts, when some of the state's biggest training providers, like the University of Ballarat, are forced to downsize and reduce their courses. I am advised that the Victorian government decision will see funding at the University of Ballarat decrease by around $20 million—around 40 per cent of total TAFE funding. In excess of 50 TAFE courses are going to close.
Staff and students at the university are absolutely shocked by the decision, and I am particularly concerned that the decision is affecting some of the most vulnerable in our community, particularly those who have disabilities, who have learning difficulties and who are from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I know community leaders and the local business community have strongly condemned this decision. Not only will we not be developing people with the skills we need in this region, we will be putting quality trainers on the scrap heap. I urge families across my electorate to go along to the rally that is being held tomorrow at the University of Ballarat's SMB campus at 12:30. I know from Facebook that there are many, many people who have never been engaged in political rallies before who have been activated by this government's decision.
To me, it is an absolutely perfect example of why you need to not just listen to some of the spin that comes from Liberal politicians about what they think is a good policy outcome but actually look at what they do. Have a look at what Liberal governments are doing in states like my own, Victoria. They have an ideological opposition to TAFE, they have had for a very long time period of time, and they want to kill it. You can see no better example than what is happening in Victoria at the moment.
Frankly, I find it absolutely astounding and I think many National Party MPs in Victoria are dismayed at the decision. The minister in Victoria is dismayed at the decision that he has now had to go out and sell. I am sure it is not one he supports.
But what I say very clearly is: have a look at what good Labor governments do—what we do in terms of helping families; what we do about making sure we support low and middle income Australians; what we do to develop education, health, infrastructure and skills. Then have a really good look at what Liberal governments do in the states of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. Have a look at what they actually do when they are in government, and have a good think about what that might mean federally.
The Australian people should be under no illusion that, if the Leader of the Opposition became Prime Minister, then we would once again see a Liberal government that rips funding out of education, that rips funding out of training and skills, that rips funding out of health and, instead, looks after its mates at the big end of town.
In conclusion, I want to say that the budget in my electorate has also invested significantly in health infrastructure. That has come on the back of the $42 million commitment to the Ballarat Regional Integrated Cancer Centre. We are also seeing $1.6 million go to Ballarat District Nursing and Healthcare, and $3.3 million to Ballan District Health and Care. I am very proud of the record that we have in my electorate of investment in infrastructure in health, and in roads, and in education, both within our TAFE and within our University of Ballarat. That is what good Labor governments do, and I am very proud to support this budget here in the appropriation bills.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (18:29): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bills for 2012-2013. When a Treasurer rises to give a budget night speech, it should be a great occasion and ceremony. Unfortunately, that has been trashed by this Treasurer. To have brought down a budget claiming austerity but presiding over spending of $370 billion and an increase in government revenue of some $39 billion, that is increased taxation.
For all the spending that this government does, Townsville received nothing in this budget. We got nothing for the Bruce Highway and we got nothing for infrastructure. We saw Defence stripped bare. We need a government that 'gets' Townsville, that can see that we punch above our weight in our contribution to the economy. We need a government that is prepared to plan for the future of North Queensland and to give us our fair share. Instead, this Labor budget has dudded Townsville and left us in the lurch.
Since he delivered the budget, the Treasurer has boasted about delivering the first of four years of surplus budgets—and he did it with a straight face; it was a credit to the rehearsal that he must have done—supposedly through tough budget cuts. The word 'productivity' to my reading was not mentioned once in his speech. Surely, we must look at the way we do things in this country and reward those who do them more efficiently, faster, with higher quality and better finish. We need to compete in a global market.
I am also struggling to understand why a government that believes it is delivering a surplus also needs to increase the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion in the same budget, leaving government debt at absolutely unprecedented levels. When you are making headway on your own mortgage and your home budget, and you are increasing your payments on your mortgage, the last thing you consider is to increase your mortgage limit. It just beggars belief.
This will also be Australia's first carbon tax budget. The real impact of this year's budget on Townsville households and businesses will begin when the world's biggest carbon tax starts on 1 July. We have seen the cash bribes blatantly trying to distract voters. We have seen the $36 million ad campaign which talks up the compensation without mentioning the reason that families need to be compensated. But you cannot compensate for a cascading and compounding tax that will act as a wrecking ball across my local community and my local economy. We will all be paying for this through increased prices, higher energy bills and pressure on local businesses who are still not going to receive any compensation. The pain from this tax is only going to get worse. The budget papers have confirmed that despite falling international prices, Labor's toxic carbon tax will steadily rise for three years. This is all coming despite the Prime Minister's declaration that there would be no carbon tax under the government she leads.
Townsville's small businesses, some 9,000 in number, are the heart of our local economy and they are struggling at the moment, especially in retail. I regularly receive emails from business owners telling me that times are tough and they are having trouble getting their bills paid. They look to this government to inject much-needed confidence into the business community with this budget. Instead, it has all but ignored them. The only people in Townsville who are super busy are the liquidators.
Small business owners are the ones who are prepared to take a chance, often risking their own home to start something new or take on another employee. We should be encouraging them, ensuring there is reward for these risks and opportunities to become more productive for the benefit of their business in the wider economy. Instead, this government is slapping them with the world's biggest carbon tax and offering only mirages of compensation. We drown them in red tape, regulations, fees and taxes. We just make it so hard for them to perform. This government has also abolished the entrepreneur's tax offset, designed to foster microbusinesses to assist them to get started.
It seems as though the only place that this government is prepared to make big spending cuts is in defence. This budget saw the biggest cut in defence spending since the end of the Korean war. Defence spending now is at its lowest level as a percentage of GDP since 1938. If you add the deferments and cancellations to the quoted $5.5 billion you will end up with defence copping it in the neck to the tune of $17.1 billion—and we have not even mentioned the submarine debacle. Australia is going to face critical capability gaps that will be felt for a whole generation simply because this Labor government cannot manage its finances.
I represent a city within which exists the largest army base in Australia. Lavarack Barracks is the home of the 3rd Brigade and 11th Brigade. We also have RAAF Base Garbutt and 10FSB at Ross Island. We are home to some 5,000 defence personnel. My defence personnel are the ones who get deployed. Townsville's defence family is the one that trains all the time in preparation for emergencies all over the world. You cannot rip $5.5 billion out of defence without hurting Townsville as a whole, and our ADF personnel in particular. The Prime Minister and the defence minister have been at pains to tell us that no-one in uniform will be affected, but when you delay, defer and cancel things such as this, how can it not have an effect on the troops on the ground? In times of trouble we do not turn to the department in Canberra, we turn to the men and women who are part of the redeployed units of 3rd Brigade, 11 Brigade and RAAF Base Townsville. Those guys deserve first-class training and first-class facilities; it is that simple.
I also worry about the relationship between the ADF and the government. I must be clear here and state that I have never heard a serving officer or member say a negative thing about the government. That is not their way; their way is to faithfully serve their country. We had a welcome home parade for some 1,100 soldiers and RAAF personnel. The Prime Minister and the defence minister had been to Townsville to meet the troops about to deploy. Their plane was grounded due to mechanical error. They could have made the parade for the returning men and women. That they chose to stay away speaks volumes, not about the Defence Force but about the respect in which the ADF is held by these two key politicians.
This was also another Labor budget that ignored the need for fairness for veterans. The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, the DFRDB, is not indexed in the same way that age and service pensions are. Every year DFRDB recipients become a little worse off than those on other pensions. After 40 years this has left the pensions of those who served our country in poor shape. It is time we finally did something about it. I am proud that, in March, Tony Abbott recommitted the coalition to fix this problem once and for all. Townsville has a large veteran population and they and their families deserve fair indexation. A coalition government will deliver it and I urge this government to stop giving veterans a raw deal.
I was proud to be the first politician to support the NDIS in Townsville, but we must get it right. The fact that it has been politicised is beyond doubt. The way the funding was announced reminded me of the launch of the MSPT, the mining super profit tax. There were no discussions with the key players, the states. The Productivity Commission recommended that the Commonwealth fund 100 per cent of the scheme. The reasoning was that they are the only level of government capable of raising the expected $8 billion extra annually. To me that reasoning is sound. The announcement of a 78-22 split was made without any consultation with the states. The start of the scheme is underfunded by almost $3 billion. The government has three times refused to create a joint House committee on its establishment. That all this can happen as they raise hopes among the disability sector sounds exactly like that press conference in late May 2010 where the then Prime Minister and the current Treasurer launched the doomed mining super profit tax. If we do not deliver on this NDIS we will only have ourselves to blame. But we have to be straight up with the people and tell them why they need it and how it is going to be funded. We have to ask the community where the line will be drawn and what level of personal responsibility will be expected. We need to have the conversations with people not directly involved now and get them on board. What we have now is pure politics and it does none of us any good.
Townsville is a great destination for visitors, but even after recovering from cyclone Yasi the local tourism industry is still struggling. This reality has fallen on deaf ears in the Labor government. Instead of helping the local tourism industry they have used this budget to cut $8 million from Tourism Australia's budget and have failed to provide the industry with any compensation for the carbon tax, which is threatening around 6,400 jobs in the tourism business alone. This budget increases passenger movement charges to the tune of $668 million and pushes the cost of Federal Police back to the airports. That will only increase the costs to our tourism sector. It surely sends a message that this government simply does not care about this vital sector of our economy. Add to that the carbon tax on domestic airfares and it is no wonder tourism operators have given up hope that this government will do something, anything, for them.
The great disappointment for me in this budget is that there is next to nothing for Townsville and North Queensland. Townsville is a rapidly expanding city. Our population growth is more than double that of the rest of the country. In fact the member for Thuringowa, Sam Cox, in the state parliament said that Thuringowa is the second fastest growing area in Queensland. We need a government that will invest in the region to plan for the future now. Instead, we have a government that has completely ignored us. There is no new funding for the Bruce Highway. This is supposed to be the national highway and it has been in dire need of attention for decades to get more overtaking lanes and pull-over areas and to be flood-proofed, yet this government could not find one cent to help North Queensland drivers and industries that rely on that highway. There was no funding for any road projects urgently needed in Townsville to support the increased traffic in growth corridors. The only reason Townsville residents will finally be able to rely on Blakey's Crossing next wet season is that Queensland's new Liberal National state government responded to the community's 'Fix Blakey's' campaign and saw the need. This was once the Bruce Highway and should have been fixed generations ago. There has also been nothing for the residents of the upper Ross, who are wondering when their main road, Riverway Drive, will be duplicated so that it can handle increased usage.
Even beyond roads, this budget has offered no infrastructure for Townsville. The Northern Beaches is crying out for better services and facilities, as more and more families move to the new developments there. It needs a cyclone shelter, which would act as a large community centre, to give this growth corridor the facilities it needs and the region the heart and soul it is looking for.
In Townsville over recent months we have seen a rise in crime rates, particularly youth crime. We must work together as a community if we are to tackle these problems. I call on the government to work with groups in the community like Neighbourhood Watch and groups that are looking at different initiatives to engage at-risk youth and get them off the streets and out of trouble.
In looking to the future of Townsville as leader of the region we need to be looking beyond just North Queensland. The closest capital city to Townsville is Port Moresby, and its relationship with Papua New Guinea is a vital one, offering numerous opportunities to foster trade, education, aid and research to the benefit of both Townsville and PNG. We have already seen the importance of this connection. Local businesses are developing their trade links with PNG. Curtain Bros have been doing it for years. The Chamber of Commerce and Industry is very active, as are the North Queensland Cowboys. Youth With A Mission provides a vital health service to remote parts of this country as well.
It disappoints me that this country has ignored the opportunity to fund the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine at James Cook University. This research project, headquartered in Townsville and Cairns, will benefit people throughout the tropical world. JCU is highly respected for its tropical research. The AITHM creates the opportunity for the university to use this specialty with its school of medicine to lead the world in tropical health research. Once again, it took the new Queensland Liberal National state government to provide the funding and get this vital project off the ground that this federal government should have taken responsibility for during the 2010 election. The coalition remains committed to this vital health link and we will see that it happens.
I call on this government to start planning for the future of Townsville. We need to be investing in infrastructure projects that will meet the needs not just of today but also of our population tomorrow. We need a government that cares about the future of Townsville and wants to work with the region to achieve the right outcomes. Townsville is a great city in a great state. We should be doing all we can to provide our residents and businesses with hope for the future and reward for their effort and opportunities, not just for us but also for our children. This budget does not address any of these things. We in Townsville are a positive and vibrant people. We will hold this Treasurer and this government to account for this budget.
Mr HUNT (Flinders) (18:43): In addressing the budget, let me begin today with what is tragic news for families in the Hunter region, who had a sense of the future, a sense of opportunity and a sense that they could make through their work a pathway for their lives and their families with security. Yet we see that the heart of this budget is a $36 billion carbon tax. What was that carbon tax intended, designed and constructed to do? It was to destroy jobs and production in areas which are deemed to be high emission. Most particularly, the government's own Treasury modelling predicts that as a consequence of the carbon tax the aluminium sector will be 60 per cent smaller than it would otherwise have been. The variable there is the carbon tax. This is not the opposition confecting; this is not the opposition asserting; this is a direct finding within Treasury's own modelling based on a comparison between what would be the case without the carbon tax and what will be the case with the carbon tax. This day, Norsk Hydro—otherwise known as Pacific Hydro—made it absolutely clear that the Kurri Kurri plant in the Hunter would be wound down, at a cost of 344 jobs, and that one of the critical long-term factors was the carbon tax.
In question time today, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Mr Combet, denied that this was a factor in the company's decision—they denied that the carbon tax was a factor in the loss of 344 jobs today and 150 jobs earlier this year. I read directly, clearly and in an unedited form from Norsk Hydro's press release of today:
Following a thorough review, it is clear that the plant will not be profitable in the short term with current market prices, while long-term viability will be negatively affected by a number of factors including increasing energy costs and the carbon tax.
Let us unpick that.
Dr Jensen: Explicit.
Mr HUNT: What we see, as the member for Tangney said, is explicitness. There is no equivocation and no doubt; there is an express, clear, explicit reference to the carbon tax as one of only two long-term factors. This should not be a surprise, because the nature, the purpose, the operation, the being, the meaning, the structure, the approach of the carbon tax is to close down heavy-emitting businesses and to send them offshore. That is its design and its intent.
Dr Jensen interjecting—
Mr HUNT: This is exactly what it is intended to do, and it is precisely because of my historical work that I make that assertion. So I say to the members of the Labor Party—to the members of the government that brought this $36 billion tax into being: face the consequences of the policy you bring to this House.
When you look at what the company said, you see that they acknowledge that there are short-term difficulties. We have never denied that—the dollar and the metals price are critical issues. But, most significantly, what they say is, 'We may have been able to ride through these issues; but then there are fundamental long-term issues around viability, all relating to electricity prices.' These are the elements: the carbon tax is first and foremost an electricity tax; it is also a tax on additional emissions where they occur outside of the electricity cost process.
The government has tried to say, 'It is only a minor impost on the aluminium sector.' That is false, because these businesses have to plan for the capital costs and the return on capital over a period of decades, and a carbon tax, as the Aluminium Council has indicated, will quadruple its impact on the aluminium sector over a decade. This is not some minor erosion or decay of permits or some incremental increase in price; it is the combination of those two factors, which, as the aluminium sector's own work shows, will result in a quadrupling of the burden on that sector.
There are only six aluminium plants in Australia. We have Boyne Smelters in Queensland; we have Kurri Kurri, which, as of today, is gone; we have Tomago, which shed jobs in the Hunter earlier this year; we have Point Henry in Victoria, which is under review; we have Portland in Victoria; and we have Bell Bay. What we see is this: there is a difficult international environment, and the worst possible thing you could do is impose a unilateral hit on the competitiveness of that sector in Australia. There are real pressures on each of these six plants. What the aluminium association warned me of earlier this year is a fear that three of them could have announced a pathway to retirement and closure by the end of this year in the light of the carbon tax. The warnings were expressed and the government was notified. Then, when that of which it was notified, that of which it was warned, came to pass it denied the causation. It denied the link.
This day we begin to see the real and profound impact of the central measure of the budget. The government tried to present this as some redistributive budget. The central measure of the budget was the carbon tax. The single biggest change between last year's budget and this year's was the $36 billion of revenue included in the forward estimates from the carbon tax. That is an enormous burden on Australian industry and Australian families. It is an enormous burden on Australian councils.
That brings me to the second great deception we have witnessed today. We have seen this view that councils will not have to pay. Yesterday the then Acting Prime Minister said councils will not have to pay the carbon tax next year on their landfill. Let me go to something which was received by 104 councils. This letter was sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the Gold Coast City Council. It is a letter from the regulatory implementation branch of the Clean Energy Regulator, dated 17 May, 2012:
I am writing to you as we have identified your council as possibly operating a significant landfill which potentially could mean that you will be liable under the Clean Energy Act 2011. You may also operate other facilities such as water treatment plants that could mean you are a liable entity. If you consider that you will be a liable entity please advise us in writing by 31 May 2012.
It then went on:
Under section 184 of the Clean Energy Act, where the Clean Energy Regulator has reasonable grounds to believe that a legal person, including trusts, local governing bodies, corporations sole and bodies corporate is or is likely to be a liable entity for the 2012-13 financial year that entity will be recorded in the liable entities public information database.
What does it mean? It means that councils are about to be hit. The government's pretence that these councils are not about to be hit is that they will not have to pay anything immediately.
But councils have to start collecting with higher landfill fees immediately. That is why a senior official from the City of Manningham publicly declared that the city will be raising its landfill fees on the advice of the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury. That is why the City of Wyndham, in the Prime Minister's own electorate of Lalor, has put in place a contingency revenue raising through higher landfill fees of $13.02 million for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2012. That is why 104 councils around Australia have just received 'please show' letters from the Clean Energy Regulator to say whether they will or will not be in for the coming year. These councils will have a liability for all waste contributed after 1 July 2012 if they fall within the system—and the vast majority of them will. And that liability could be for up to 40 years. They must start collecting now, otherwise they will never be able to recover the costs because they will never know who will have deposited that waste. That is why, around Australia, 104 councils are now trying to determine two things: what will their actual waste, landfill and gas liability be—
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
Mr HUNT: Actually that is completely false. I want to put on the record that the member for Throsby has said that most councils will have a zero liability for their waste landfill gas when 104 councils have just received show-cause notices from the Clean Energy Regulator as to why they should not be included on the list of liable entities, and it is absolutely certain that they will all have obligations if they are included on that list.
What we see here is that the councils are next in line to be hit. Around Australia, in small-town newspapers, these stories are being recorded, that a government which had indicated this was about the top 500 polluters has deceived them. People are discovering that their waste-tip fees are going up as of 1 July this year. The biggest problem for councils is to understand what their liability is. With five weeks to go, they still do not know for certain whether they are on the list and they still do not know for certain how much they will pay.
That is the essence of this carbon-tax budget. We see the impact on workers and we see the impact on families. Electricity is the third great limb. It will go up on the government's estimates by 10 per cent and on the Electricity Supply Association estimates by 20 per cent. The great deception in what the government is saying is the pretence that the first bill is the only rise. The Electricity Supply Association is expecting a second 10 per cent rise in early 2014 when, under the government's own system, companies are going to have to buy forward permits to hedge their prices. That is what the Electricity Supply Association estimate. They were right about part 1 and they will be right about part 2, so we are talking about a 20 per cent price rise. We have already seen one firm talking about a 25 per cent price rise.
Those are the elements of the budget, the carbon-tax budget, and its central features. Jobs for working Australians; council tip fees as an example of the deception for 104 councils trying to deal with the letter that is a week old which warns them that suddenly they will be hit with this liability on 1 July. Then there is the cost of living for families through electricity price rises of up to 20 per cent in two main stages.
Then we go to other failures that have been identified in this legislation. I want to single out two of these failures. Firstly, the solar hot water industry was deceived out of $44.7 million. On 21 March 2012, just after the government had cancelled the solar hot water rebate, the Parliamentary Secretary for Energy Efficiency wrote to the Greens that the government never intended to make any savings from the closure of this program. What we found once this year's budget papers came out, of course, is that and there was a saving of $44.7 million. That money was taken directly from the industry in direct contravention of a public pledge. It is an example of what the government said would never happen.
The second is that the Home Insulation Program, the most disastrous of all programs, has costs which amount to almost $2 billion. We had a cost blow-out last year of $59 million compared with what was pledged a year ago was the cost of fixing the roofs. This government cannot fix the roofs, cannot be trusted on solar and its members are the last people you would want to put in charge of an economy. (Time expired)
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (18:59): I commend the words of the shadow minister for the environment, who highlighted the challenges faced by many councils. Later in my speech I will particularly highlight the challenge facing the Blue Mountains City Council, who have estimated that the cost through to 2034 will be up to $11 million.
Today I rise to speak about the federal Labor government's appropriation bills. This budget confirms the incompetence of the Gillard government, a government that has established a reputation for broken promises. Despite Julia Gillard saying five days before the last election, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' budget 2012 is Australia's first carbon tax budget—the first of many broken promises from this government.
This government have removed themselves so far from the local community, from everyday Australians, that they have lost all understanding of the genuine concerns of hardworking Australian families and businesses. Quite simply, this government have lost their way. There is no clearer example of this than the government's rationale that a family who earns a combined income of $150,000 per year is wealthy. When was the last time the Treasurer spoke to one of these families? If he had done so recently, he would know that these families are struggling to meet the rising costs of living. A combined income of $150,000 means a police officer and nurse raising their young children, a teacher and truck driver, possibly supporting their children at university while struggling to pay their mortgage. These people are not rich. They are working hard to pay their bills with the hope of getting ahead.
If the federal Labor government were in touch with the Australian community, they would understand that these families are struggling with the rising costs of living. Since Labor took office in 2007, electricity prices have increased by 66 per cent. Gas prices have increased by 39 per cent. Health costs have gone up 25 per cent. The price of education has increased by 31 per cent. And now we are staring down the barrel of the world's largest price on carbon—a tax that will hit families, jobs and businesses at the toughest time. Why won't Labor give Australian families, Australian children, Australian single parents and seniors a break? Why does the government want to put unnecessary pressure on hardworking people?
This comes after years of broken promises—the carbon tax, the company tax, the promise to increase defence spending by three per cent. The list goes on and on and the Australian people are quite simply fed up. We are fed up with the broken promises and the government's failure to deliver on its policy promises and its budget projections. Because of this government's record, the Australian community do not trust the Treasurer's ability to deliver a surplus of $1.5 billion. And why should they? The record speaks for itself. In 18 months its estimated deficit for 2011-12 blew out from the Treasurer's projected $12 billion to $44 billion, and it may blow out even further. The year is not over.
Why should we expect this budget to be any different? If further proof is needed, one only needs to look at Appropriation Bill (No. 2), part 5. If the federal Labor government really believed it could deliver a surplus, why is it moving to increase the Commonwealth debt limit from $250 billion to $300 billion? It is an extra $50 billion—for what? How will it be spent? Is this going to be spent leading up to an election? Australians are right to be concerned about handing Wayne Swan yet another increase in our nation's credit card limit. If the Treasurer and the federal Labor government have no faith in their ability to achieve and manage this supposed surplus, why should the Australian people?
Speaking of increasing the Commonwealth debt limit, why did the Treasurer bury this proposal in Appropriation Bill (No. 2)? To avoid proper scrutiny and a specific vote on the debt limit? It could only be because the Treasurer and the government are embarrassed that government debt levels are at absolutely unprecedented levels. This year the government interest payments on Labor's debt alone are set to reach an alarming $8 billion over the next financial year—$8 billion. What a waste. This money would be better spent on providing better services throughout our local community, protecting our borders, supporting defence programs, providing additional funding to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and maintaining and protecting the Australian lifestyle.
In addition to the waste, this year's budget demonstrates no plan to build a stronger economy, repay debt or create secure jobs. I am genuinely concerned about the impact that this budget and the carbon tax will have on Australians, specifically the impact on the people I represent within the electorate of Macquarie, who work, live and endeavour to build a future. I was at Blaxland Explorers Day only recently, and throughout the day people came up to me where I was working to express their concerns about this budget and this unnecessary carbon tax. Seniors, young families, young couples and single parents are all concerned about the rising cost of living and the lack of support and services provided to local communities by this budget. What is clear is that the Treasurer believes that the government can compensate for the larger cost and impact of this budget and the carbon tax that is set to hit families, small businesses and every aspect of the Australian economy. No-one will be spared, especially not by the token handouts provided by the government to compensate for a dramatic increase in the cost of living.
One such token gesture is the $657,000 within the budget allocated to Blue Mountains City Council to maintain and upgrade local roads. While this may seem like a large sum of money and a boost to the local council, it is not sufficient. I recall in 2007 when a local road, Racecourse Road in Clarendon, was resurfaced. This road is 3½ kilometres long. The resurfacing of this road cost more than $700,000. That was $700,000 to repair 3.4 kilometres. There is more than 717 kilometres of road managed by the Blue Mountains City Council. It is fair to say that the $657,000 in this budget allocated to the Blue Mountains City Council for the repair of local roads will not go very far.
In addition to this, Blue Mountains City Council and Hawkesbury City Council are both set to be hit by the carbon tax, with little compensation from the Treasurer's budget. A report in April to a Blue Mountains City Council meeting stated that the council was liable for emissions generated from its operational landfill at Blaxland under clean energy legislation passed by the Senate in November last year. A review commissioned by the council predicted the Blaxland facility would exceed 25,000 tonnes per year in 2013 to 2014 based on current landfill patterns and would remain above the threshold until 2033-34. According to the report the 'absolute minimum liability' for emissions in 2014 was predicted to be $307,434, rising to $390,284 in 2014 and to a projected $11.3 million by 2034.
Julia Gillard's carbon tax will mean these local councils have to lift their own fees and charges, raise their council rates, cut services or some combination of these hits, all of which will mean more pain for Australians at the local level. Where is the compensation for local city councils within this budget now that they have to accommodate these price hikes as a direct result of the carbon tax? This means councils will have less money to allocate to vital local services such as libraries, parks, youth services, the arts and cultural initiatives. These make up such an important part of our communities and it is a disaster for local councils that they will have to make these sacrifices to pay this tax.
The first priority of a coalition government would be to abolish this carbon tax and reduce the cost-of-living pressures which are soaring under Labor. Along with the concerns that I have regarding the rising costs of living I am also troubled by the government's ability to stimulate tourism. The tourism industry is an important part of the local and regional economy for both Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains. Tourism's contribution to Australia's gross domestic product was $73.3 billion or a 5.2 per cent share of the Australian community. In Australia, tourism directly and indirectly employs 907,100 persons, representing 7.9 per cent of total Australian employment—and this is shrinking. Although the sector is already stressed, this budget delivered by the Treasurer reduces the tourism budget by 6.2 per cent or $8 million. Not only has the Labor government cut funding to the sector but it has failed to provide adequate carbon tax compensation for the tourism sector . As a result, according to the Tourism and Transport Forum submission on the carbon tax, the tourism industry stands to lose 6,400 jobs and a cut of 10 per cent from industry profits. What is the government's plan to secure the jobs of those in the tourism industry? Does the government have a plan to stimulate tourism growth, particularly for those regions like the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury where tourism operators are keen to see growth in their sector?
Another important component of the economies of both the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury regions is the contribution made by our wonderful small business owners: 4,515 across the electorate. Under the 2012-13 budget, the Labor government provide no compensation to small businesses for the carbon tax. Small business people who put their houses on the line to create jobs deserve support from government, not broken promises. The coalition government would give small business operators more time to focus on growing their business by cutting red tape and reducing their regulatory burden by at least $1 billion per year. The coalition will also support small businesses by simplifying the administration of compulsory employee superannuation contributions by allowing small businesses to remit their contribution in one payment directly to the ATO with the PAYG payments. The coalition have always supported small business owners in the Australia. We believe they are a vital part of our economy.
The desperate attempt by the Gillard Labor government to bring the budget to surplus also comes at a heavy price for the Australian Defence Force. The government has cut $5.5 billion from the 2012-13 budget, making a total of $17 billion over the last three years. I would like to know why the Gillard government has broken the commitment it made to increase defence spending by three per cent until 2017-18 that was set out in the 2009 defence white paper. As a result of this broken promise and the budgetary cuts, defence spending will be at its lowest level since 1938 as a percentage of GDP.
The federal Labor government needs to explain what impact these budget cuts will have on Australia's ability to respond to disasters or emergencies in the nation and the border regions. It clearly demonstrates that Australia's borders are more vulnerable than ever under this Gillard government and its 2012-13 budget. Paul Howes, National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, confirmed that as a result of these spending cuts the federal government has jeopardised the jobs of 250 aircraft specialist workers at RAAF Base Richmond. This will have a significant impact on the people of Macquarie and particularly the Hawkesbury as Richmond RAAF is a vital source of employment. Labor says that this budget is about creating jobs and economic growth, but the budgetary impact is that a projected 250 specialist aviation maintenance jobs are potentially under threat when the C130H Hercules aircraft are retired. What will happen to that local expertise? What will happen to those 250 workers and their families? The Minister for Defence needs to explain. How does the government justify the loss of these jobs and the impact that this will have on the Hawkesbury community?
This government claims to be for Australian workers. It claims to be creating Australian jobs, but again its record shows otherwise. In last year's budget the federal government promised 500,000 new jobs over two years and now expects to miss its target by 300,000 jobs. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is forecast to increase to five per cent, while the government is cutting $200 million out of jobs service programs.
The coalition would invest over $2 billion to support Australians. This would include, for example, in the area of mental health, an additional 60 Headspace sites. The coalition is committed to working with the states to improve health care and provide added funding towards these fundamental services. The coalition government would ensure access to affordable, world-class health care for all Australians when they need it most by protecting Australia's public health benefits and restoring the private health insurance rebate. Unlike the current federal Labor government, the coalition is committed to bringing hope, reward and opportunity back to all Australians. This budget and the incompetent government is slowly stripping the nation of these vital qualities. It is time we put a stop to it.
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (19:14): I speak today in support of the appropriation bills that underpin the Gillard Labor government's return to surplus budget. At the outset I want to congratulate the Treasurer, his staff and his department for the extremely significant, and yet still underrated, achievement of delivering a surplus so soon after the global economic wreckage that began in 2008 and of putting Australia on a path to surplus budgets in the years to come, while continuing this government's steadfast pursuit of necessary and innovative reform, especially with regard to the introduction of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. It is right to focus on the return to surplus as the key characteristic of this budget and to recognise the difficult decisions that have been made in order to get us to this position when there has been such a large contraction in the revenue side of the equation. Through these appropriation bills we take a number of further critical steps in improving the provision of public goods and the foundation of economic fairness of this country.
I will speak in more detail of these steps in due course but first I will consider the quite remarkable core details of Australia's macroeconomic position. The OECD has confirmed overnight that Australia has the best-performing economy in the developed world, with stable economic growth of around three per cent this year and projected to be closer to four per cent next year, at a time when the majority of the world's major economies have suffered, and are continuing to suffer, recession. Unemployment in Australia remains around five per cent—in historically low territory—as a direct result of this government's actions to protect the Australian economy during the GFC.
We have created more than 800,000 jobs since taking office and we have done that while returning Australia to a fair system of workplace regulation. I recall that when the Labor government got rid of Work Choices we did so in the face of a scaremongering campaign conducted by the coalition and supported by many in the business community and some in the press, who said that the abolition of Work Choices would cost jobs. That was plainly wrong. It is one of the government's great achievements that we have restored a fair and sensible framework of workplace regulation and at the same time grown the Australian workforce and the opportunities for Australians to have the benefit of fair and safe work.
Inflation in this country is stable and low, not least as a result of this government's fiscal discipline, with our peak net debt one-tenth of that of comparable economies. Interest rates are also at historically low levels and certainly are lower than at any point under the Howard government. As the Treasurer has pointed out, Australia now has a AAA credit rating from all three major ratings agencies for the first time in our history. That is not surprising when we consider the basic statistics I have outlined: steady growth at three per cent, unemployment at five per cent, inflation under three per cent and the RBA cash rate at 3.75 per cent.
The significance of these economic achievements, which speak clearly to the quality and consistency of this government's economic management over the last 4½ turbulent years, is felt right across the country, especially with respect to employment but also in the form of low, stable interest rates and inflation. What is more, the fundamental strength of the Australian economy is not just an end in itself—at least not for a Labor government—because we recognise that a strong economy ought to be the foundation of positive reform. We are seized by the fact that there is always work to be done in improving the public goods we share like health, education, environment and of course in preparing ourselves properly for the future. In that way this budget, our fifth budget in government, continues to add steadily to the changes we have introduced and funded for the long-term benefit of all Australians.
It builds on the investment we have made in schools and trade training centres, like the Maritime Trades Training Centre at South Fremantle High School, and by offering nearly $1 billion to the WA government for reforms under the auspices of the National Workforce Development Fund, one object of which is the creation of a HECS-style system of loans to support TAFE students. In terms of university education we are making an investment of $38.8 million over the next four years, with the cap on university places, with a particular emphasis on raising the participation of lower-SES students. On that point, it is worth noting that since 2009 our setting of targets to improve the participation of students whose economic circumstances create an inequality of opportunity has resulted in a 49.3 per cent increase in the number of offers to lower-SES students to attend Curtin University, a 9.7 per cent increase at Murdoch and an 11.2 per cent increase at the University of Western Australia. That is an emphatic improvement and it is resulting in better and fairer opportunities for young Western Australians, a number of whom, like myself many years ago, will come from outside the Perth metro area for their chance of a university education.
In this coming financial year we will see the introduction of the mining tax and the staged introduction of compulsory superannuation towards a super guarantee of 12 per cent by 2020, with the twin benefits for the individual and for Australia as a whole of much higher personal savings in retirement for millions of Australians. In this coming year we will also see a tripling of the tax-free threshold and reform of the tax treatment of superannuation that is fairer at both ends of the scale. It is fairer by virtue of the fact that it ensures some 3.6 million low-income Australians will effectively pay no tax on their super guarantee contributions and it is fairer at the other end of the scale by ensuring that the top one per cent of income earners receive a smaller tax concession—one that is more in line with the concession that most wage earners receive. In considering how a government is able to make savings and fund new commitments at the same time, it is clear that the difficult work tends to be in removing payments, subsidies or revenue concessions that are not equitable or effective. This government has been prepared to grasp that nettle and we have done so in a climate of unrelenting negativity—and we have been prepared to take the political consequences. We have done so in being prepared to make changes to the private health insurance rebate, we have done so when it comes to better means-testing of family support payments and we have done so in the area of tax concessions on superannuation. When we took government, something like $17 billion of the $21 billion in annual tax concessions on super was going to the top 5 per cent of all income earners. That was not a sound policy outcome by any measure.
It is by making these eminently fair and prudent reforms, however difficult they might be politically, that this government has been in a position to run the strongest economy in the OECD and embark on one of the steadiest, most far-sighted reform programs in Australia's history. That is why this budget is able to build on one of our previous substantial reforms, matched funding in the area of health, by beginning to tackle one of the great blind spots in our public health framework—namely, the public funding of dental healthcare. This budget provides $515 million to address urgent dental care needs. It does so, firstly, through a $346 million blitz to tackle the long waiting lists for public dental services; secondly, through $78 million to support the relocation of dentists to rural, regional, and remote areas, the three Rs of geographic health inequality in Australia; and, thirdly, through an $81 million boost to training for graduate dentists and therapists. I congratulate the Minister for Health, who referred to dental health in her first speech as health minister. We are already starting to see that commitment turned into reality.
I am also incredibly pleased to see the extension of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, with $49.3 million allocated to include screening for people turning 60 years of age in 2013 and those turning 70 years of age in 2015. This has the potential to make screening freely available to around 12 per of the people in my electorate over the next few years. It is yet another important preventative health measure from a government that has made preventative health one of its key focuses. I thank the Cancer Council of Australia for its strong campaign on this important issue.
Above all else, I am absolutely delighted that in this budget a Labor government is providing $1 billion over four years to fund the first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in order to cover 10,000 people from 2013-14 and 20,000 people from 2014-15. Yet again, when it comes to the NDIS, this government shows its commitment to good policy process and to following through on that process with real reform and real funding. In 2011 we tasked the Productivity Commission with the job of considering the best way to provide better and fairer support for Australians with disability. Through that process it was brought home to all of us in government and to the wider community that people with disability face circumstances that vary wildly depending on which part of Australia they live in and on the cause of their disability, and that the funding and mechanisms currently in place to ensure a basic quality of life are at best patchy and are in some cases abominably inadequate. This is a long-awaited and long-overdue first step—and it is only a first step—but, as the representative of a community that is strongly engaged on the need to do much better in caring for people with disability and enabling them to live their lives as fully as everyone else and to lighten the sometimes unbearable weight that our current system places on carers and families, I can say that the arrival of the NDIS is hugely welcome.
While of course I understand the effort and discipline required to make real reductions in government expenditure for the sake of returning the budget to surplus, that does not mean that I agree with all the measures through which this has been achieved. Like others, I have my own view on where savings should be made and my own sense of those programs and priorities that should not have been asked to provide reductions. I am glad that Australia's contributions in the areas of foreign aid and humanitarian assistance will increase by $300 million in 2012-13 and that we remain committed to reaching a level of contribution of 0.5 per cent of GNI. But I do not believe we should have delayed our progress towards reaching that level of foreign aid. Australia is in a very strong economic position and I do not see the justification for lessening, or slowing the rate of growth in our contribution to relieving the hardship and suffering of those of our fellow human beings who live not in relative poverty, like many in Australia, but in absolute poverty—those for whom rising electricity and fuel prices do not matter because they have no houses or appliances or cars. They are struggling just to find food and water to survive each day. To borrow the words of UK Prime Minister David Cameron, 'We cannot balance the budget on the backs of the world's poor.' As a representative from Western Australia, I want to conclude by addressing what seems to have become an entrenched myth about the role and place that my home state has within the federation. It is a myth that runs in a couple of different directions—and it is a myth that to a large extent is being perpetrated by a very small number of self-interested state politicians and mining magnates. The first aspect of the myth is the idea that Western Australia's resource sector is running so strongly that everyone in WA is basking in the economic glow. This is just wrong—and it comes as a shock to some people when they learn that the resources sector is only responsible for employing something like four percent of the Western Australian workforce. Yes, there are indirect benefits of the resources industry—but there are matching indirect costs, including the cost of housing and other goods and services. This means that those not directly or indirectly involved are actually living in a higher-cost environment, and this is particularly difficult for those on low and fixed incomes.
The second aspect of the myth is the idea perpetrated up hill and down dale by the WA government, and by the WA coalition representatives in this place, that Western Australia is somehow being short-changed by the Commonwealth. That is absolute rubbish, and it is rubbish based entirely on a very narrow, selective, distorted and hypocritical view of the GST arrangements—which of course were put in place by the Howard government. Can I say how glad I was to read a fine piece of analysis in the West Australian on Monday pointing out that the expected reduction in direct government-to-government payments from the Commonwealth to WA over the next four years is $700 million, whereas the increase in mining royalties is double that, at $1.4 billion dollars in the next two years alone. As Shane Wright, the economics editor of the West Australian rightly points out:
While certainly more GST would make their job easier, life isn't too bad when you're billions of dollars in front of where you thought you'd be just a couple of years ago.
People who live in WA—including the coalition members in this place—should perhaps ask how it is that the WA government can only manage the barest real surplus of $26 million dollars in 2012-13 when its annual revenue has jumped $4.8 billion from last year? The fact is that the Barnett government continues to blame the federal government for its own failure to provide good economic management in Western Australia.
While this federal government has delivered an unprecedented and transformative capital investment in schools right across WA, and a mining tax that will return a fair share of WA's resource development to Western Australians in the form of increased superannuation and new infrastructure, the Barnett government has presided over a 60 per cent explosion in electricity costs and the occasional colour picture of a poorly conceived waterfront development.
The reality is that this federal Labor government has nearly doubled annual infrastructure spending in WA from $154 to $261 per Western Australian; it has provided the largest increase in payments for WA pensioners in Australia's history, with the addition of a higher-paying method of indexation for those pensions; and it has made a greater investment in public transport and road projects and school buildings in WA than any previous federal government. These transport projects include the Perth Link rail project and the widening of the Kwinana Freeway between the Leach and Roe highways, and of course the lion's share of the Gateway WA project, involving a major upgrade of the roads around Perth Airport.
I am a proud and passionate Western Australian, and as such I am strongly conscious of the fact that there has been throughout Australia's history a gravitational pull that has centred on Canberra and the larger eastern states, with the effect that those of us who represent WA and South Australia, and who represent Queensland and Tasmania and the Northern Territory, need to keep our voices loud and clear about what goes on outside the Canberra-Sydney-Melbourne triangle. It is precisely because I hold this perspective that I find the self-interested and baseless parochialism of some politicians and some businesspeople so disappointing. I have fought and will continue to fight for my constituents in Fremantle, and for my state, but I will always do so as a thoughtful and responsible member of the Australian parliament—and with a fundamental sense of belonging to this nation as a whole; a nation whose collective long-term interests we all share and from which we all benefit.
This budget sits well in the sequence of economic blueprints that the Labor government have designed and implemented and that we will continue to implement in the provision of stable economic management, which in turn allows us to deliver on our ethos of a fairer and more forward-looking Australia.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:29.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Disability Reform, Housing and Homelessness: Credit Card Breaches
(Question Nos 915, 916, 921 and 922)
Mr Briggs asked the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Minister for Disability Reform, and the Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, 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.
Ms Macklin: The Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness and I provide the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) to (c)(i) The number of times the use of corporate credit cards breached departmental guidelines in the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 is set out in the following table:
Financial Year |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Number of Breaches |
79 |
72 |
64 |
(ii) The total dollar value of the breaches and repayment amounts for the years 2008–09, 2009-10 and 2010–11 is set out in the following table:
Financial Year |
2008-09 |
2009-10 |
2010-11 |
Dollar value of breaches |
$8225.40 |
$4542.42 |
$4399.80 |
Amount repaid |
$8225.40 |
$4542.42 |
$4399.80 |
Amount not recovered |
NIL |
NIL |
NIL |
(iii) Most credit card breaches of departmental guidelines occur by mistake and are generally fixed by the card holder as soon as the mistake is realised. In all instances of breaches of the departmental guidelines, the offending officers were reminded of their obligations when using a corporate credit card. In addition, every instance of misuse of corporate credit card is reviewed and, where doubts exist, referred for further investigation.
Such investigations resulted in the preparation of one brief for prosecution in 2009-10. Such action was not necessary in the other years.