The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (09:01): I move:
That standing orders 1, 34 (figure 2), 43, and 192 (figure 4) be amended to read as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times (amendments to existing subject, as follows)
90 second statements In the House—whole period on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays In the Federation Chamber—whole period on Mondays Each Member (but not a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary) (standing order 43) |
30 mins 45 mins 90 seconds
|
Figure 2. House order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
9.00 am |
|
9.00 am |
|
10.00 am |
Petitions (to 10.10 am)
Committee & delegation
Divisions and quorums
deferred
|
|
Acknowledgement
Prayers |
|
|
|
|
12 noon |
Government
|
12 noon |
Government Business
|
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
|
|
|
Divisions and quorums between 12 and 2 pm deferred until after MPI |
|
|
|
|
1.30 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.30 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.30 pm |
90 sec statements |
1.30 pm |
90 sec statements |
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
2.00 pm |
Question
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||||
approx. 3.10 pm |
Ministerial
|
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
approx. 3.10 pm |
MPI, Ministerial statements |
|
|||||||
|
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
|
approx 4.10 pm |
Government Business |
4.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
||||||
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
|
Government
|
||
|
|
|
5.00 pm |
|
|||
6.30 pm |
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm |
6.30 pm
|
Divisions and quorums deferred 6.30–8 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
9.00 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 pm |
|
9.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
43 Members ' statements
(a) In the House at 1.30 pm on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the Speaker shall interrupt business and call on statements by Members. The period allowed for these statements may extend until 2 pm.
(b) In the Federation Chamber at 4 pm on Mondays, the Deputy Speaker shall interrupt business and call on statements by Members. The period allowed for these statements may extend until 4.45 pm.
(c) During these periods, when called on by the Chair, a Member, but not a Minister (or Parliamentary Secretary*), may make a statement for no longer than 90 seconds.
*Including Assistant Ministers who are Parliamentary Secretaries
Figure 4. Federation Chamber order of business
|
MONDAY |
|
TUESDAY |
|
WEDNESDAY |
|
THURSDAY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
9.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
|
10.00 am |
|
10.00 am |
|
10.30 am |
3 min constituency statements |
|
|
|
Government Business and/or |
|
Government Business and/or |
11.00 am |
Committee & delegation business and private Members' business |
|
|
|
Committee & delegation business |
|
Committee & delegation business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.30 pm |
Adjournment
|
|
|
|
|
1.00 pm |
|
1.00 pm |
|
1.30 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.00 pm |
90 sec statements |
4.00 pm |
If required |
4.00 pm |
If required |
|
|
4.45 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.00 pm |
|
|
|
8.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.00 pm |
|
9.00 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
The meeting times of the Federation Chamber are fixed by the Deputy Speaker and are subject to change. Times shown for the start and finish of items of business are approximate.
Adjournment debates can occur on days other than Thursdays by agreement between the Whips.
Members will, I think, be very pleased with this change to the standing orders. They would be very familiar with the fact that the provision for 90-second statements has been limited to a quarter of an hour on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at 1.45 pm to 2 pm. It is part of the day's proceedings which is very popular with backbenchers, particularly, to raise local constituency issues and matters that would not otherwise fit into the ordinary debate on legislation and so on. So the government has determined, and has negotiated with the opposition in good faith, that we will extend that debate to Tuesdays, and on all four days of sittings it will be 30 minutes, from 1.30 pm to 2 pm each day.
I would like to particularly note that the Tasmanian Liberal members, the members for Braddon, Lyons and Bass, and the member for Hughes and even the member for Maranoa—who is still, after 20-something years here, coming up with new and innovative ideas, which is a good thing—have all been lobbying me over the last few months about extending the 90-second debate. The government is moving to do that. That will begin today. We are also extending it into the Federation Chamber—a whole 45 minutes on Mondays in the Federation Chamber. This will allow 80 statements a week to be made by members in the House and 30 in the Federation Chamber. I think it will be very popular, and I look forward to the contributions of my colleagues over the coming months.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (09:03): Some alarm has gone around for some people who had not read the Notice Paper in full, given that there are two proposed amendments on the Notice Paper from the Leader of the House. I should assure my colleagues that, of the two notices that the Leader of the House has on the Notice Paper, the one that he has now moved is not the atrocity. What has been described as the nuclear option is not the one that has been chosen today.
The Leader of the House is correct in saying that there has been some consultation in advance of this being put to the House. The opposition also welcomes the fact that the government, in choosing to take a full hour off government business, has decided that there is enough time for government business and therefore, I presume, will not be further using the gag on any of the legislation to come forward. We are happy to support this change.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:04): I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to parliament: Integrated fit-out of new leased premises for the Australian Taxation Office at the site known as Site 5 and 6, the Revitalising Central Dandenong project, Dandenong, Victoria.
I referred this project to the Public Works Committee on 10 December 2013. The project was originally referred to the committee in May 2013, but the referral lapsed when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued.
The Australian Taxation Office has a substantial presence in the Dandenong region and is currently located in the building at 14 to 16 Mason Street, Dandenong, which has a lease in place which expires on 31 December 2015. It is expected that the relocation into a new building will provide the ATO with considerable advantages in terms of building design, operational performance and operating cost efficiencies and long-term viability through improvements in building infrastructure. The ATO is committed to maintaining a long-term presence in Dandenong, and the project has the support of the Greater Dandenong City Council. The estimated cost of the proposal is $21.3 million plus GST and includes all costs associated with an integrated fit-out as well as furniture, work stations and builders' costs.
The Public Works Committee provided its report on the project to the House and to the Senate earlier this week. In its report, the Public Works Committee concluded that the project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and that the new accommodation will be fit for purpose. The committee has therefore recommended that the works proceed and recommended that the House resolve that it is expedient to carry out the proposed works.
As I indicated when referring the project to the committee, subject to parliamentary approval the proposed works are scheduled to start in August 2014 and to be completed by 1 October 2015. The developer will commence base building work on site in March 2014, with earthworks and excavation for the basement areas being the first tasks.
On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee, under the leadership of its chair, Mrs Karen Andrews, the member for McPherson, for considering this project in such a timely manner and for its support. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill, explanatory memorandum and—by leave—presented by Mr Joyce.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (09:07): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australia's dairy farmers lead the world in producing efficient, sustainable, and quality produce to meet domestic and international demand. In the 2012-13 financial year, the Australian dairy industry produced 9.2 billion litres of milk for domestic use. The dairy industry overall represents a $13 billion farm, manufacturing and export industry, with export earnings in 2012-13 of $2.76 billion. Maintaining the health of Australia's dairy herd is vital to the industry and the nation.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 provides for the collection of levies that are used to fund initiatives that will increase productivity and sustainability of industry. Primary industries levies enable relevant industries to pool effort and resources to effectively manage priority issues. I think it is very important at this juncture that people clearly understand the difference between research and development, which levies are part of, and what would otherwise be known as subsidies. We have seen some reports in the paper that have confused the two issues. It is extremely important that, if Australia is to grow what is a vital pillar of its economy, we be at the forefront of the technology and the academic effort to make sure that our produce leads the world in not only volume but also quality. These initiatives include research and development, marketing and promotion and plant and animal health programs.
The levy system enables industries to remain highly competitive in world markets. The Australian Animal Health Council levy on dairy produce under the act was introduced to provide funding for animal health programs carried out by Animal Health Australia. The funding also provides for the dairy industry's annual membership rates to Animal Health Australia. For the dairy industry, the levy is payable by producers who deliver or supply dairy produce for the manufacturing of dairy produce, such as whole milk or whole milk products.
The amount paid by producers is based on the milk fat and protein content.
Australian Dairy Farmers Limited, the industry's national representative body, has requested the preparation and introduction of this bill into parliament. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 will enable the dairy industry to continue to meet its obligations in relation to its Animal Health Australia annual membership and other animal health and welfare initiatives. Australian Dairy Farmers Limited is also party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. This bill will allow the dairy industry to meet its obligations as a signatory to this agreement.
The Bill amends the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999by increasing the maximum rate of the Australian Animal Health Council levies on dairy produce. The maximum rates will increase from 0.058 to 0.145 of a cent per kilogram of milk fat and from 0.13850 to 0.34625 of a cent per kilogram of milk protein. The increases to the milk fat and protein levy maximum rates will enable application for future increases to the operative levies provided for under the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999, if required. The current operative rates, which were set in 1999, are at the maximum level allowable under the act.
While the proposed maximum rate increase is significant, the bill will not increase the actual levy paid by industry members. It should be noted that any increase to the operative rate requires a case to be put by industry to government, demonstrating widespread industry consultation and strong support as set out in the Australian government's levy principles and guidelines.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 is important to ensure Australian dairy farmers are able to be partners in the biosecurity system and maintain the health of Australia's dairy herd.
We have seen a large increase in interest in dairy production throughout the world. We only have to look across the Tasman to see how successful our good neighbours in New Zealand have been in the dairy industry. We know that there is a massive capacity for an increase in demand by our South-East Asian neighbours and Australia has to be ready to provide for that.
In the September quarter, New Zealand's GDP increased by 1.4 per cent, and this was predominantly driven by their agricultural output, which is driven and underwritten by dairy produce. We have a great capacity to do it and we have seen in the recent intense interest, especially by Canadian interests such as Saputo into Warrnambool Cheese and Butter, that the world is looking at Australia to see how it can increase its dairying capacity, because it sees a vital market for this. I think this is extremely encouraging for the dairy industry in Australia and extremely encouraging for primary production in Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:15): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, the government introduces the additional estimates appropriations bills. These bills are:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014;
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014; and
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014.
These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions, including pre-election commitments, and decisions made in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 seeks approval for additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just under $11.6 billion.
I now outline four major items sought in the bill.
First, the bill includes funding to enable the Department of the Treasury to make an $8.8 billion one-off grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. The grant will strengthen the Reserve Bank's financial position to the level considered appropriate by the board of the Reserve Bank. This will ensure that the Reserve Bank is adequately resourced to conduct its monetary policy and foreign exchange operations in an environment of financial market volatility.
Second, this bill would provide the Department of Immigration and Border Protection almost $750 million. This includes over $400 million for offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals, and $220 million to address the backlog of illegal maritime arrivals.
Third, this bill would provide the Department of Defence with just over $660 million reflecting four matters. Those are the increased funding for Defence's overseas operations, supplementation for foreign exchange movements, expenditure brought forward into 2013-14 from the forward estimates, and the re-appropriation between appropriation acts of amounts to better align with Defence's current work programs.
Fourth, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would receive almost $335 million. The majority of this amount is to administer official development assistance programs under the former AusAID, the functions of which were moved to the department on 1 November 2013.
On more general matters, this bill reflects the current names of government departments, consistent with the Administrative Arrangements Order of 18 September 2013. For example, the bill proposes appropriations for the Department of Industry, instead of the former Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, which I introduced earlier, and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014, are the additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year.
This bill seeks further approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $3.2 billion.
I now outline the major items provided for in this bill.
First, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would receive just under $2.2 billion once this bill commences as an act. This is primarily to administer official development assistance programs which moved to the department from AusAID, which was abolished on 1 November 2013.
Second, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection would be provided with almost $400 million for offshore asylum seeker management, including $180 million in capital funding announced in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. This implements the government's policy commitment to process illegal maritime arrivals offshore.
Third, this bill would provide the Department of Defence with just over $235 million, reflecting three matters. Those are the supplementation for foreign exchange movements, expenditure brought forward into 2013-14 from the forward estimates, and the re-appropriation of amounts between appropriation acts to better align with Defence's current work programs.
Fourth, the bill provides just over $3.3 million for payments to local government for the Liveable Cities Program that is administered by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. Whilst this program has been terminated, these payments represent the final amounts due. As outlined in schedule 1 of the bill, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development is responsible for determining the relevant conditions and payments.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedules to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
First Reading
Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McCormack.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:22): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 is to provide additional funding for the operations of the Department of Parliamentary Services. It is the third and final of the additional estimates appropriation bills being introduced today.
This bill, if passed, would provide the Department of Parliamentary Services with additional funding of $5.4 million to assist in meeting operating expenditure and to maintain the provision of core services to support the operation of parliament. The department's operating expenditure includes responses to recent reviews of its operations, including in relation to the management of capital works and the provision of information, communications and technology services.
Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio additional estimates statements for the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Debate adjourned.
Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (09:23): Let us call this bill for what it is. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 is the latest in a long line of coalition stunts in an attempt to denigrate the record of the previous Labor government. Let me be very clear with the House. The Labor Party is very proud of the performance of Australia during the global financial crisis, and we are not going to allow this government to rewrite Australian history for one moment. We have seen a rather pathetic attempt by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, even in recent weeks, to rewrite history, and to rewrite history not only in Australia but, shamefully for the Prime Minister, to denigrate Australia's economic record in international fora.
Australia's economic record over the last 23 years is one that Australia should be proud of and should celebrate. The fact that we have a record of economic growth unprecedented in our history and unparalleled around the world is something that, if the government had a little bit of grace, they would acknowledge and recognise the efforts of the previous government. But no; this Prime Minister and this Treasurer are far too small to allow that to happen.
We know this bill is a stunt; you can tell by the explanatory memorandum. When the Treasurer brought this bill in, I thought: 'Maybe they're going to save millions of dollars by doing this. Maybe if this is such a big issue, it's a big contribution to the national savings task.' So I turned to the explanatory memorandum of the bill, circulated on the authority of the Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey, Treasurer of Australia, to see what savings are generated by this bill. We are told that the waste is so profligate that they need to control expenditure, that this is an important piece of legislation and it is vital to their efforts to return the budget to surplus, but we find this measure is expected to save $0.25 million on an underlying cash basis over the forward estimates—$250,000 over four years! That is the big effort of this government.
An opposition member: Big bill!
Mr BOWEN: This big bill, this big savings task, is for $250,000 over four years! This is how pathetic and low this government has got—that we are told this bill is so important.
Yesterday we saw the Leader of the House stop a matter of public importance about the loss of jobs in the Northern Territory to bring on the government's legislative program, even though they did not have any legislation. They have no plan, no agenda, no legislation, and the legislation that finally comes on today makes the massive contribution to returning Australia to surplus of $250,000 over the next four years! Compare that to the $20 million we are spending on vouchers for marriage counselling or the $5.5 billion we are spending on the extravagant and unaffordable Paid Parental Leave scheme, and we find this savings task being contributed to by this bill which saves $250,000 over four years.
I mentioned before that we have seen the Prime Minister and the Treasurer attempt to rewrite history. We saw it in Davos in the Prime Minister's embarrassing and pathetic contribution to the Davos forum. He said:
In the decade prior to the Crisis, consistent surpluses and a preference for business helped my country, Australia, to become one of the world’s best-performing economies.
Then, a subsequent government decided that the Crisis had changed the rules and that we should spend our way to prosperity.
Well, yes, there was a crisis, and it did require a change of government policy, and thank goodness the Labor government implemented the change of policy. We also saw the Prime Minister in that speech, as he opened his remarks, refer to the fact that the rest of the world was still struggling to recover from the global financial crisis. But, again, he did not have the good grace to recognise that Australia's performance was superior to the world performance and that we are not dealing with the massive unemployment overhang that the rest of the world is still dealing with.
This is a key point. This is not an esoteric historical argument about what would have happened back in 2008-09. This is an argument about what would still be happening now if the Labor government had not taken the strong and decisive action that it did. Australia would be dealing with the sorts of economic overhang that we are seeing the rest of the world struggle with today. It is not just about 2008-09; it is about the fact that the rest of the world is still dealing with massive unemployment. Yes, Australia got through the global financial crisis with an increase in unemployment, but with an increase in unemployment nowhere near as big as the rest of the world's.
Since the election we have lost 54,000 full-time jobs in Australia, which is more than Australia lost in the entire calendar year of 2009, during the global financial crisis, under the stewardship of the previous Labor government. We managed to save Australian jobs in the most difficult global circumstances since the 1930s, and on this government's watch already we have seen more jobs lost in less than six months than we saw in the entire calendar year of 2009, during the global financial crisis.
There is a problem for the Prime Minister. It did not seem to occur to him that at Davos he was talking to exactly the people who have hailed the Labor government's achievements in the past. It did not occur to him that he was talking to the World Bank, the IMF and other institutions which have said that Australia's efforts and the efforts, very particularly, of the previous Labor government were amongst the world's most effective in dealing with the global financial crisis. In the international arena they know, they saw, the terrible consequences of the global financial crisis—the human consequences, the unemployment consequences around the world—which, by and large, Australia avoided. Australia avoided them for a number of reasons, most particularly the strong and decisive action of the previous Labor government.
An important part of the stimulus was the direct payments to families—and the infrastructure investments, which this government seems intent on denigrating as well, but also the direct payments to families—because it was important to stimulate the economy quickly. And the facts speak for themselves. Australia was one of only three advanced economies out of 34 to avoid recession during the global financial crisis—one of three advanced economies out of 34. Will you hear the Prime Minister and the Treasurer celebrating that fact? No. They hate that fact. They hate the fact that the previous Labor government were competent economic managers who avoided recession. We hear a lot from this government about small business. Small business pays the price of recession. Small business goes out the back door when a recession bites. The previous government intervened to help small business.
I represent Western Sydney, as does my honourable friend the member for Blaxland. We have seen the impacts of global downturns on Australia's vulnerable areas. It is not just Western Sydney but rural and regional areas as well which get devastated when a downturn occurs, and which we intervened to assist. And at the same time as we did this, at the same time as we avoided recession, one of only three out of 34 advanced economies around the world to do so, we maintained Australia's AAA credit rating. But there was more: for the first time in Australia's history, the three major ratings agencies accorded Australia a AAA credit rating, not something that Peter Costello could achieve in all his years as Treasurer. Not once could he achieve that. It was achieved during the time of the honourable member for Lilley as Treasurer—something that this government refuses to acknowledge.
And we joined the club as it became more exclusive. When we came to office, there were many more countries around the world with three AAA credit ratings, and we were not one of them. As the global financial crisis spread around the world, countries lost their credit ratings and the club shrank, but Australia joined it as the club became more exclusive.
During our period of government, Australia's GDP per capita, which is the real measure of prosperity, rose from a ranking of 17th to eighth in the world. We jumped three places to go from being the 15th biggest economy in the world to being the 12th when we handed over office. During the Howard government, whose economic management we hear lauded by those opposite, did Australia jump three places in the world economic rankings? No; it went backwards in the world economic ratings during the Howard years, as the mining boom enveloped Australia and they were managing growth. We had to deal with the most difficult economic circumstances since the 1930s, and we jumped three places in the world economic rankings.
And it is not just about rankings. This makes a difference. This means that our income was higher. We were a richer country compared to the rest of the world, something we are proud of and something this government is too small-minded to acknowledge—too mean-spirited and small-minded to acknowledge for even a second. Let us look at what other people have said about the former Labor government's contribution during the global financial crisis. We saw Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize-winning economist, state:
You were lucky to have, probably, the best designed stimulus package of any of the countries, advanced industrial countries, both in size and in design, timing and how it was spent - and I think it served Australia well …
Mr Robert interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: The honourable member opposite denigrates Professor Stiglitz. He denigrates Professor Stiglitz. He's only got a Nobel prize in economics—I mean, what would he know! What is your Nobel prize in? What did you get the Nobel prize for? No, I do not recall your Nobel prize. 'Professor Stiglitz, what would he know?' the honourable member for Fadden says over there. I will take a Nobel prize winner in economics over the old honourable member for Fadden there any day. Professor Stiglitz said:
During the global recession, Kevin Rudd's government implemented one of the strongest Keynesian stimulus packages in the world.
The honourable member for Fadden accused Joseph Stiglitz of the terrible crime of being a Keynesian. Terrible! How could you be a Keynesian? Keynes is such an economic illiterate, isn't he! What will the honourable member for Fadden have to say in this debate? I cannot wait to hear it.
Mr Clare: Herbert Hoover.
Mr BOWEN: Yes, old Herbert Hoover over there. But I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker, having been distracted by the inane and pathetic contributions of the member for Fadden. I will go back to Joseph Stiglitz.
Mr Robert: No—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I call the honourable member for Fadden.
Mr Robert: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The honourable member opposite can stick to his notes, but he can't defame members—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask the honourable member to withdraw—
Mr Robert: otherwise his rich record on boats and other issues may well come to the fore.
Mr BOWEN: Mr Deputy Speaker, is the honourable member objecting to 'inane' or 'pathetic'? I will withdraw whichever one he is objecting to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right, thank you.
Mr Robert: I did not actually ask him to withdraw, because I'm not that pathetic—to the honourable member opposite.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Okay—
Mr Robert: I simply asked him if he could actually improve his argument, or he can sit there and yell and waffle. I would rather you improve your argument, sir.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will give the call to the honourable member for McMahon.
Mr BOWEN: Previous Speakers have ruled against frivolous point of order and have warned honourable members for that sort of stunt. The honourable member for Fadden, who denigrates Professor Stiglitz, might want to hear what Professor Stiglitz went on to say. He said:
That package was delivered early, with cash grants that could be spent quickly followed by longer-term investments that buoyed confidence and activity over time. In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.
In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have … actually reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than the short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run.
I quote that at some length because it is an important contribution. I simply make this point: if Australia had gone into a deep and prolonged recession, as was likely without government intervention, that would still have seen government revenues fall, government expenditure increase and Australia go into deficit, and the country would be dealing with the overhang still at this point.
It is not just Professor Stiglitz who the honourable member for Fadden chooses to denigrate; it is also the OECD. He might choose to denigrate them in a moment. The OECD said of Australia's response:
The stimulus package was among the most effective in the OECD and is estimated to have boosted growth by some two percentage points in 2009.
Are we going to denigrate the OECD as well? Are they Keynesian lefties as well? The OECD endorsed Australia's response during the global financial crisis. And in an open letter to TheSydney Morning Herald more than 50 of Australia's leading economics professors said this:
We the undersigned economists are convinced by the evidence that the coordinated policies of the Australian Labor Government have prevented the economy from a deep recession and prevented a massive increase in unemployment.
The performance of the Australian economy has been outstanding: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have show-cased Australia as a model economy.
We hope that the economic achievements of the Australian Labor Government will be recognized by the population.
That is 50 economists, professors of economics. What would they know compared to the vast economics knowledge of the member for Fadden?
Richard Goyder, managing director of one of Australia's largest companies, Wesfarmers, said:
I think they—
he is referring to the stimulus payments—
were very effective. They helped turn what was potentially a second quarter of negative growth into a quarter of very small positive growth. I reckon the psychological impact of going into technical recession versus not going into technical recession made a big difference to the Australian psyche and economy.
So this is the record: not just Professor Stiglitz, as eminent as he is; not just the OECD, as considered as they are; not just the International Monetary Fund, as respected as they are; not just 50 economics professors, as respected as they all are—but also Australian business. I chose to quote Richard Goyder. There were plenty of others at the time who recognised the impact of the stimulus in ensuring that their businesses remained viable, comparatively, in those very difficult economic times.
We have heard a lot too about the state of the budget and no doubt will hear again more today. I am simply going to make this point. I am not going to belabour it but I am going to make the point. We have seen the previous Labor government stimulate the economy when necessary—something we do not apologise for, something we are proud of—but then put in place measures to ensure that spending was reduced as economic growth returned. A 2013 IMF paper, having reviewed government spending in Australia since the 1960s, confirmed that the only profligate period of spending was not during the GFC, not the stimulus payments, but was under the Howard government.
Mr Robert: This is incredible.
Mr BOWEN: It is incredible. The honourable member for Fadden is right today at least once. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and that was your moment, when you said it is incredible. Yes, it is amazing. The Howard government was found by the IMF to be the most profligate in Australian history. This is what we see from the current government being too small-minded and too mean-spirited to acknowledge the plaudits for the economic management of the previous government. We saw the Howard government be the highest-taxing government in Australian history and to be found by the IMF to be the most profligate. And 2012-13 saw the only contraction in nominal spending the budget has seen in more than 40 years as that spending was reduced, as it was always intended to be, as the need for stimulus receded—as was always planned by the previous Labor governments.
I saw a couple of weeks ago that Treasury's Executive Director Fiscal, Nigel Ray, told a Senate inquiry into the Commission of Audit that the government's balance sheet was in 'a relatively strong position, giving the government space to implement further stimulus if another global downturn required it'. He was answering the question about what would be done if a further global downturn, which is not predicted, did eventuate: did the government have room to respond? He made it clear that the budget is in a relatively strong position and that the government could respond if necessary.
We have got the coalition here engaging in yet further stunts. This very important bill, they say, will save a massive sum of $250,000 over the next four years—that is their big contribution to budget repair. The salary for a cabinet minister for one year they will save over four years. Streamlining the cabinet might be more effective. Then we have this Treasurer, who likes to huff and puff and beat his chest and fulminate about the age of entitlement, introducing a paid parental leave scheme which will cost $5 billion a year. That $250,000 will make a small contribution to the $5 billion. We have got the $20 million bill on taxpayers for marriage counselling services and a government which is intent—instead of implementing an economic plan, instead of actually doing something about the 54,000 jobs that have been lost on their watch, instead of developing a plan to counteract the decline in mining investment across the country—only on engaging in these stunts. We are not having it. If the government expects the Labor Party to walk away from the proud economic record which saw Australia through the global financial crisis, they have another think coming.
I move the second reading amendment in my name, which reads:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that the $900 payments, along with infrastructure investments including in schools, roads and social housing, prevented recession and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and small businesses following the Global Financial Crisis."
I understand that the honourable member for Blaxland will second the amendment, because it does represent the true history of the global financial crisis, not the sort of propaganda rewriting we have heard from this government and, no doubt, which we will hear in the contributions to follow.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Clare: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for McMahon has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (09:45): We have just seen an example of hypocrisy writ large. The Labor government, which were re-elected in 2010, came to office in 2007 with $50 billion in the bank and they managed to turn that into a gross debt of $450 billion in just six short years, or we could say six long years of 'hard Labor'. They have left us with a $123 billion cumulative budget deficit. If we did nothing about this debt bomb, the amount of money owed would blow out to $667 billion. We would be saddling future generations of Australians with a debt to pay back. That is a disgrace.
We heard the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, talk about jobs being lost. No-one likes to see a job lost, no-one at all, certainly no-one on this side and certainly no-one in the general public, save for perhaps people in the 17 seats held by Labor, which are no longer held by Labor after last year's election. They have gone from 72 seats won at the 2010 election to 55 seats won at the last general election. I have to say that those 17 seats had job losses that perhaps people were applauding; jobs lost on that side of the House.
I am, of course, delighted to support the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013, which marks another step in delivering on the coalition government's commitment to end Labor's waste. The Abbott-Truss government are getting on with the job of fixing the mess, repairing the absolute disaster left to us and left to the nation. This legislation is proof of this government's commitment to regaining control of our budget and, once again, getting the nation's economic house in order. The repeal bill will put a stop to any further stimulus payments, or 'the $900 cheques' as they are affectionately known, some five years after the peak of the global financial crisis. We did not need the cheques then and we certainly do not need them now. The coalition, quite rightly, opposed these payments when the first Rudd government proposed them in 2009. We believe that they were poorly targeted and that the nation simply could not afford such a wasteful measure—and we were right.
Since being introduced, 21,000—let me repeat that, 21,000—so-called stimulus payments have been sent to deceased taxpayers, totalling more than $18 million. These $900 cheques have, so far, cost taxpayers more than $7.7 billion in borrowed money—money we could not afford. That is $7.7 billion more on the nation's credit card, which we now pay interest on, which we now have to pay back—and then some. The worst part is, however, that the $7.7 billion is but a drop in the ocean of the debt that Labor left behind.
It bears reminding the House that, when the coalition were last in government, we left a $20 billion surplus, money in the bank. But eight long years later we have inherited a projected $30 billion deficit. We are now hurtling towards peak debt of $667 billion in deficits as far as the eye can see. That is Labor's legacy. The people of Australia, Mr and Mrs Average, have entrusted the Truss-Abbott government with the task of cleaning up after Labor and tackling the task of building a more prosperous economy. It will be a difficult job, but I know the member for Fadden would agree with me that we are up for the job. We are up for the task. It is a big task but we are up for it.
The Commission of Audit is a vital step in that process. The commission's task is to assess the role and the scope of government, identify ways to eliminate wasteful spending and consider ways of improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's operations. The need to take a good, hard look at expenditure was reinforced by the International Monetary Fund's comments overnight about the challenge facing Australia. An important guiding principle of this exercise is that the government should have respect for taxpayers. All governments should have respect for taxpayers. That respect goes to hard-working small business owners who take risks in order to generate prosperity for themselves, their communities and their employees. That respect goes to employees who work diligently to generate a livelihood for themselves and for their families.
If we are taking one dollar out of the hands of hard-working individuals and businesses, both large and small, then we should be clear that the spending to which it will be devoted is only for those things that people cannot do for themselves or cannot do efficiently. This is in stark, harsh contrast to Labor, who seem to think that the solution to everything is just more government, more bureaucracy, more red tape, more green tape, more regulation. In little more than 5½ years Labor introduced more than 21,000 additional regulations. That is a huge impost on the economic drivers of our nation—the business people, Mr and Mrs Average, the taxpayers. The regulatory burden established under Labor is stifling many businesses and our economy. It is consuming time, energy and money that businesses could otherwise devote to ensuring the future profitability of their operations by improving the productivity of their businesses, identifying new opportunities and planning for the future. Planning for the future is something that Labor never actually did. It was government by media release, government by GetUp!, government by Four Corners, but it was not government for the people. Unlocking that potential is key to building a more productive and prosperous future for Australia. It is the key to building businesses that can offer workers better paid, long-term jobs.
I have often heard the Minister for Small Business—surely one of the most passionate advocates for small business we have had, and we saw a plethora of small business ministers under Labor—talking about a renaissance in small businesses and family enterprises. I only have to walk down the streets of either Wagga Wagga or Griffith, the cities in my electorate, or any of the small towns I represent to know how right Bruce Billson is. That is why the government is committed to cutting $1 billion of red and green tape. We have already made a significant down payment on reaching that very target.
Our first order of business in this place was to introduce and pass legislation to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax, which will cut the red-tape burden on business by nearly $100 million when it passes the Senate. Why will Labor not come with us? Why will the Leader of the Opposition not say to his senators, 'Get this through, lift the burden off business, lift the burden off taxpayers, lift the burden off ordinary householders'? Why will he not do that? Why is the former government so stymying the drivers of our economic prosperity? For small business we have introduced legislation to transfer responsibility for administering paid parental leave from employers to government. For agriculture, Minister Joyce announced rural research and development corporations are being empowered to establish their own operating plans and appoint their own boards.
The Minister for Agriculture is getting on with the job of helping to boost regional Australia. That is so important, because too often under Labor's watch we forgot that regional Australia is the major driver of the wealth of this nation in the mining and agriculture happening in regional Australia. That is certainly the case in the Riverina where we grow just about everything and there is a goldmine. We get on with the job of helping boost Australia. What did the previous government do when they were in power? They kept buying water, taking water from production.
Dr Leigh: Markets, you can't have markets!
Mr McCORMACK: You cannot have markets without food, member for Fraser. I know you like to eat, just like anybody else does, and the member for Blaxland also likes to eat. You cannot eat food if you cannot grow the food, and you need water to grow food. That might be an interesting fact for you, but you cannot grow food without water. Labor kept taking water away from my farmers, from the Riverina's farmers, from the nation's farmers.
Dr Leigh: Giving them money in exchange.
Mr McCORMACK: Those communities wanted some good policy from the government, but they did not get good policy and all they saw was their water allocations going down and down. They wanted to get on with the job of doing what they have been asked to do by government. They went out there just after World War I on soldier settlement blocks and turned an arid wasteland into a veritable Garden of Eden. They produce just about everything at Griffith and in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, in Hillston, in Coleambally and in all those great towns like Narrandera and Leeton. But they kept getting stymied by the previous government's poor policies and poor economic management.
This bill is yet another way in which the government is cleaning up after Labor, so that we can get on with the important job of building a more prosperous future for the nation. Legislation passed in the House earlier this week to streamline student visa processing arrangements for non-university degree providers is another example of how we are getting on with the job. The government is determined to consider the Commission of Audit report in a careful and methodical way. That was lacking when Labor was in power. We have always maintained we would release the final report as part of the budget process. I note that Labor failed to release the Henry tax review for 130 days after the member for Lilley received it.
The member for Lilley was responsible for overseeing that huge debt and deficit. The member for McMahon was responsible for overseeing more than 50,000 unauthorised boat arrivals, when the border protection budget blew out by around $10 billion—that is, $10 billion that could not be spent on improving farm efficiencies, important hospitals or important road infrastructure. The current Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is going to be the infrastructure Prime Minister of the 21st century. We are getting on with the job. We have plans in place for a new Sydney airport, for roads, to put money on the ground where it is most needed to ensure that our farmers are able to get on with the great job they do. Farmers were unfortunately maligned during the 43rd Parliament.
Farmers are the best conservationists, the best environmentalists, but at every turn they took they were stymied by the previous government. There were roadblocks in place and on an ABC Four Corners program we saw the disgraceful stopping of live cattle exports on a whim. In a knee-jerk response the entire industry was shut down overnight. It was an absolute disgrace and the industry still has not got back on its feet. It will take many years for that industry to get back to where it was, but we are getting on with the job of making sure steps are in place to ensure humane treatment of animals. This is the only nation that makes sure animals are looked after at every step from the farms where they are produced to the dinner plate, but you would not have known that under Labor. They stopped the cattle trade overnight. I see the member for Fraser laughing.
Dr Leigh: This has nothing to do with the bill.
Mr McCORMACK: It has everything to do with the bill, because it is to do with the fact that your government, in power for six years, were nothing but wreckers. The member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, can waffle on all he likes about Labor's so-called proud record and quote economists and Nobel prize winners, but ask people in regional Australia, Mr and Mrs Average in your own electorate, and see if they are giving plaudits to the Labor government or singing your praises in the streets. I am sure they will not be. You know in your heart of hearts that we are getting on with the job of fixing the economy after you people made such a mess of it. You know in your heart of hearts that that is the absolute truth. You know we are getting on with the job of fixing and repairing the mess you left, but it is not we, the coalition, who were left with the mess—it is unfortunately the taxpayers of this nation. It is, unfortunately, the future generations who need better schools, who need better bridges, who need better roads and who need better hospitals. We are getting on with the job of putting the economic drivers in place to ensure that the nation's finances are put back in place so that we can do the job we were entrusted with by the people of Australia. We could talk forever about Labor's debt and its mismanagement, but it is important that this bill passes and it is important that the amendment is rejected, as it ought to be, and I certainly commend the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (10:00): I thought I might begin my contribution with a couple of important numbers. One is the figure on the total amount that will be saved as a result of the passage of this bill, the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013.
Mr Bowen: How many million?
Dr LEIGH: 'How many million?' says the former and I hope future Treasurer of Australia, the member for McMahon. The answer is not even one million; $250,000 will be saved by this bill, which is taking up so much of the House's time—a figure around the salary of a member of the House of Representatives, or a little more than that. Other numbers are relevant to the debate. Two of those numbers would be the total for deficits over four years before the member for North Sydney became the Treasurer and the total deficits for four years afterwards. Before the member for North Sydney became the Treasurer, the total for deficits over four years in the pre-election fiscal and economic outlook was $54.6 billion; afterwards, under the Treasurer's first budget update, $122.7 billion.
There has been a doubling of the deficit over the forward estimates under this Treasurer, a huge increase in—as a result of many of the decisions made by this government, such as the $9 billion grant to the Reserve Bank, such as the government not pursuing a crackdown on multinational profit shifting, which is recognised as a critical issue and an issue that will be the focus of the G20 finance ministers' meetings in Sydney next week. Yet, when the Treasurer has to do something about this issue, he runs away—he takes $700 million of sensible savings out of the budget, because when it comes to being tough, this Treasurer can only be tough on the weak.
It is the same story when it comes to transparency measures. When the Treasurer is faced with the modest proposal that Labor had put forward that we ought to publish the tax paid by some of Australia's largest firms in order to place some pressure on those whose tax bills seem to be a little smaller than they ought, the government has flagged that it intends to not pursue the measure. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as Justice Brandeis once put it. But under this government the sunshine is being shut out.
The age of entitlement is ending for those of modest means. If you receive the income support payment, that will be taken away. If you are a low-wage worker, you will have the taxes increased on your superannuation benefits. But for those who are well connected, the age of entitlement is just beginning. If you are a high-income family, you will get $75,000 to have a child. If you are a well connected firm in Tasmania, you will have no trouble getting a tourism grant from this government. If you are a financial planner, you are going to be assisted in the scrapping of the best interest tests. If you are of high-income retiree then you have seen this government dump the plans to ensure that you pay a fair rate of tax. If you are somebody who is a fan of the Prime Minister's local footy club then you will be seeing assistance in terms of taxpayer handouts to redevelop Brookvale Oval.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Dr LEIGH: So the age of entitlement continues for many and, as the member for McMahon points out, it is yes to Manly and no to SPC. The bill before the House today is really making a political point with saving $250,000, but it does give us a critical opportunity, as the shadow Treasurer has noted, to talk about the benefits of the stimulus package built by Labor.
As the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted, Australia maintained strong economic growth when other countries fell into global recession. Professor Stiglitz has said:
In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have also actually reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run.
I draw the House's attention to a memo put together by the Department of the Treasury analysing the impact of the fiscal stimulus titled 'The Treasury briefing paper for the Senate inquiry into the economic stimulus package'. That briefing paper notes very clearly how the stimulus package prevented recession. Make no mistake, had we not had Labor's timely, targeted and temporary stimulus package, Australia would have been plunged into recession. The pre-stimulus real GDP forecasts for 2008-09 and 2009-10 both had negative growth. It was as a result of stimulus that we saw employment, consumer confidence, growth and productivity increase.
These are outcomes that ought to go well beyond politics in this place. All of us in this parliament ought to care about growth, we ought to care about jobs and we ought to care about boosting productivity, and there is nothing pro-productive about a recession. It is a terrible loss of skills. It is so deeply demoralising for young Australians who find themselves leaving school unable to get a job. I saw this in graduating from high school in the teeth of the last Australian recession when unemployment went double-digit and for an 18-year-old school leaver it was near impossible to find a job. I saw mates of mine spending years looking for their first job.
So when you avoid a recession, you avoid the blight of unemployment. You avoid the loss of small businesses and, as a member of this House who cares deeply about strong small businesses, I am really proud that we managed to prevent tens of thousands of small businesses going to the wall. The OECD in 2009 rated Australia's economic stimulus package highly. They said:
Australia's fiscal stimulus package seems to have had a strong effect in cushioning the decline in employment caused by the global economic downturn.
You can see this also in an open letter signed by many, many Australian economists, which said:
We the undersigned economists are convinced by the evidence that the coordinated policies of the Australian Labor Government have prevented the Australian economy from a deep recession and prevented a massive increase in unemployment.
That is signed by Raja Junankar, Professor Harcourt, Peter Kriesler, John Nevile, Harry Bloch, the late Steve Dowrick, Roy Green, Elisabetta Magnami, Fiona Martin, John Quiggin, Michael Schneider, Roger Tonkin and many, many other economists. Time being short, I will not read all of their names into the Hansard, but the list represents many of the best economists across Australia.
Yet when crisis hit, we saw a lack of the bipartisan spirit which, one would hope, would have characterised a quick response to a global financial crisis. We saw on the 7.30 Report on 16 September 2009 Leigh Sales putting to the now Prime Minister that the OECD's estimate was that unemployment would be 1.9 per cent higher absent the stimulus package. To his credit, Mr Abbott said at the time:
There's no doubt that the stimulus package has helped in the short term.
But that was not the way in which he acted when the votes were on. We saw the Prime Minister being notably absent from the discussions over these economic matters and the Prime Minister had to apologise to then Chief Opposition Whip Alex Somlyay for missing five divisions on the night of 12 February, the circumstances of missing those votes being laid out in an article by Sharri Markson on 8 March 2009 in the Sunday Telegraph.
The stimulus package saved Australia from recession and all parliamentarians in this House should be proud of that success. For the government to now be playing political games, to be focusing on the final tail of stimulus payments—$250,000 of them—rather than the great success of the package itself is disappointing to me and I think ought to be disappointing to all members of this House. This was an extremely well-designed package.
There are still some countries in the world languishing with high unemployment rates and sluggish growth, and for them the tale of the global financial crisis is worse than the Great Depression itself. But we have learned a great deal from the experience of the failure of policymakers to successfully confront the Great Depression and from the too-late responses in Australia to the early eighties recession and the early nineties recession. As a result, Australia acted quickly in the case of the global financial crisis and to the great surprise of many avoided recession entirely. Yet at the time, you had then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, drawing on some extreme right-wing economists in the United States arguing that fiscal stimulus simply would not work, that people would cut back their demand in anticipation of future cuts. It was the 'freshwater school of thinking' and it simply is not borne out by the data.
The fiscal stimulus was successful. The fiscal stimulus managed to save jobs and it should be a matter of great pride across this House. We should in fact have a motion from the Treasurer here commending the former government on leaving him with an economy in which the unemployment rate was below six per cent, rather than above eight per cent, as some of the projections prior to the global financial crisis were suggesting. The social debt of unemployment with the debt of tens of thousands of small businesses having gone to the wall would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of young people whose career earnings would have been permanently scarred. We know from the experience of past recessions that school leavers experience a hit not just temporarily with a period of unemployment but later on in their careers, and Australia has managed to avoid all of that thanks to a well-designed fiscal stimulus package.
The household stimulus was important because it got out there quickly, ahead even of the worst of the global downturn. But infrastructure was important too, because the multipliers for infrastructure are higher and because they were able to leave us an important social legacy across Australian communities.
In my schools I will see education outcomes improve as a result of classrooms, such as in Amaroo School, where teachers can engage in team teaching through well-designed 21st century classrooms. I will see school buildings that are more environmentally efficient and allow the school to have assemblies together. Black Mountain School, which caters to children with disabilities, has a school hall that is suitable for children with wheelchairs and a stage where a kid with a wheelchair can now, for the first time, go on stage to receive an award with everyone else.
So the legacy of the infrastructure package is there right across Australia in new roads, in new school building programs and in so many of the shovel-ready infrastructure projects. It is a legacy of infrastructure alongside a legacy of avoiding recession of which this House will be proud and of which I wish I would hear a little more from those in government.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (10:15): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 because it represents a step in the right direction for the people of Deakin, who have called for an end to the government waste that has plagued the last six years. Indeed, this is a day when we can draw a line in the sand. It ends a sad and sorry chapter of the failed former government. It ensures that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments. There will be no more $900 stimulus cheques.
The Australian people know that the Rudd-Gillard government's six years of chaos, waste and mismanagement delivered higher taxes, record boat arrivals and debt and deficit as far as the eye can see. The $900 stimulus cheques are a poignant example of how the Labor Party turned fiscal strength into weakness in just six years. The problem is these so-called stimulus cheques have continued to be sent out as long as five years after the global financial crisis.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr SUKKAR: Indeed, the $900 payments rank alongside the home insulation scheme and the school halls rip-off as a benchmark for Labor waste. I would say to the member for Fraser that that is a pretty high bar to meet by Labor standards. But we are entering a new era in Australia, an era of fiscal responsibility and prudent financial management. It is a change in direction that the people in my electorate of Deakin appealed for when they went to the ballot box last September. They had with dismay watched the country's debt spiral out of control, and they made their feelings well and truly clear to me time and time again and they continue to do so.
The release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December revealed the dire state that Labor left the budget in. We have heard these figures before, but let me repeat them so that they can truly sink in, because they clearly have not sunk in yet. The forecast was a $47 billion deficit in 2013-14 and $123 billion worth of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates. Since the release of PEFO just a few months earlier, in August, the budget position had deteriorated by $68 billion over the forward estimates. That might just be a rounding error by Labor's standards, but on this side of the House that is a huge problem.
Labor's legacy to this country was a budget debt that would not return to surplus within the 10-year, medium-term projections, with gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion over the same time. I know the Labor Party rely on these figures becoming so big and so amorphous that nobody can truly grapple with them, but this is debt that will be intergenerational. Our children will be required to pay it off. As the member for Deakin, I will not look at the schoolchildren in my electorate knowing that the legacy we are giving them is debt that they will have to pay off as taxpayers.
So something had to change, and it has. The adults are back in charge of the country's finances and we recognise that the budget we have inherited is unsustainable. Like the Deakin families and businesses who work hard to manage their household budgets and business bottom lines, the coalition is committed to prudent management of the budget. We on this side of the House appreciate that the government is a custodian of the hard-earned dollars of Australian taxpayers and we are not going to squander their money. It is not government's money; it is their money. When I am out in the community, I feel great pride in being able to give my electors in Deakin that assurance.
Why is this so important? Why is building that faith so important? It is important because each time we ask something of Australians, each time we take money out of their pockets, we must be able to look them in the eye and tell them that their hard-earned money, which we have taken, will make our country better. I think your average Deakin resident and nearly all Australians are selfless and love their country and do not begrudge working hard and paying their fair share of tax. But for people who are used to managing their own household or business budget, examples of waste such as the so-called $100 stimulus cheques sent to dead people and people living overseas are something they just will not accept, neither should we in this place. The reason for this is that Australians innately understand that you cannot live beyond your means. Even worse, you cannot waste borrowed money. Wasting borrowed money is exponentially worse than wasting your own money.
I will give you an example of this sensibility from an interaction I had recently in the electorate. I was visiting a small business, as I regularly do, and in this case it was a florist. I was given a very excellent tour and asked the owners some obligatory questions about customers and broadly how business was going. Business was pretty good, but I was told that in order to remain strong they really had to keep a very close eye on costs. It seemed a pretty reasonable and sensible approach and something that probably is not new to people on this side of the House. But it truly hit home to me when I walked out of the florist with a pen that I had borrowed from the owner, Helen. You see, I have a pretty bad habit of forgetting to return pens that I borrow and at times I inadvertently take them—and I can assure you it is always inadvertent. In any event, as I was walking out with Helen's pen she exuberantly gestured for me not to take another step. She asked me if I was forgetting something and pointed to the pen in my hand. As I sheepishly handed it back to Helen, she reminded me that, when she said she kept an eye on every single cost, she meant it. If I had walked out with that pen, they would just have to buy another one. We on this side of the House all know that the owner of the florist's, Helen, was really just trying to make a point with me, but it was a point very well made. The people in her business have to keep track of all costs, even those that may seem negligible to us, because a thriving business does not happen by accident.
So, when the member for Fraser gets up and scoffs that these are small savings that do not make a difference, it highlights the utter disregard for taxpayers' money that they had when they were in government. How dare he get up here and talk about taxpayers' money as though it does not matter because it is a rounding error or it is small? That is why we have projected debt going to $667 billion. It was that kind of attitude which pervaded the other side of the chamber, particularly when they were in government.
And what Helen's actions reinforced to me when I was in that florist's that day is that every wasted dollar is another dollar of revenue that must be found in her business or another dollar borrowed. In our case it is another dollar that we must take out of taxpayers' pockets or borrow from lenders overseas.
When people saw in my electorate that their taxpayer dollars were being wasted so flagrantly, it rightly made them angry. So, while there is a lot of work ahead to bring the budget back under control, bills such as the one before us today help to address the waste—and what outstanding waste it was.
As a new member of this place, I was not fortunate enough to be present when my colleagues voted against the former Labor government's second stimulus package. They voted against the imprudent cash splash, including payments to be authorised by the tax bonus acts, which this bill is seeking to repeal, because it was poorly targeted, failed to support employment and was unaffordable. The member for Fraser did not understand that. Unfortunately for the Australian people, the coalition was proved right in voting against that second stimulus, Then as now, the coalition took a responsible approach to looking after the economic interests of the nation. It is estimated that to date some $7.7 billion of borrowed government money was spent on doling out stimulus cheques to people who never asked for them and in most cases thought the money could be more wisely invested. That was certainly the feedback that came to me regularly on the campaign trail. Australians were not going to say no to a cheque sent in the mail, but instinctively they understood that it was not good bang for their buck, and now our children will repay that debt.
Although most of the so-called stimulus cheques were made in 2009, a staggering number of these payments were not made at the time of the global financial crisis. The late banking of cheques and issuing of amended income tax assessments for the 2007-08 year resulted in more than 480,000 payments, totalling more than $400 million, being made in subsequent years right up until now—close to five years. Presumably, based on the preceding comments by the member for Fraser, that is small change. That is only $400 million; that is not a problem. We'll just find that behind the cushions of the couch! I tell the member for Fraser that $400 million is an extraordinary amount of money and the opportunity cost of that money having been wasted is an outrage. When I reflect on how that money could have been better spent I think about roads, hospitals and other infrastructure that would help our nation prosper. Quite frankly, I, my colleagues and, most importantly, my constituents feel appalled.
Not enough Australians know that these stimulus cheques continue to be doled out. Last financial year alone there were 15,000 cheques issued, totalling approximately $15 million of borrowed money. I wish the member for Fraser were here so I could ask him if that is enough or if that is really not important, because his comments suggested that that really was not worth the parliament's time. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Moncrieff, said in his second reading speech:
If it were not bad enough that the government was borrowing money to pay for $900 stimulus cheques four years on after the height of the global financial crisis, it is worse that these stimulus payments continue to be sent to taxpayers living overseas.
I make that point again because it is important. It shows how badly these payments were targeted. It was a cash splash in the true sense of the word. In order to stimulate the Australian economy, the Labor Party thought it prudent to send cheques to people living overseas. Even worse—and I have said it a couple of times, but I think it is important to reiterate this point—cheques were sent to people long deceased and backpackers travelling through Australia. The numbers are approximately 16,000 payments sent to people living overseas. That equated to $14 million. It beggars belief, as do the payments made to deceased people back in 2009 and since, that more than 21,000 payments, totalling more than $18 million and including 40 payments this year, were made.
But the problem with Labor is that so many of the members opposite are career politicians who worked their way up through the union movement and have no idea how to prudently manage money. These union leaders become so accustomed to spending other people's money that they never learn the discipline required to manage a budget. If any of the members opposite want to visit Helen the florist with me, I will take them there and she can give them a good lesson.
As I said, the coalition opposed the second stimulus package, recognising it for the ineffective package that it was, and we condemn the litany of wasteful payments that have been made in the wake of its introduction. Given that so much time has marched on since the GFC and, in any case, the flawed payments, there is simply no need for the ATO to make any more payments. Further, payments are plainly unwarranted and a waste of taxpayers' money. The great thing about today's legislation is that it brings an end to these payments.
Labor inherited a $20 billion surplus but left behind a projected $47 billion deficit. Labor turned nearly $50 billion in the bank into a projected debt of $667 billion—the fastest deterioration in debt, in dollar terms and as a share of GDP, in modern Australian history. The coalition government is delivering what the Labor Party could never do, prudent management of the budget, and we are identifying opportunities, such as the one before us today, to end waste and find savings. I made a commitment to the people of Deakin at last year's election that as part of a coalition government I would help address Labor's record of waste and mismanagement. Today's bill is just one measure that I am proud to support to deliver on that election commitment. (Time expired)
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (10:30): Thank you very much for this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. I am rising to make some comments on a bill which has, as has been pointed out by some previous speakers, a very limited economic impact. It tidies up the delivery of some of the $900 tax bonuses provided by the Labor government to protect Australia during the global financial crisis and ensures that those bonuses can no longer be distributed now that the crisis has been averted.
I will talk a little bit more about the specifics of the legislation shortly, but I think it is very important that we place this legislation in context, and to that end I want to talk a little bit about Labor's record during the global financial crisis. I got to see the global financial crisis unfold firsthand. I was living in Boston from 2006 to 2008 and remember the first time I read about mortgage defaults. It was on the front page of TheNew York Times—a big story about families in Florida having to put the keys to their house in an envelope and send them back to the bank because the size of their mortgage had exceeded the value of their property.
In the following summer I worked in the Global Corporate Client Group at the New York Stock Exchange. Those of you who are keen observers of financial markets will remember that, during the mid-period of the 2000s, we saw a number of big private equity firms float on the stock exchange with staggering results. In the later period of the decade, we saw them float on the stock market and there were some early rumblings about what we would see flow through those financial markets later. It was really the beginning of what would end up being a devastating lack of confidence running through markets around the world. At that time back in Australia, the Rudd government was putting in place a set of policies that would genuinely—and I really mean this—come to be the envy of Treasury departments and governments around the world.
What was the package that we are referring to? There were two elements to it. The first was that the Rudd government spent about $95 billion trying to stimulate economic demand in the Australian economy over four carefully timed, carefully constructed waves. There was a mix of household stimulus—and the legislation before us today relates to the distribution of that funding—and investment in shovel-ready projects. People who have been members of the House for a long time will have enjoyed the experience of going around to open BER buildings in all their primary schools. That was part of this funding. The second element was the banking deposit guarantee. The government stepped in to guarantee bank deposits up to a million dollars in financial institutions around the country. This was an enormously bold measure. It allowed those financial institutions the confidence to continue to access funding. If that had not happened, lending could have collapsed, leading to all sorts of ramifications across the economy. As consumers, it made us confident that we would be able to continue to access our deposits in those banks.
In retrospect, when we describe those measures in the House today, they seem simple and obvious, but I think we need to take ourselves back to around the period of 2008 and remember that this was very controversial at the time. It encountered massive opposition from the Liberal Party. It is easy for us to forget how scary this period was. At one point, Goldman Sachs stock dropped 50 per cent of its market value in a single morning. In September 2008 we watched Lehman Brothers, a massive global bank, collapse—26,000 employees. I think it is the largest US company to ever go into default.
Governments around the world baulked in the face of this challenge. It was truly a scary time. The papers were full of economists with widely varying views about what should be done. The two measures that were put in place by the Rudd government were the primary elements of what was ultimately lauded as a brilliant strategy. Of course, the member for Lilley was named Finance Minister of the Year in 2011.
What is particularly interesting about this is how unique Australia was in its approach to this. It is not as though all countries around the world were doing the same thing and Australia was following suit. We were actually the pioneers of this strategy. These probably sound like big claims, but you do not have to believe me on this. You do not even have to believe our shadow Treasurer or other Labor members of parliament. You can trust people who do not have a stake in this. We heard a little bit from Joseph Stiglitz this morning. You would find no finer economist. His comments about Australia's reaction to the global financial crisis are pretty well known. Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel prize winner in economics and a professor of economics at Columbia University. He said:
Most countries would envy Australia's economy. During the global recession, Kevin Rudd's government implemented one of the strongest Keynesian stimulus packages in the world. That package was delivered early, with cash grants that could be spent quickly followed by longer-term investments that buoyed confidence and activity over time. In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.
Not so in Australia. He went on to say:
In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have also actually reduced government debt over time.
… … …
Australia may have successfully dodged the global crisis, but some politicians seem to have missed the lessons it taught the rest of the world. In this election—
referring to the last election—
the conservative side of politics has foreshadowed substantial cuts to the government budget. This would be a grave mistake, especially now.
He said that Labor actually did a fantastic job in saving our country from problems. There we have Joseph Stiglitz, one of the most famous economists in the world, talking with great enthusiasm about how the Rudd government responded to the global financial crisis.
But we did not hear it just from Stiglitz; the IMF made similar comments. The IMF singled Australia out as the developed nation that is furthest ahead of the pack. It said, 'Australia and the newly industrialised Asian economies are off to a strong start and will likely stay in the lead.' In the country report of August 2011 the IMF referred to the ability of Australia to create a second budget stimulus package if there is another global economic collapse, and it also referred to the room to move that we have on interest rates. That report also noted an endorsement of Labor's carbon price policy. One need not wonder what the IMF would report about the coalition's Direct Action Plan, once the details are revealed. Five months after an election, we still we know very little. The cynics amongst us might wonder whether the government knows either. Time will tell.
We also heard some enthusiastic comments from John Howard about the response of the Labor government to the global financial crisis. He said:
When the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—
The member for Lilley at the time—
tell you that the Australian economy is doing better than most, they are right.
Our debt to GDP ratio, the amount of money we owe to the strength of our economy, is still a lot better than most other countries.
I think it is worth pausing on this point about public debt, because we do hear a lot of scaremongering across the chamber about the levels of public debt in Australia.
Let us avoid the rhetoric and look at some of the facts. Where did the last Labor government leave us in terms of debt levels? When Labor left office, Australia's debt per capita was the third lowest of any developed country in the world. When you look at our debt to GDP ratio at August 2013, we were the lowest of any developed country bar Luxembourg. The scare campaigns have no foundation in fact. That does not mean that we should not be vigilant; we are spending taxpayer funds and it is not that we do not need to be concerned about this. We cannot take our eye off the ball. But, by global standards, Labor left Australia's budget in excellent shape.
For all we hear from the other side, it is worth thinking through what we saw when the coalition left office last time. If you look at the ABS figures comparing the full term of the Labor government with the full term of the last coalition government, we can see that average expenditure as a percentage of GDP was 24.1 per cent under the coalition and 25.1 per cent under Labor. The end-of-period net debt as a percentage of GDP was minus 3.8 per cent under the coalition and 11.7 per cent under Labor. So for all the concerns we hear from the other side of the chamber about fiscal issues, I think the facts show that Labor left the budget in excellent shape—especially when we look back at the condition the budget was left in by the last coalition government.
We have talked about debt; I now want to spend some time on something that is perhaps more tangible to ordinary Australians and certainly something that is raised more frequently by my constituents in Hotham, and that is, of course, jobs. We talked about the comments of Joseph Stiglitz, the IMF and John Howard, but another organisation that has recognised the excellence of Labor's package is the OECD. It noted that, through the stimulus package, the Rudd government saved about 200,000 jobs. It is a matter of fact that, across the period of the last Labor government, almost a million jobs were created. The unemployment rate during that period was low—under six per cent.
Let us think about that in a global context. When we look at Europe, in particular, we see some terrible unemployment rates. During the period that we are talking about, the unemployment rate in Spain was 25.8 per cent; in France, 10.8 per cent; in Portugal, 15.4 per cent. This is looking at the population as a whole. When we look at young people, we see much more profound unemployment rates. The youth unemployment rate in Spain was 50 per cent and in Greece it was 60 per cent. It is important to note, especially when we look at youth unemployment, that these are not just 'a moment in time' issues. What we know from lots of studies, particularly in the US and the UK, is that people who graduate into the labour market during a recession—especially those on the lower end of the education or skills scale—will probably never recover the incomes that they would have made had they graduated into a normal economy. In some countries in Europe, unfortunately, we will see young people who will be forever disadvantaged, just because of the timing in which they graduated into the labour market. What chance do these young people have? It is really unfortunate. But we did not see this in Australia, and we should really reflect on that. We could have been in a situation where many more young people in our country left school or university with very few job prospects, and that is just not the case today.
I say it is not the case today, but I think it is opportune to think about what we have seen in the last five months. We saw companies around Australia maintaining their bottom lines and continuing to employ people throughout a global financial crisis, but many of these companies could not survive the first five months of the Abbott government. We know that in the first five months 50,000 Australian jobs have already been lost. We have heard announcements from Holden that 2,900 jobs are to go and, from Toyota, 2,500 jobs are to go. We have seen the collapse of our automotive industry in the medium term, with 250,000 jobs to go. That is people employed directly in the car industry and in components manufacturing. We have seen 1,000 jobs go at Qantas, 500 at Electrolux, 200 at Simplot and 3,000 are on the line at SPC Ardmona.
This is a government that came into power trumpeting this great victory. We were going to have a million new jobs created. That is what was promised to the people who live in Hotham. We heard some pretty disturbing things raised on this subject in the House yesterday. I sat here in my seat, looking at the Prime Minister, and he got up and said, 'Sometimes jobs are lost.' That was his reaction. I just want to make a couple of points on this. It is true that government in general does not create jobs. Most people in Australia are employed in the private sector. But it is not good enough to say, 'Sometimes jobs are lost,' when so many of the incidents that have occurred in the last five months have been a direct consequence of government policy. I am referring there of course to the car industry, where we saw the Abbott government withdraw $500 million worth of support; to SPC, where we saw the same situation, with a refusal to support SPC and so now those jobs are under threat; and to the Rio situation in the Northern Territory. All these job losses directly relate to government decisions. I understand if the Abbott government want to claim they cannot control everything, but these were directly related to decisions that they or related governments made. They told the Australian people they would create a million jobs. The people of Hotham did not buy it; neither do I.
I will conclude with a couple of points. The first is that Australia can be incredibly proud of its performance. It weathered a global financial crisis that buffeted economies around the world and did it in a way that has been lauded by economists, by the International Monetary Fund and other organisations around the world. It was truly an extraordinary achievement. Unemployment and recession were by and large avoided. I am very grateful for that because it would have severely affected the lives of the people I represent in Hotham. This legislation today has given us a chance to celebrate that record. On behalf of the people I represent I would like to associate myself with that success.
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:45): On this side of the chamber we made a commitment to the Australian people to reduce the tumescent pile of government waste built up by the previous government. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 is just one of the many measures the coalition government are taking to reduce waste and get the budget back on track so we can spend money on infrastructure and vital projects that impact real Australians, rather than just paying off the previous government's enormous deficit legacy.
The original Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No. 2) 2009—or, rather, tax bonus for working Australians, overseas workers, overseas students and deceased people—was designed as part of the Rudd government's excessive $95 billion stimulus package. A stimulus is defined as something that arouses activity or energy in someone or something; a spur or an incentive. The tax bonus was part of a short-term stimulus package designed, supposedly, to flow quickly into the economy, 'saving' it from recession. Not only did the Rudd government's stimulus packages flow into the economy far slower than intended; there was no sunset clause on the tax bonus bill, meaning no end date.
This bill really should not be controversial. Given that the original bill was proposed by the Rudd government on the pretence that it was purely to stimulate the economy at the time of the global financial crisis, and that economic stimulation is no longer required, the government considers that further payments are therefore not warranted. This is simply a measure of good housekeeping.
While it is hard for Australia to ever forget the sheer volume of debt left to future generations by the previous government, allow me to quickly summarise. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December last year forecast a $47 billion deficit in 2013-14 and $123 billion worth of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates. The budget position since the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in August 2013 has deteriorated by $68 billion over the forward estimates. The financial situation that the government has inherited is simply unsustainable.
This is just one of the many measures this coalition government is taking to address waste left over from the previous Labor government. While the original bill was intended to give a tax bonus to individuals earning less than $80,000 in the 2007-08 financial year, in reality in the last financial year, 2012-13, 15,000 cheques were issued, totalling around $13 million in borrowed money. Since its introduction, more than 16,000 stimulus payments have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas, totalling $14 million. More than 21,000 payments have been made to deceased taxpayers, totalling more than $18 million. That is $18 million to people who have no capacity to stimulate any economy! And this includes the payment of 40 stimulus cheques to deceased individuals this financial year. The total amount of borrowed government money spent on stimulus payments to date is estimated to be around $7.7 billion.
Mr Craig Van Rooyen, a fruit farm owner in my home state of Queensland, said to The Courier Mail that he was appalled to find that the government was still mailing stimulus payments to foreign backpackers who worked on his fruit farm four years ago. It is shameful to know that under this policy the previous government was sending money to non-Australian residents while they are not even in the country, supposedly to stimulate our economy. Mr Van Rooyen stated that the previous government had been a reckless spender of Australian taxpayers' money. I agree with Mr Van Rooyen. Labor continued to treat taxpayers' money with complete disregard, leaving a massive debt for our children's future. On 7 September last year the Australian people voted, with resounding support, for a party committed to treating their money with respect.
Those opposite love to beat their chests, boasting that it was their 'champion of economic management' that saved Australia from the worst of the global financial crisis. However, many experts argue there is no proof that the stimulus saved the economy. More likely, it was factors such as the financial services sector remaining strong and watched over by a good regulator—there were no bank failures, a key difference to events in the Northern Hemisphere; or that the Australian dollar fell rapidly as the crisis took hold, helping local employers, including exporters; or that the Reserve Bank cut interest rates more aggressively than at any other time in recent history—from September 2008 to April 2009 the bank drove the cash rate down from 7.25 per cent to three per cent; or even that the Chinese leaders approved an extraordinary stimulus of their own—in November 2008 they promised to spend US$586 billion, about seven per cent of gross domestic product, across two years, and throughout 2009 this helped reverse a drop in demand for Australian commodities, including iron ore and coal. All of these factors are pushed to the background in the narrative from Labor.
We should note that this bill repeals only one part of Labor's reckless stimulus package. No-one could forget the pink batts disaster and the school halls shambles. Indeed, what happened to GroceryWatch and cash for clunkers? You would think that, when Labor decided to spend $95 billion of borrowed money on a stimulus package, they would provide a substantial analysis of the program. However, when a reporter asked for such an analysis in early 2012 under freedom of information law, they were told that no such documentation even existed. Shamefully, Labor's $900 package saw the average household spent just $1 extra on non-durable goods in the week they received the $900 bonus. Was it a coincidence that, at the same time as Labor's $900 cheques were being sent out, electrical stores saw an increase in imported flat screen TV sales?
While Deloitte Access Economics advised that spending too much on a stimulus package and keeping an economy from recession is a lesser evil than spending too little on a stimulus package and seeing the nation's economy fail, they noted that, if you choose to do so, there is still the possibility of winding it back. However, the Labor government simply did not do that, which is why we are speaking on this bill today.
There is, of course, an annual interest account for this stimulus. It is the interest expense on about $95 billion in borrowings, which is approximately $4 billion a year. This adds to the Commonwealth's interest bill for the last financial year, which was $14.2 billion. Australia's debt left by the previous Labor government is on track to reach well over 11 per cent of GDP. There is an inherent problem with many governments around the world when they continue to spend big even though they are no longer getting the big rises in income we took for granted before the global financial crisis. During the last six years, the previous Labor government perpetuated this expectation of entitlement, repeatedly coming up with new, expensive handouts Australia simply could not afford.
The Treasurer has said that the coalition government recognises that it is high time the age of entitlement came to a close. More than six million Australians now live off government benefits or salaries, with only another six million Australians working full time in the private sector to pay for them. There are anecdotes highlighting individuals' expectations of entitlement, such as the reports of a couple who wanted frequent flyer points for being evacuated from Cairo on a government-chartered rescue flight. There was also the person who rang the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's emergency service to ask, 'Could DFAT feed my dogs while I'm away?'
Labor recklessly kept erupting with billions of dollars worth of new bonuses, assistance packages and schemes it could not pay for, and reprehensibly left future generations of Australians to foot the bill. As the coalition often says—but it is rarely appreciated by those opposite—it is the taxpayers' money, not the government's money, and that is a reality that we as members of parliament should never forget.
If the Labor government's waste were only on areas of economic stimulation, then perhaps there would be a case for forgiving them. But, unfortunately, widespread waste is the never-ending legacy of the last government. We pay for it day by day, month by month and year by year. It cuts ruthlessly through our ability to deliver services and it hurts the most vulnerable in our society. It is a legacy that consistently demonstrates how incompetent the last government was, and the tragedy is that they just do not care. How disgraceful is that? The Labor government laughed off the 'road to Greece' warnings, instead riding on Australia's luck of being propped up by incredibly high prices for our minerals, which in turn depend on the still-high growth of China. The coalition government heeds these warnings and is responding. This repeal bill is one such response.
At the core of this government's responsibility is the overriding obligation to value and care for the taxpayers' money. This coalition government recognises that everyone has to live within their means, whether it is a company, whether it is a family, whether it is an individual or whether it is a government. The coalition pledged to the Australian people that that is what the coalition government is going to do, and our budget preparations reflect a government that lives within its means. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (10:56): I am pleased to contribute to this debate on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 and to support the second reading amendment moved by the member for McMahon. Those opposite like to pretend that the global financial crisis did not happen, or, on the rare occasion they admit it did happen, they say that we were saved in that time by everyone but Labor—it was the mining industry or the Chinese 'stimulus package' that saved us, not the Australian stimulus package. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The GFC occurred, and the facts are these. The global financial crisis was the biggest worldwide economic crisis since the Great Depression. The Labor government successfully implemented an economic stimulus plan and, because of these actions, Australia was one of the very few developed nations that avoided a recession. This last point is vitally important. Because of the stimulus plan—opposed by the coalition, some of whom slept through the votes—the Australian economy continued to grow during this period, over 200,000 jobs were saved and, during this period of the Labor government, one million jobs were created. I have seen mass unemployment, and it is a scourge. It is a cancer on society. The last Labor government took decisive action to avoid it.
There is significant independent recognition of Labor's response to the GFC. The OECD has stated that Australia has been one of the most successful OECD countries in weathering the global financial crisis, and the IMF identified our decisive policy responses as enabling Australia to weather the GFC better than many other developed economies. Nobel laureate in economics and former Chief Economist at the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz has also praised the response of the Labor government, identifying it as one of the best designed stimulus packages of all advanced industrial countries:
While other countries fell into the global recession, Australia maintained strong economic growth, low government debt and a triple-A credit rating.
This is something that those on the other side are opposed to. In earlier contributions, the contribution of Joseph Stiglitz was derided and mocked. I find it incredibly ironic that we should take the word of those opposite, rather than that of a Nobel laureate economist. Importantly, Professor Stiglitz also said:
In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.
This is incredibly significant because that description of what happened in other countries was exactly what would have happened under the coalition if they had been in government. We would have seen the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and we would have seen a very significant recession.
Professor Stiglitz went on to make the point that new research shows that the stimulus package:
… may have also … reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than the short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run.
This is a very important point. We are seeing the converse of this in Europe, where countries that have embraced very significant austerity measures are seeing a run-up of government debt, something that would have been negated if they had taken effective stimulus action.
It is also very important to note that 50 eminent economists in Australia have also supported the stimulus package. In an open letter, they said:
We the undersigned economists are convinced by the evidence that the coordinated policies of the Australian Labor Government have prevented the Australian economy from a deep recession and prevented a massive increase in unemployment. Unlike most OECD economies we have come out of the Global Financial Crisis and the subsequent world recession with only one quarter of negative GDP growth and a smaller increase in unemployment.
They went on to say:
The performance of the Australian economy has been outstanding: the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have show-cased Australia as a model economy.
'A model economy'—also ignored by those opposite.
I want to address briefly some of the myths that have been perpetuated in this debate, most notably by those opposite and including the last speaker, the member for Ryan, that somehow the mining industry saved Australia—that it was the mining industry that saved us from a recession during the GFC. This is patently false and was comprehensively rebutted by Dr Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury appointed by Peter Costello. He was appointed by your Chairman of the Future Fund. Dr Henry said the following during Senate estimates:
I have heard it said on a number of occasions, in fact I have lost count of the number of times I have heard people say, including senior commentators, that the mining industry saved Australia from recession … These statements are not supported by the facts I would have to say. …
In the first six months of 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the shock waves occasioned by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Australian mining industry shed 15.2 per cent of its employees. Had every industry in Australia behaved in the same way, our unemployment rate would have increased from 4.6 per cent to 19 per cent in six months.
Let me repeat that: if the rest of the economy had followed the lead of the mining industry, as those opposite would have wanted to do, we would have seen an unemployment rate of 19 per cent in 2009. That is attested to by Dr Ken Henry, the Treasury secretary appointed by Peter Costello.
The fact remains that the stimulus package was timely, temporary and targeted. It included $28.8 billion in direct government investment in schools, housing, energy efficiency, community infrastructure, roads and support for small business. It included $12.7 billion in payments to low- and middle-income Australians.
The SPEAKER: I ask the member if he might resume his seat for a moment. I ask him, as it might suit the convenience of the House, if he would seek leave to continue his remarks.
Mr CONROY: I am very happy to, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Baird, Corporal Cameron Stewart, VC, MG
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (11:03): I rise to solemnly inform the House in the presence of family and our military chiefs that the 100th Victoria Cross has been awarded to an Australian. This award is to the late Corporal Cameron Baird, already an iconic figure in our army, who had earlier received the Medal for Gallantry. As the citation reads, his Victoria Cross is 'for most conspicuous acts of valour, extreme devotion to duty and ultimate self-sacrifice at Gorchek village in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan, as a commando team leader'.
Corporal Baird was born in Burnie, Tasmania. As a youngster, he captained the Victorian primary school AFL team. He joined the army aged 18 and was posted to what is now the 2nd Commando Regiment. He served in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. He was on his fifth Special Forces tour when he was killed in the action for which he has been awarded the Victoria Cross.
On 22 June last year, in the first phase of the engagement, Corporal Baird and his team came under heavy fire on three separate occasions from well-prepared enemy positions. In the initial encounter, six enemy combatants were killed and weapons caches were captured. In subsequent encounters, Corporal Baird charged enemy positions and neutralised them with grenade and rifle fire. By drawing fire on himself repeatedly, he enabled other members of his team to regain the initiative.
In the second phase of the engagement, Corporal Baird then led an assault on an enemy held compound. On three separate occasions, under heavy fire, he forced the door of a building. Twice he was forced to withdraw, to reload and then to clear his rifle. For the third time, he entered the building, again drawing fire away from his comrades, who were able to secure the objective. Tragically, he was killed in this final assault.
Words can hardly do justice to the chaos, confusion and courage that were evident that day. A comrade who was with him testifies: 'I have witnessed many acts of leadership and courage under enemy fire during my operational service. Corporal Baird's initiative, fearless tenacity and dedication to duty in the face of the enemy were exemplary and an absolute inspiration to the entire team. I was witness to the ultimate sacrifice.' Another comrade also with him that day testifies:
I have no doubt that by absolutely disregarding his own safety numerous times in order to assault a heavily armed and fortified enemy position Corporal Baird's courage and resolve proved the tipping point. His repeated attempts to attack that room with six insurgents inside was the bravest event that I have ever seen in my experience on two tours as a commando.
Others must now speak for him because he can no longer speak for himself. Corporal Baird was the 40th Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan and, please God, the last. We mourn them all. We grieve with their families. Today we grieve with Cameron Baird's parents, Doug and Kay, his brother Brendan and his nephews Riley and Max. You have lost a son, a brother, an uncle. Our country has lost a citizen, a soldier, a hero. We are all the poorer for his passing but the richer for his living. For all of us this is a bittersweet day—bitter because a fine man is gone and cannot be brought back; sweet because he died for his mates, doing what he lived for.
What makes some men warriors and others peacemakers is a mystery. A fragrant few can be both. It is good to have them, because warriors and peacemakers will be needed in Afghanistan and wherever else our armed forces might go in the years to come. I salute Corporal Cameron Baird VC MG. We all salute him and his almost equally remarkable comrades. In this place we do not face danger, so we can hardly claim him as our brother, but we do acclaim him as our hero. We can hardly imagine what the likes of Corporal Baird and his comrades go through but we stand in awe of their extraordinary courage, the extraordinary courage of these amazing men who serve our country and keep us safe.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (11:09): I rise to support the moving words of the Prime Minister and to pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of Corporal Cameron Baird of the 2nd Commando Regiment. Corporal Baird was a real hero, a man who risked his life for his mates. I hope his family here feel that our parliament, all of us here, do some justice to his memory today. Cameron Baird's friends describe him as one of the most iconic figures in the regiment—high praise from members of an elite unit recognised the world over for its professionalism, courage and skill. But even in that esteemed company Corporal Baird's record stands out: eight tours, including East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan; the Australian Active Service Medal, recognising his service in East Timor, Iraq and the international campaign against terrorism; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the Iraq Campaign Medal; the Australian Service Medal—Counter-terrorism/Special Recovery; the Australian Defence Medal; the United Nations Medal for work in Timor; the NATO Medal for multiple tours; the Infantry Combat Badge; and the Returned from Active Service Badge. In 2008 Corporal Baird was awarded the Medal of Gallantry, a decoration that then recognised his courage under fire and his willingness to risk his own life to save those alongside him. The citation for that award describes in detail the remarkable courage that Corporal Baird showed in trying to save the life of a wounded comrade while leading his men through deadly fire to safety.
Now, with the awarding of the Victoria Cross, Corporal Baird attains a place of the highest honour in Australian and Commonwealth military history. The Victoria Cross is a unique award and one that takes precedence over all other awards, the highest military honour and one available to all ranks. The Victoria Cross holds a special place in our military establishment: all ranks of the Australian Defence Force are required to salute a VC recipient. It has been described as the most democratic and at the same time the most exclusive of all orders of chivalry, proof that there is only one standard, the human standard of valour in deadly peril. Through his bravery Corporal Baird becomes the 100th Australian to receive this honour, the latest in a line of Australian military warriors that reaches all the way back to the Boer War. The Victoria Cross holds a special place in Australia's proud military history. It speaks to the way we see ourselves as a nation. The VC speaks to our best qualities, the way we would like to see ourselves through the eyes of the hero. Above all, the VC is part of our proud military tradition, an Australian tradition that reveres above all the courage to sacrifice one's safety for one's friends—a quality Corporal Baird exemplified to the highest degree.
On 22 June last year Corporal Baird's platoon, partnered with the Afghan National Security Forces, was attacked by the enemy in Gorchek village in Uruzgan province. It was a fierce battle against a fanatical foe. As the Prime Minister's reading of the Victoria Cross citation reveals, it is difficult even in words alone to begin to convey the danger and the heroism of what happened on that day. On that day in June Corporal Baird risked and gave his life to save the lives of his fellow Australians and his Afghan brothers in arms. He was just 32.
I did not have the privilege of knowing Corporal Baird but I suspect he was a modest man. I am sure that today he would have wanted us to acknowledge his many comrades who may not have received the same level of recognition, not just the 40 Australians who have died in the mountains and the green valleys of Afghanistan but the hundreds more who have been badly wounded or have come home bearing psychological scars, and all of those upon whom Australia's freedom depends. Today once again we pay tribute to all those who have served. Afghanistan, our longest war, is not the kind of war the Anzacs fought or our heroes of Kokoda. Our men and women in such shifting ground of Afghanistan have been tested by a diplomatic imperative in each village and field as gunshots ring out that are unexplained and those they see in cross-hairs may be friend or foe. In such a war our losses may be less or greater than in plainer conflicts. For the 40 families who have felt them, however, there is no larger feeling of enormous engulfment in a darkness which seems at the time and for years to be without end. Prime Minister Winston Churchill once remarked:
Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities ... because it is the quality which guarantees all others.
All Australians admire courage. All of us aspire to be strong. We appreciate that bravery and strength are not restricted to those who are decorated and that in fact, along with Corporal Baird, all of his fellow soldiers are heroes. But there can be no doubt that Corporal Baird was the sort of man that every soldier would aspire to be. In parliament today we salute Corporal Cameron Baird. He did good work in his time for a cause and he lived in the injured hearts of those he left too soon.
Today the Australian parliament and the Australian people honour the award of the Victoria Cross. We salute the courage of a gallant soldier. We mourn the loss of a true friend, a son who leaves us well before his parents, a brother gone before his time. Most of all our thoughts today are with the people who loved him and the people he loved. To his father Doug, mother Kay, brother Brendan, nephews Riley and Max, we offer our deep and heartfelt condolences. There is no honour that we can bestow and no medal that we can give you, no words that we can say that will make up for the loss of the man. We understand that there will be a spare seat at the Christmas lunch. We understand that there will be school plays and concerts and sports days and graduations and grand finals that he will miss.
Our nation owes Cameron Baird and his family a debt that we can never repay. All we can do in this parliament is to promise that we will remember him always. The award of this Victoria Cross places your son, your brother, your uncle, in Australian military history forever. We promise to honour his memory and his sacrifice. We promise that Australia will never forget your son, your brother, your uncle. May he rest in peace.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the House, I would like to advise the House that we have with us family members of Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG. We also have present Chief of the Defence Force General Hurley AC, DSC, Chief of Army Lieutenant General Morrison AO, Chief of the Joint Operations Lieutenant General Ash Power AO, CSC, Warrant Officer Dave Devlin, the Minister for Defence Senator Johnston, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs Senator Ronaldson, the shadow defence minister Senator Conroy, and the official secretary to the Governor-General. I call the Leader of the House.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (11:18): I move:
That further statements on indulgence on Corporal Cameron Baird VC, MG be made in the Federation Chamber.
In doing so I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
The SPEAKER: I, too, would like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made, which, quite frankly, were very moving.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that the $900 payments, along with infrastructure investments including in schools, roads and social housing, prevented recession and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and small businesses following the Global Financial Crisis.”
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (11:19): I will return to the substance of my speech and to the point I was making which was Dr Henry's testimony at Senate estimates. I will repeat the key quote which was:
In the first six months of 2009, in the immediate aftermath of the shock waves occasioned by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the Australian mining industry shed 15.2 per cent of its employees. Had every industry in Australia behaved in the same way, our unemployment rate would have increased from 4.6 per cent to 19 per cent in six months. Mining investment collapsed; mining output collapsed. So the Australian mining industry had quite a deep recession while the Australian economy did not have a recession. Suggestions that the Australian mining industry saved the Australian economy from recession are curious, to say the least.
That was the testimony of Dr Henry in 2010. It provides a direct rebuttal to any claim that the mining industry or the Chinese stimulus package saved Australia during the GFC. It was the combined efforts of the Reserve Bank's monetary easing and very direct action from the last Labor government in terms of its stimulus package. This stimulus package covered both payments to low- and middle-income Australians to provide immediate stimulus and over $28 billion in direct government investment in schools, housing, energy efficiency, community infrastructure and roads, and support to small business. This was vital because it provided a two-stage stimulation process. It ensured that we avoided the recession and it was incredibly important. This vital investment meant that we saved 200,000 jobs during the GFC.
I will turn to some of the very worthy initiatives in the global financial crisis stimulus package. One I want to particularly draw attention to is the $5.6 billion social housing initiative. This was the largest commitment by any government in Australia to social housing and was a key component of the stimulus package. More than 19,000 new social housing dwellings are to be built under this initiative and around 80,000 dwellings have already benefited from repairs and maintenance.
This is incredibly important because social housing is an often neglected part of infrastructure in this country. Social housing should not just be for the most marginalised in this country. It should be for low-income workers who need access to cheaper and more affordable housing, as the private housing rental market can be quite expensive and, even at low interest rates, homeownership is often out of reach for many people. We cannot underestimate the importance of social housing. This was a vital part of Labor's economic stimulus package that saved Australia during the GFC and, most importantly, avoided the scourge of mass unemployment. I listened to the comments of the member for Hotham who talked about the cancer of youth unemployment and said it is a scourge in Europe. It is important to note that we avoided this in Australia and I am proud of Labor's contribution.
I turn to the effect of the stimulus package on my electorate of Charlton. Under the nation-building economic stimulus plan, over $450 million was invested in education in the Hunter region, including over $100 million in schools in the electorate of Charlton. Some of these schools had not seen infrastructure investment in decades, some for 50 years. I am proud of this investment. I have visited these school—government schools, Catholic schools and independent schools—and they are all grateful for this infrastructure. When I talk with principals, teachers and parents, they cannot speak too highly of this infrastructure and say that through this stimulus package they got magnificent new facilities such as state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and halls.
This was a bonus of the expenditure. The key purpose of the expenditure was to keep the Australian construction industry in work when there was a massive decline in private residential investment. The statistics show very clearly that in 2009 and early 2010, as private sector investment in the construction industry tanked, that gap was filled by government investment in the Building the Education Revolution program. I have personal experience of it. My brother is a concreter and his job was saved by work on this program during this period.
Coalition MPs have been happy to mock and attack this investment, but they have been equally happy to attend openings of school halls and other infrastructure and to have their photos taken. This investment shows a clear difference between Labor's priorities and values and the coalition's priorities and values. Labor is proud to have initiated the biggest investment in education in Australia's history, while the coalition voted against it and continues to denigrate this historic investment.
I talked about social housing at the national level. In Charlton, $45.7 million was spent on social housing, with more than 485 public houses being upgraded or undergoing repairs and more than 160 new social housing dwellings being built.
I turn to the efforts of those opposite to draw the $900 stimulus cheques into their theme of the age of entitlement. They maintain these cheques were part of the age of entitlement, the cancer eating Australia. There are two facts in this debate: first, $900 stimulus cheques were a vital part of getting Australia through the GFC. Without that immediate cash injection, there would have been rising unemployment and a much weakened economy which would likely have gone into recession. Second, I cannot suffer the hypocrisy of those opposite condemning the age of entitlement when their official policy is a $5½ billion paid parental leave scheme, a ridiculous scheme. It is a scheme of not middle-class entitlement but of upper-class entitlement.
The notion that a businesswoman on $150,00 a year should be paid $75,000 to have six months off work to have a baby, while a checkout operator in a shopping complex in Charlton, an aged-care nurse or childcare worker on $30,000 a year would only receive $15,000 is offensive. It is a joke and it is inequitable. All Australian women having children should be entitled to the same level of assistance from taxpayers. To say high-income earners should receive $75,000 while low-income workers, the bedrock of our community—our aged-care nurses, our childcare workers, our retail workers—should receive as little as $10,000 is offensive to Australian people.
This is symptomatic of the debate in which this government do not support low-income workers. We have seen their attacks on penalty rates and award conditions and trying to blame workers for the massive job losses under Prime Minister Abbott. Up to 250,000 jobs will go in the automotive industry and other industries that depend on the automotive industry. Their response is to attack workers and say workers should not be paid as much as they are being paid, yet the coalition plan to pay business executives $75,000 to have children.
This is part of the debate about which priorities should be set for the economy. Is the economy's first priority to serve the great mass of Australian people? The Labor government's response during the GFC was a great example of timely, temporary and targeted action to save the country. This response was held up as a model for the rest of the world by every serious economic commentator, including John Quiggin in Australia and Joseph Stiglitz in the United States. This response was seconded by the IMF and applauded by the OECD as a great model for the rest of the world. The naysayers on the other side confessed to sleeping through the votes after consuming a couple of bottles of wine with friends. These are the facts of the debate and I am proud to be part of the Labor Party. We stood up for Australian workers through the GFC and rejected mass unemployment, supported workers and fought unemployment every step of the way as we had seen what unemployment does to society. That is why I am proud of the Labor government's stimulus package and am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:29): Back in February 2009, we were in this place in the early hours of the morning—actually the evening of the 4th and the morning of 5th—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr IRONS: The member opposite was not there, so I will enlighten him on that. I was here at 4.24 in the morning on the 5th and was prepared to deliver a speech about the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Bill 2009, which the Rudd government was trying to implement. I never got to deliver that speech because the Treasurer came in, along with the member for Grayndler, and did his piece and guillotined the debate.
Mr Conroy: At least you were awake.
Mr IRONS: I think the member should withdraw that interjection. He cannot speak about the facts because he was not here then. If he is talking about members who have made gigs of themselves in this place for the reasons that he is saying our Prime Minister did, he should have a close look at himself and at his fellow colleagues.
As I said, it was 4.24 am when the Treasurer got to his feet to guillotine the debate just before I was about to make my speech. It was obviously disappointing to be denied the chance to speak at an important moment for the last parliament. In many respects, this was the moment when the nation's finances began to get out of control under Labor. I have found that speech and I would like to quote from it because I think it is relevant to this Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill. It gives me a chance to get it on the record because I have not had the chance since then.
One part of that speech read: 'The second reason was that I had beliefs, standards and values that I developed over my lifetime and I wanted to make sure that I could live by those in this place and I could achieve positive results that are the best for my electorate and for the people of Australia. This second reason is why I have to oppose this package. The ink is barely dry on the legislation paper and we have been asked to vote on this legislation and support it without proper scrutiny, like it is going to be the economic saviour of this country. Prime Minister Rudd thinks just because it is his package and he is a self-professed economic genius that we the opposition should roll over like a dead dog and say, "Yes, yes, yes, this will save Australia."'
I also had in that speech: 'The basic reason the world is experiencing a global financial crisis is debt. World banks are in debt, business is in debt, people are in debt. The world has borrowed too much. Despite all this debt, the government, through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan we have been discussing through the night, is planning to burden the country with a level of debt not seen in this century. In fact, in the fine print of the legislation, the government seeks to obtain the power to increase government debt to $200 billion—$9,500 of debt for every Australian, a level of debt never seen before; this from a government which inherited a $22 billion surplus. There has to be a point when this government will realise that it is irresponsible to keep fighting debt with more debt. It is a contradiction in terms, reckless, morally abject and economically irresponsible.' How could this country wish to still have that ceiling of $200 billion, but as we know it has gone way above that due to the reckless spending of the previous government.
Also from that speech: 'The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he has been approaching this financial crisis from the ideological high ground. The Prime Minister's approach has nothing to do with ideology; it has all been about political strategy. In his recent essay, the Prime Minister portrays himself as an ideological warrior, a far-seeing, anti-neoliberal leader ahead of the curve. This is quite a change of ideological position. Twelve months ago, our Prime Minister was waging a war on inflation, with his Treasurer now infamously claiming that the inflation genie was out of the bottle. In this budget year, Kevin Rudd was busy implementing expenditure cuts. The Prime Minister was desperate for us to believe he was the model economic conservative. During this time we, the coalition, were warning of the pending economic slowdown. We stressed maintaining growth and jobs was the main priority. Fast forward to February 2009 and our Prime Minister has become a born-again economic Keynesian. Make no mistake, this is a political strategy not an ideological or an economic one. Perhaps a more consistent approach from the Prime Minister would have led to a better response to the global financial crisis.'
Back to 2014, and today the coalition government are dealing with the legacy of many of the decisions made in haste in 2009, which have resulted in record levels of debt for this country. In fact, as MYEFO showed in December, in the absence of any policy changes from what we have inherited, the budget will not return to surplus within the 10-year medium-term projections, with gross debt at this time projected to increase to $667 billion. This government have inherited a record debt.
It is in this context that tough decisions have to be made. But perhaps we should start with an easy decision and stop sending of $900 cheques to dead people. More than 21,000 cheques have been mailed to dead people since the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act was passed by the Labor government in 2009 and until recently the tax commissioner was still sending them out. In fact, during the last financial year some 15,000 cheques were issued, totalling around $13 million of borrowed money.
As I have mentioned before in the House, I recall during the Rudd period a talkback caller to 6PR in Perth whose name was Charlie. He won the title of talkback caller of the day. The subject he spoke about was on what he had spent his $900 of stimulus money and he had spent it at the brothels. I remember the Treasurer on that night five years ago saying, 'Our tax bonuses are targeted at people most likely to spend.' I guess Charlie would have agreed with him. He used the stimulus money in other forms of stimulus. That is the sort of waste that occurred as it was handed out. It was of course the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley, who embarked on this policy as a splurge against the GFC and sent out $900 cheques to working Australians earning less than $80,000; $600 cheques to those in the $80,000 to $90,000 range; and $250 to those in the $90,000 to $100,000 range. This was part of the rushed and poorly thought through package of stimulus measures that included the $2.4 billion roof insulation scheme, now tragically the subject of a judicial inquiry.
The coalition raised concerns about both these measures but all we got back was vitriol. The Treasurer labelled concerns about his schemes as 'blind ideology'. Time has passed and I think the Australian people can see that it was the Treasurer who was sailing in the dark during the global financial crisis. Given that the stimulus to the economy is no longer required and time has moved on since the GFC, the government clearly considers that further payments are not warranted.
The bill repeals the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act 2009 to ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments while also making consequential amendments to the taxation law as a result of the repeal of the tax bonus act. As outlined in the explanatory memorandum provided by the minister under the current law, the commissioner must continue to honour all tax bonus entitlements by reissuing lost or stale cheques and by making new payments as a result of an entitlement of which the commissioner has only recently become aware because of a request for an amended assessment of income tax. I know that in my previous office we were delivered some $900 cheques from one of the constituents. They were sent to his property because there had been some overseas 457 workers who had left the country. He returned those cheques to our office and we forwarded them to the Treasury.
Under this new legislation, the commissioner will not be able to make any new tax payments, however he will retain the power to undertake compliance action with respect to the past claims and, where necessary, undertake recovery action in respect of overpayments. One of the consequential amendments required will be to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to remove an income tax exemption in respect of the tax bonus and to remove from the checklist of tax exemptions the tax exemption for payments of the tax bonus. These amendments will be delayed until 1 July 2016 to accommodate late payments allowed to continue by the former government and a period of review for taxpayers. The expected saving of $0.25 million, or $250,000, on an underlying cash basis over the forward estimates may well seem small compared to Labor's $667 billion gross debt legacy—and I heard the member for Fraser talking about it before as being slightly more than the salary of a member of this place—but that is just the part the Labor Party do not get. It is only $250,000, he said, but there are many people in Australia who would think that $250,000 is a lot of money and that it should not be wasted recklessly by governments, and his belittling of the amount of money that this bill will actually save is a common feature of the Labor Party's approach to fiscal control.
This bill is about engendering a culture of saving rather than a culture of waste. This scheme has cost the nation $7.7 billion already in borrowed government money. That is a legacy of the Labor government to the future generations which will have to pay back the entire amount plus the interest being spent. This government is indicating by this bill that it will be treating taxpayers' money with respect and making sure all expenditures are justified.
This is of course the government's mandate. During the 2013 federal election, the government made a commitment to end waste, and this bill is part of delivering on that commitment. The government is delivering on its commitment to stop the boats after Labor's failed border protection policies resulted in a blow-out of at least $6.6 billion of borrowed money. The government has streamlined its operations by closing a number of departments and agency taskforces which were costing the taxpayer more in borrowed money. The government is reducing the size of the public service through natural attrition to ensure a leaner, more effective government for the Australian people. As promised, the government will deliver a cost-effective NBN for the Australian people which will upgrade the areas of need first. And the government has undertaken its Commission of Audit, as promised, to identify further savings to get Australia's budget position back on track. And we will all be interested in what the Commission of Audit finds and I predict it will reveal more examples of the culture of waste of the Labor government.
That waste came from a number of failures and I will give you some of those examples. Some of the waste came from profligacy. The $100,000 fake carbon tax kitchen is a case in point. Some of the waste came from mismanagement. The Australia network tender debacle led to the government having to pay $2 million in compensation to Sky News. Some of the waste came from incompetence. The previous government paid $350 per set top box when Harvey Norman sells them for $168, almost half the cost. The mining tax policy disaster, which sparked the downfall of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, resulted in the department having to spend $30,000 on a consultancy firm to work out how it could be compliant.
Some of the waste came from the dodgy payments to Labor mates, with a donation of $10 million of taxpayers' money to the unions to train union leaders, noted in the 2012-13 budget. We know that by 2012 Fair Work Australia had had to spend more than $1.8 million on outside legal and accounting advice for its investigation into the rorting of HSU funds including $1.3 million on external legal advice, $100,000 on external accounting advice and $430,000 on KPMG's review of the investigation.
And the examples continue. Of course some of the waste came from Labor's inability to govern itself. There was $1.3 million in payments following the political assassination of Kevin Rudd on 24 June 2010. There were so many failures it is lucky they were able to be documented in the Little Book of Labor Waste put together by the member for Mayo. They were prime examples of the waste that was dealt out by that government.
The coalition is determined to make sure that we end that waste and this bill is the start of that process. It will draw a line in the sand and indicate to the Australian public that we are determined to make sure as a government that we are responsible. We hold taxpayers' money in the highest regard and we will continue to ensure that we find the best way to get the economy back on track and to make sure that the taxpayers of Australia have confidence in the government.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:43): In my remarks today I want to reflect on some of the contributions that have been made to date in this debate and say that I am alarmed at what is being suggested by those who are members of the government. It sounds like their plan for the next three years whilst they are the government is to introduce austerity measures. They may call the exercise the 'commission of cuts', they may call it trying to get the budget back in the black, they may talk about how this is important for taxpayers, but what they are really talking about is austerity. They are talking about cutting vital government funding in key areas of our community to try to get the budget back. What we have seen of this crisis in the last three to five years as it has rolled out in other economies around the world is that austerity does not work.
When the global financial crisis hit in Australia, whether we were representatives, in business or local constituents, we had the right to be a little bit miffed, a little bit frustrated by developments because we were going along wel
As a country we were doing well and overseas factors—a financial system in the United States—triggered the global financial crisis. So at the time the government of the day, the Labor government, really had three choices. They could take on a Keynesian economic approach, which was to spend and to stimulate, and that is exactly what they did. They could do nothing—just sit back and wait to see how the markets reacted. That would have seen job losses and businesses close in the private enterprise sector, and that would have put pressure on the community. But that chain reaction of job losses and of businesses closing would have been slower than what we would have seen if austerity were introduced, which is what a number of countries around the world did. When the global financial crisis hit, governments around the world—not ours but others—cut government spending. What that did was purely and simply to deepen the recession.
Our economy is robust, but it does have a cause and effect nature. If you take money out of one section of the economy it will have an effect on the other. Our economy is made up of a mix of public and private; we cannot ignore the fact that governments are a major part of our economy. I am always of the view, and it is a Keynesian view, that when private enterprise stumbles, when there is a problem overseas that affects our economy, government needs to step in. A short debt, a short spend or a stimulus package can stop businesses and industries closing and stop people losing their jobs. It is not a bandaid solution; it is an investment to ensure that our economy, robust and delicate at the same time, can survive and chart its way through this course.
We heard the government—and they did this when they were in opposition, quite often popping up in my electorate—trash talking the economy, saying that debt was bad, in front of the very businesses that owed their survival to the stimulus package that Labor introduced. They were standing out the front saying, 'This business is under threat because of government debt.' It could not be further from the truth. The businesses that Joe Hockey stood out the front of and countless opposition shadow ministers stood out the front of kept their doors open because people had money to spend. They had money. They had stimulus. They had cheques that those opposite are so concerned about to spend in these stores.
The other criticism that we have heard about the program that was introduced is that in some very few cases the cheques went to the wrong people. Some mistakes were made. I find it quite hypocritical for those opposite to suggest that this idea of sending cheques out to be spent was a really bad Labor idea. Sadly, Labor did not invent it. The previous government, the Howard government, quite famously sent cheques out to people and said, 'Spend—go forth!' But there was no criticism from those opposite that maybe a few people accidentally got the wrong cheque. No program is perfect. There are always going to be those rare examples. But the benefit of the stimulus package at the time it arrived—the idea or the principle behind it—saved Australia from falling into recession, as we saw elsewhere.
The difference between what the Howard government did and what the Gillard-Rudd governments did was the timing. I strongly believe that in times of boom a government should pull back its injection of funding into the economy. It needs to be sustainable funding. I will never argue against that. In times of boom we need sustainable, long-term funding programs, but you do not send out cheques for people to spend when the economy is doing well. That is the time to save and the time to bank. But when our economy hits a downturn like a global financial crisis, that is the time you need your government to step in and send these cheques out to get instant injections of funding into the economy.
It may sound like $900 here and $900 there, as though it does not have a big effect, but it does. When I was out in my local community talking to people about how these cheques helped them and what they were able to do with them, the cost-of-living pressures were something we often talked about. It is not unusual in my electorate to talk about cost-of-living pressures and how support from the government has helped. Roughly 30 per cent of households in the Bendigo electorate are surviving on less than $600 a week, a further 20 per cent less than $800 a week. These are the working poor and we know that when you give working people and people on low incomes extra money in their pocket they go out and spend it. It could be on anything but they spend it locally. One of the big campaigns that everybody seems to be in agreement on is 'buy local'. Buying local supports local business and that is exactly what this stimulus program was designed to do.
I was talking to Fiona from Eaglehawk who works in the community sector. She works with the Eaglehawk Community House and she stated that every cent went towards helping those most in need. It was really valuable to families in the area. Some used it to pay off that bill, which meant that they then had some money to spend on other items, other needs that they had. Some bought schoolbooks that they needed for their children. Some went out and bought a luxury item that they had not had for years. And where did they buy them but from their local businesses, keeping people employed in small businesses in our community.
Kate is 41, a single mum with three children. She had recently separated from her partner and had to move into a rental property and this stimulus package allowed her to get the extra items she needed. It allowed her to set up a house. And where did she buy these things? Again, from local scores in our local community, keeping people employed in small businesses. Carmel, a pensioner from Bendigo, says she was going downhill. She is surviving on a pension. She tried her best to save money for a rainy day when she got sick. The fact is that on the pension you cannot and Carmel did get sick. But then the stimulus cheque arrived and she went, 'Wow, I can pay my medical bills.' Barry from Golden Square used it to pay for the necessities to get through. Using these payments, as I have said, does help people pay off the bills. It did help them get the things they needed to get through day-to-day life. It allowed them to get back up on their feet and then spend what disposable income they had in their local businesses and stores. Another angle where this stimulus package was needed was not just the economy but also the social and economic advantage and how it helped people get through a tough period.
The knock-on effect that it had helped Bendigo businesses and industry get through a tough period, and then our place in the Australian economy helped Australia get through a tough period. Small businesses in the electorate talked about how they had an increase in sales when these stimulus cheques arrived. People bought the things they otherwise could not afford. We all talk about how small business is the backbone of this economy and the major employer today, and this package helped them stay alive. This package meant that we spent our dollars locally, whether it was on hardware, books or going out for a meal. All of these small businesses were able to survive. It was not the plasma screen TVs; they were bought during the Howard era. With this stimulus package people were able to spend dollars in the Australian economy, thus keeping jobs here in Australia.
We have heard other speakers, particularly on this side of the House, speak to the merits of spending and the merits of getting in there early and stimulating the economy to make sure we buffer ourselves against what is happening globally. That is what a smart, sensible government does when it is not fearful of the word 'debt'.
And let us focus on debt because over and over again over the last five years those in the Liberal Party and in the coalition have tried to beat us up about the word 'debt'. Debt is only a problem when your economy is booming. Debt is not a problem when there is no boom going on in the economy. Spending now to ensure that industry survives for later is smart business. Talk to anybody in business. They invest in themselves, and it is the same principle for the Australian government. Whether it be through infrastructure or an early stimulus program like this, government should invest in the Australian economy, in Australian businesses and in ourselves. Debt is not a bad word. It shows that we are actually investing. Everybody has a mortgage. Everybody spends to then pay it back. Every business, if it wants to grow, will spend and get itself into debt. The payback plan is what matters.
When you look at the debt level of Australia, our debt compared to other nations is low. That is the critical thing about the fear campaign of the other side. They are not being honest about the debt levels in Australia compared to other countries in the OECD. When I say that debt is not a bad word, we have to understand the intricate involvement of the word 'debt'. If you want to invest and grow the economy like we saw under the previous Labor government, you actually need to invest and work out the program, working with business and industry to ensure that, as the economy and receipts grow, debt is paid down.
The alternative to not stimulating the economy and instead doing nothing is, as I have flagged, austerity. Austerity is a problem. Cutting government spending does not solve debt. It does not solve growth problems. These cuts actually compound a recession that has been caused by the private sector. We know that austerity is on the way. All the talk from this government is that they are going to cut and cut everywhere. Whether it be school funding or small business support, when there are fewer dollars in the economy, the private sector will start to fail. We are not through this global financial crisis yet. The short-term, three- or five-year headline 'We got the country out of debt' is just not going to happen. We know that from what we have seen elsewhere. The obsession with getting Australia out of debt has become a fixation of the government and this fixation will see further pain in our community. I know that, if the cuts they are proposing around education or the changes to small business come in, it will cause big problems for my community. I am concerned about the austerity plan ahead.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:58): I am very pleased to be able speak today on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. It is very important that this legislation is passed, because it is a piece of legislation which helps to address the very poor fiscal situation that the current government has been left with by the previous one. But I think it is important, before getting into the detail of this specific bill, to just reflect on the context, because really the context is very simple. That context is: you cannot consistently spend more money than you have. Whether you run a government, a household or a business, you cannot consistently spend more money than you have. If your income is $60,000 a year and you consistently spend more than $60,000 year, you are going to get into trouble. If you are a small business turning over, say, $2 million a year and you consistently have costs of more than $2 million a year, you are going to get into trouble. Equally, if you are a government and you consistently, time after time after time, spend more than you take in then you are going to get into trouble.
Of course, the Labor Party has not actually delivered a surplus budget since 1989. That is a long time ago. That represents about 13 years of Labor government management of the budget in which a deficit position is what occurred. If it happened once or twice you might say, 'Well, that was a reaction to a particular set of circumstances; it was something that needed to be done to respond to external factors,' but when it happens every year for 13 years, it is not a response to particular circumstances; it is just a way of life. And that is the way of life that the Labor Party has put in place when it has had control of the treasury bench. That is unsustainable and certainly not something we can continue with.
The bill before us today is an important piece of legislation because it stops $900 cheques being paid to people under a program that was created to address a situation five years ago. So, remarkably, under the previous government, they were still paying $900 cheques to people to address an economic situation which occurred some five years ago.
I have noticed that members opposite have made some comments to the effect that these are not large amounts of money and that it is only a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there, but certainly, in my experience of life—and, I am certain, in the experience of life of most Australians—millions of dollars are a lot of money. And it is the Australian people's money, because that money has been generated by their enterprise and hard work, whether as pay-as-you-go tax payments, company tax, capital gains tax or any of the other ways in which Australians contribute revenue to this government. The government does not create that money; the people do. The people create the money. And it is incumbent upon the government to treat every dollar of the taxpayers' money with respect. That did not occur under the Labor government and this particular program is quite symptomatic of that failure.
One of the extraordinary things in this program is that a large number of payments have actually been sent to people who are in fact overseas. Again, it is very difficult to stimulate the Australian economy if you are not actually inside the Australian economy. We have seen 16,000 stimulus payments totalling about $40 million sent to people who are not even here—not even in the country. It is very difficult for those people to stimulate the economy, given that they are away from our shores. There is a similar situation in relation to dead people. So $18 million has been paid to people who are in fact deceased, under this program. Again, it is very difficult for those recipients to stimulate the economy!
It does concern me when the response from the other side is: 'These are small amounts of money in the scheme of things; this is a manageable issue.' Well, it is not manageable at all. It is a significant problem. It is completely unacceptable for the federal government to have such disregard for the funds of the taxpayers of Australia, and it has to stop. That is why the passage of this legislation is so important, because it will stop any further cheques being issued under a program that was designed for circumstances that were in place some five years ago.
I think that this program is symptomatic of Labor's budget management in general. In the six years of the Rudd, Gillard and Rudd governments, some hundreds of billions of dollars of debt were run up. We know that is the case. That is the situation we now find ourselves confronted with. We also know though, after MYEFO, that, on the current course, the current financial year deficit is on track to be some $47 billion and, over the next four years, there will be total deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates period—an extraordinary amount of money, especially when that is on top of the very substantial debts of hundreds of billions of dollars that had been built up in the preceding years. It is so bad, in fact, that, at the end of 10 years, if we simply followed the strategy that Labor had in place for the Australian economy and more particularly for the budget of the federal government, we would have gross debt of $667 billion. That is an extraordinary amount of money, and I think it actually means that we have to introduce a new word into the discussion of fiscal balances in Australia. The word is 'trillion', because $667 billion is two-thirds of $1 trillion. So the trajectory set under Labor, if nothing changes, is for a gross debt of some two-thirds of $1 trillion within a decade—$667 billion. That is completely unacceptable to the Australian people, and is certainly not something that this government will allow to occur. It is very important that we pass this bill as a clear message that there is new management in town, and it has respect for the taxpayers of Australia.
It is worth reflecting on how we got here. How did we get to this situation? You do wonder how a government could get the finances of the country into such an extraordinary situation. Sometimes you should look at the very large programs and sometimes at the small programs because those small programs demonstrate an attitude and a way of thinking about the budget. They also demonstrate that the previous government did not regard the money within the federal budget as dollars that must be protected because they had been created by the hard work of ordinary Australians, but rather as money to, frankly, be thrown around as the government saw fit.
We saw a big budget blow-out of more than $6 billion in the border protection area—a failed humanitarian policy and, certainly, a failed financial policy. The blow-out under the previous government was $6 billion. On the theme of large amounts and smaller amounts, we should never forget that the previous government, as part of its supposed border protection policy, spent $2.1 million of Australian taxpayers' money on a shameful advertising campaign promoting its border protection policies. You may recall, Deputy Speaker, much of that money was spent on advertising on FM country radio stations and in suburban newspapers, many of which I suspect are not widely read by people smugglers, and yet the previous government was very willing to hand over that taxpayer money for its own political purpose, which is an outrage.
The BER scheme has of course been well documented. There was extraordinary wastage there. I think the BER scheme really shows the lack of attention to operational detail that we saw in the previous government. They had a press release led strategy, when running a significant government program is about the detail, hard work and making sure that you get value for the taxpayer. We did not see that at all in the procurement processes in the BER scheme which were, frankly, all over the place and wasted an extraordinary amount of money.
The NBN is another example of appalling financial management under the previous government. The strategic review that was recently completed identified a huge amount of wastage on Labor's watch. Way behind schedule and way over the budget is never a good combination, and that is what we saw time and time again with the NBN. We have seen tens of millions of dollars spent advertising the NBN to people who cannot get it because it is not available. We have seen money spent on advertising the NBN saying that it is free when it is not and have seen, frankly, extraordinarily irresponsible carriage of public policy in that area.
Live export is another example. You will recall that the previous government, in what can only be described as a knee-jerk reaction, basically ended the live export industry overnight in response to media reports. Unsurprisingly, that had a disastrous impact on the people working in that industry, many of whom are from electorates in northern Australia. The thinking in the previous government was, 'They are obviously not very happy about this and this hasn't quite worked out how we thought it might, so let's put in place an assistance package.' That assistance package cost $100 million. If the knee-jerk policy had not been put in place in the first place, there would not have been any requirement for that $100 million assistance package. But it was required because the policies of the previous government were very much about managing the daily news and the media cycle, as opposed to doing the substantive work, which is what real government is about.
One of my colleagues mentioned set-top boxes a little earlier. I know a little bit about set-top boxes and I can tell you that you can buy them for a lot less than $350. That is what the government paid for them. They spent $67 million on this program, and that wasted literally tens of millions of dollars. The pink batts scheme cost close to $3 billion. There is a whole series of other programs, and I hesitate to raise them because they are such sad reminders of another time, but I think it is important that we commemorate names like GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, Green Loans, Green Start and the solar homes program in this House.
Mr Frydenberg: Cash for clunkers.
Mr COLEMAN: Cash for clunkers indeed. The member for Kooyong brings my attention to that tremendously ineffective and expensive program. So there was a whole series of extraordinarily bad programs. Some were very big and some smaller, but all were consistent because all of them showed a lack of regard for taxpayer funds.
Mr Frydenberg: Pink batts.
Mr COLEMAN: Of course, close to $3 billion was spent on the pink batts program. The legislation we are considering today will stop the issuance of cheques under the $900 program. That is exactly as it should be. This relates to a program which is more than five years old. If the average Australian were aware that the government was still mailing $900 cheques to people under this program, they would be absolutely outraged—and so they should be. It is therefore extremely important that we do pass this legislation and repeal this bad practice which is in place now.
The current government has been faced with some very difficult fiscal circumstances, given the waste of the previous government, but addressing those issues is what we need to do and will do. Repealing this legislation is an important step in that.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:14): Members of the public who are listening to this debate on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 could be forgiven for thinking it was going on in a parallel universe. They could be forgiven for thinking that this is not a country that is now celebrating its 23rd year of consecutive growth. That is something that we celebrate. No one government can take credit for that. The reforms of the Hawke-Keating governments, the Howard government, and the Gillard and Rudd governments all contributed, together with the thousands of businesses and workers around the country who contributed to ensuring that Australia now is enjoys its 23rd year of consecutive growth.
Our policy performances and our success as an economy over the last five years are more impressive when you look at what has gone on around the rest of the world. This is the parallel universe that the Liberal Party occupies and seeks to deny. Our economy is nearly 13 per cent larger today than it was in 2007 when Labor came to office, whereas around the world many advanced economies are still smaller than they were prior to the global financial crisis. While other economies screeched to a halt Australia's per person GDP skyrocketed from 17th in the world to eighth in the world, and we occupy 12th place in the overall international league table when it comes to the size of our economy. We are one of only seven nations in the world that can lay claim to having a AAA credit rating from all of the major credit agencies.
While Europe and most of the European economies are struggling under an unemployment rate of around 11.7 per cent, we here in Australia enjoy an unemployment rate of nearly half that, although those on the government benches are doing their bit to ensure that we no longer are able to enjoy that success. Over 960,000 jobs were created over the period that Labor was in office at the same time that a staggering 27 million jobs were lost around the world.
All of this did not happen by accident, as previous speakers on our side have said in the course of this debate. The former government acted decisively and put three things into place. We stopped the run on the banks here in Australia by securing bank deposits. It is why Australian banks were still able to meet all of their obligations and Australian consumers felt confident about the security of their bank deposits. We put in place an Economic Security Strategy—round about $10.4 billion, designed to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the meltdown that was going on in the rest of the world. It included lump sum payments to pensioners, because we knew that every additional dollar given to pensioners would likely be spent and stimulate the economy. We put support payments in place for low- and middle-income owners. We invested money in the homebuyers market by putting in place $1.5 billion to help over 150,000 first homebuyers. We invested around $187 million in creating 56,000 new training places over the course of 2008-09 alone.
In addition to this, the third limb of the package was the Nation Building and Jobs Plan of $42 billion, effectively bringing forward the infrastructure spend that any normal government would have put in place over one to 2½ decades—bringing forward the spend in a concentrated period of time to ensure that we kept the economy ticking over and, critically, the building and construction part of the economy ticking over.
Building the Education Revolution, for example, saw over 9,500 building projects going on in schools right around the country. Those on the opposite side of the House criticise this program, but they were breaking their legs to get down to the school halls, the science labs, the libraries and the upgraded facilities to ensure that they could be there cutting the ribbon and taking credit for these programs. They then came here and bagged those very same initiatives.
More than 20,000 new social housing and defence housing projects were put in place to stimulate the home construction part of the economy, while $950 in cash payments to eligible families, single workers, students and drought affected farmers were also put in place to stimulate the economy. There were of course tax breaks to business and funding for local infrastructure and road projects—all critical parts of this three-pronged strategy to ensure that the Australian economy did not follow the path of the rest of the world into recession and in some countries depression.
What was happening around the rest of the world? In the United States, over 8.8 million jobs were lost, $19.2 trillion was lost in household wealth, and real GDP fell by more than five per cent. They are lumbering now under a budget deficit of in excess of $1.4 trillion. In the EU we are still seeing the GFC being played out. Greece has an unemployment rate of nearly 27 per cent and the Greek GDP fell by almost seven per cent. They have had to be bailed out with an over 110-billion euros loan from the EU. In Ireland we saw the banks lose an estimated 100 billion euros and we have seen unemployment rise by 10 per cent. This is just a snapshot of what has gone on around the rest of the world whilst Australia has had this remarkable experience of ensuring its 23rd year of consecutive growth.
It is often said that if you dodge a bullet you don't feel the pain and in many respects that has been the experience of the Australian economy. We dodged the bullet—not by accident but through decisive action by the government. So it is the job of the incoming government to try and rewrite history. That is exactly what they are trying to do—trying to rewrite history to deny the fact that the global financial crisis ever existed and to argue that the proper course of action for a government would have been to do absolutely nothing. We reject this.
We condemn the fact that the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, actually slept through the critical debates and the critical legislation that put in place the three-pronged strategy that I have spoken about. So interested was he in what was going on in the Australian economy at the time that he could not even be bothered to turn up to the parliament, could not be bothered to turn up and engage in the legislative debate. That is right: he slept through it, so interested was he in what was going on with the economy at the time. It does stick in our craws slightly when we engage in this debate today to be given lectures by those opposite on what the proper course of action was to put in place when the rest of the world was going through a financial meltdown. They argued then that we should have done nothing; they now argue that everything we did was wrong while secretly, back in their own electorates, they took credit for many of the initiatives that were put in place by the former government.
Of course it does not end there. In obtaining control of the treasury bench they have set themselves on the path of a number of wars. We have seen the beginnings of a culture war, but we are also seeing the Treasurer puff himself up and launch his own very special war on entitlements. The age of entitlements is over we are told. He is trying to convince us that it is not what you get but what you give that matters. Whether you are a worker who is struggling to meet your cost-of-living challenges or whether you are a business struggling to compete as the big changes occur in the national and international economies, we are being told by the Treasurer, in his war on entitlements, that we have all got to tighten our belts.
There are only two problems with that: the first problem is that it is not the right message you want to send to the economy when we are seeing a global contraction; the second, and probably bigger, problem I have with the Treasurer's war on entitlements is that unfortunately the Prime Minister did not get the memo. He was more than happy to stick up his hand and claim his entitlement to his wedding allowance, as were many others on the other side of the House. He was not alone in this: the member for Canning engaged in a taxpayer funded real estate tour of North Queensland and Senator Brandis was more than willing to stick up his hand for his entitlements to build his personal library collection. And of course there is the $4.4 billion paid maternity leave scheme.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): The member for Throsby will take his seat.
Mr Frydenberg: I want to ask the member for Throsby whether he is proud of the member for Lalor's and the member for Isaac's record—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you suggesting an intervention?
Mr Frydenberg: It is an intervention—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you calling for an intervention?
Mr Frydenberg: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want to ask the member for Throsby a question?
Mr Frydenberg: Yes, I do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you accept the question, Member for Throsby?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I would be happy to answer a question from the member for Kooyong if he asked the right question, but those opposite never ask the right question, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I decline—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member for Throsby accept—you decline?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I decline; I do not accept this because they never ask the right question. They are full of stunts but they never ask the right question.
So when we heard the Treasurer launch his war on entitlements—he has got his gaze fixed on many within the community, but it is a one-eyed gaze—he did not, for example, include the mining industry. In fact, one of his first acts in coming back into government was to give some of the wealthiest in our community a tax cut while providing a tax hike for those in our community who can afford it the least. That is right, we saw people with superannuation account balances well in excess of $2 million get a tax cut while those who are earning less than $38,000 a year get a tax hike. In fact, if you want a tax cut under this government you have to ensure that your name is George or that you own a mining company.
So when we hear those opposite launch their war on entitlements, we know it is wrong by our economy. We also know that it is actually a war on the entitlements of those who can afford it the least while those opposite give a free pass to those who can—and I do not begrudge them for one moment but, frankly, if you are going to give a tax cut, the tax cut should be given to those who are in most need. I argue that that has not been the act of this government.
We believe that we should be putting in place the sorts of policies that have ensured that Australia, unlike any other nation on earth, has enjoyed its 23rd consecutive year of growth. We believe in putting in place these sorts of policies. It is not an end in itself; it is like listening to the diatribe of those opposite about the importance of budget surpluses. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to understand that, if your policy is to have a budget surplus no matter what the circumstances, your policy is committed to taxing Australians more than you need to. That is what it means. If you are committed to delivering a budget surplus no matter what the circumstances, you are committed to taxing Australians more than you need to. It is not an accident—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope the intervention is not for the sake of hearing the sound of your own voice, Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr Frydenberg: Not at all.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I hope you are not leading the member for Bass astray and just taking up the time of the member for Throsby. And I am making sure that you are not using this House as your plaything to hear, once again, the sound of your own voice. Parliamentary Secretary, have you a point of order?
Mr Frydenberg: Yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Frydenberg: A question to the member for Throsby.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you have already had an intervention. I do not know whether there can be two interventions in the one address.
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The clerk says there can. What is your question?
Mr Frydenberg: The member for Throsby referred to debt and deficit. I would like him to tell the House the last time the Labor Party produced a budget surplus.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you accept the intervention?
Mr STEPHEN JONES: No, I do not. And given the time—unless the member is moving an extension of time, and I understand that he probably is not, I believe you are right, Mr Deputy Speaker: it was merely a device to run down the clock because they did not like what they were hearing.
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (12:29): What we have just heard from the member for Throsby on this Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 is an exemplar of revisionist history. The people considered both the actual history, the economic history, of our country from 2008 to 2013 and what we just heard from the member for Throsby and they cast their judgement on 7 September last year. They highlighted the version of history that they believed. Deputy Speaker, I would argue that, if you were to do a word association test with the average Australian using the words 'government waste' as the cue, the most common responses would be 'pink batts', 'school halls' and '$900 cheques'. Those are emblematic failures of the Labor government from 2008 to 2013 and they are evidence of Labor's callous disregard for taxpayer dollars. It was a period of our political history characterised by extravagance in relation to the spending of taxpayer dollars and by a total lack of evidence based policy making. I will go into the reasons for that shortly.
It was clear to Australians on 7 September last year, having cast their eye back over the previous six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government, that the bonfire of Labor vanities was fuelled by an endless supply of borrowed money. As Kenny Rogers used to say, 'There'll be time enough for counting when the dealing's done.' The counting of Labor's time in government tells a very sad story indeed.
I heard the member for McMahon earlier talk of Labor's economic record as a source of great pride, a record to celebrate. He was followed by the member for Hotham, who made the extraordinary statement: 'Labor left the budget in excellent shape.' Let's consider that record. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits totalling $191 billion. The 2012-14 MYEFO forecasts deficits to 2016-17 of a further $123 billion unless urgent corrective action is taken. Because of Labor, the net debt figure for this financial year is forecast to be $192 billion, rising to $280 billion in 2016-17. The Treasurer has said repeatedly that, unless we do something, peak debt is forecast to rise within a decade to $667 billion. Cast your mind back to where that debt was when they took power in 2007—zero. Debt is projected to rise, unless we do something, to $667 billion, two-thirds of $1 trillion. We pay $12 billion in interest payments on that debt each year—a huge, recurring opportunity cost. I would love to be getting some of that $12 billion in my electorate of Bass and putting it towards the many unmet needs in my community. But, sadly, every year $12 billion goes in interest payments because of that debt.
The member for Hotham earlier trotted out the usual Labor talking points, comparisons of Australia's debt with those of European countries. But reasonable people around this country will ask the obvious question: why are we benchmarking ourselves against European countries that have been spending unsustainably for decades, European countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 100 per cent? Why is that the test that Australia seeks to set for itself in terms of its economic performance? Why doesn't Labor ever talk about the speed of growth of our debt since 2007? If you compared the speed of growth of our debt with those of some of our competitor countries, you would get a far more valuable benchmark in terms of how our economy has travelled in the last six years. The reason they do not is that it is a most unflattering comparison and it highlights the extent to which Labor breached the people's trust.
Why don't members opposite ever benchmark our economic performance against Australia's economic health at the time that they won the 2007 election? Why don't they reveal, for example, that under the Howard government the Australian economy grew at an average annual rate of 3.6 per cent, compared to the average annual growth rate under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd of 2.5 per cent; or that real GDP per capita grew at an average annual rate of 2.3 per cent, compared to the average annual rate under Labor of 0.7 per cent? Why don't they reveal that Howard and Costello delivered an average surplus of just over $8 billion and surpluses averaging 0.9 per cent of GDP? Surpluses are something which the member for Throsby was unwilling to comment on. When asked, 'When was the last time that Labor delivered a surplus?' he refused to answer that very simple question. What chutzpah by the member for McMahon and his colleagues earlier today to suggest that we should somehow celebrate Labor's achievement. Why would we want to celebrate the fastest deterioration in debt in modern Australian history?
I noted also that the member for McMahon and every other Labor speaker so far this morning extensively quoted Professor Joseph Stiglitz in relation to Labor's stimulus package. They omitted some important detail on their economist of choice. In 2005 Professor Stiglitz co-authored a book with a gentleman called Andrew Charlton. Charlton, of course, went on to become former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's senior economic adviser during his first stint as Prime Minister. The book they co-authored was titled Fair Trade for All: HowTrade Can Promote Development. When I did some searching on Professor Stiglitz, I came across an article by Michael Stutchbury in The Australian on 17 November 2009. He attributed Mr Rudd's breathless attack on neo-liberalism in The Monthly as drawing heavily on Mr Charlton's mentor, Joseph Stiglitz. Stutchbury said:
Stiglitz has made his fabulous career by highlighting the reasons why markets don't always work. Now he famously claims that the global financial crisis will be for global capitalism and free markets what the fall of the Berlin Wall was for communism 20 years ago.
Yet, for Australia, the Stiglitz critique is of little use. … it's in our interest for China and India to become more, not less, pro-market.
The member for McMahon and the others opposite might wish to reveal whether their passionate referencing of Professor Stiglitz reflects their own belief in the end of capitalism and free markets. That would be an extraordinary position for any sensible person to take—and I know the member for Throsby would never take that position—much less someone who professes to be the alternative Treasurer of this country.
The Stiglitz disciples might explain why we should be proud of Labor's $900 cheques, which they claim were designed to deal with the global financial crisis. Are they seriously suggesting that we should continue to issue these cheques in response to what was, let's face it, a relatively short-lived global event with only a modest impact on Australia, and that happened years ago? Are they seriously suggesting we should celebrate policy decisions by Labor that have put our economy and our budget in such difficulty? Consider, for example, how the NBN morphed into the mess confronting Australia today. When the private sector knocked back Mr Rudd's $4 billion broadband thought bubble, he said, 'No trouble; we'll fund it from taxpayer money at 10 times the cost.' And who can forget that famous Tony Jones-Senator Conroy interview on Lateline, where the minister admitted he had no business case to rely on before entering negotiations with the telcos on what was a multibillion-dollar spendathon with taxpayers' money? What extraordinary dysfunction!
The tax bonus for working Australians is another example of wanton profligacy that is straight out of the drunken sailor playbook. It is a GFC stimulus measure from Labor that keeps on giving, 4½ years after the initial payments in 2009. Most sensible commentators on the GFC will tell you that it was a relatively short-lived event that had only a modest impact on Australia. Those opposite are keen on quoting Professor Stiglitz's views on the GFC; let's consider the analysis of someone less connected to key figures in the former Labor government.
The member for Bendigo said, 'The GFC is not over yet,' as a means of justifying continuing with these $900 cheques. Let's look at what Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens said about this:
The whole crisis—
and he was referring here to the global financial crisis—
was very much a North Atlantic crisis. It was really only a global crisis for six or eight weeks …
Certainly by 2009 the unemployment figures as they came through were reinforcing the fact that GFC impacts on Australia were relatively modest and that the need for stimulus had passed. But the Labor government continued to use the GFC as a crutch—a prop—for wasteful spending.
The coalition made a commitment to end this waste during the 2013 federal election, and this repeal bill partly delivers on that commitment. We made this promise on the logical basis that stimulus to the economy in 2013-14 is no longer required. We are acting to make absolutely sure that further tax bonus payments cannot be made by the ATO by repealing the tax bonus act.
And there are so many reasons why we should repeal this bill. A lot of the $900 cheques have not been issued yet and, unlike those opposite, we believe that even one unnecessary $900 cheque is one too many. The last thing we want is to add even one more dollar of pressure on a budget that is unsustainable and that we inherited from those opposite. As I said earlier, MYEFO has forecast $123 billion worth of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates and $667 billion of peak debt unless we take action now. That is why we must end these unnecessary payments, 480,000 of which—and in excess of $400 million—were made following the original payment of stimulus cheques from July 2009 to the present time. The total amount borrowed by the government to spend on stimulus payments to date with these cheques is estimated to be in the order of $7.7 billion.
I know that for many of those opposite, the words 'million' and 'billion' are loosely interchangeable, but let us put some context around those dollars. If you consider that it costs about a billion dollars to build a new teaching hospital, that is the equivalent of about eight new teaching hospitals around our country—one for every state and territory. It is potentially a new Royal Hobart Hospital or a new Launceston General Hospital in Tasmania. It costs around $50 million for a new school, so $7.7 billion is about 150 new schools around the country. That is the opportunity cost of wasteful spending. Imagine if we could also save the $12 billion in interest payments it costs taxpayers to service our debt? Against those benchmarks of $1 billion for a new teaching hospital and $50 million for a new school we could certainly do a lot.
Despite eminent commentary, the 'age of entitlement' has not yet ended. To the contrary, Labor's entitlement legacy lives on in this misplaced tax bonus: inflated, ill-conceived in terms of its implementation and still turning up in people's post boxes. When $900 stimulus payments turn up in people's letterboxes four years after the GFC it begs the obvious question: 'If I am still receiving stimulus cheques from Labor today when they are no longer in office and when I don't need it, what else have they wasted my hard-earned taxes on?' Pink batts come to mind, as do the Julia Gillard memorial halls.
'Stimulus payment' is a euphemism for a Labor government that was 'drowning, not waving'; clueless in terms of critically assessing the actual measurable negative impact of the GFC on an economy that was perfectly capable of absorbing economic shocks. No surprises as to why that was the case, because the economy was cushioned by the economic legacy of the Howard government—its fiscal constraint and sound budgetary management.
The $900 stimulus payments did of course stimulate Australia's international aid effort: Millions of cheques were mailed out in 2012-13, including to foreign backpackers who had been in the country during 2007-08. And for those recipients the 'Lucky Country' had a cheque attached: 'Thanks for coming, please come back, and here's a lazy $900 from the taxpayer to tide you over.' Cheques also went to dead people, at least 21,000 of them.
And so we see landmines in Labor policy, including this one, which has extended beyond their life in office. And we see complexities: the 'just terms' clause of the Constitution could provide the basis of a challenge on the grounds that those yet to receive the payment could sue the Commonwealth if the government halts the scheme, because the stimulus cheque could be regarded as property under section 51 of the Constitution and that would have to be acquired by the Commonwealth on just terms.
The Treasurer is right: no matter what roadblocks are put in front of us, we will get rid of this bill. In the high court of common sense and public opinion 'just terms' would see this Labor stimulus cheque fiasco end with the swift passage— (Time expired)
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (12:45): I rise to speak on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. This bill will ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments or, as they are more commonly referred to, $900 stimulus cheques. These payments were designed to provide stimulus to the Australian economy at the height of the global financial crisis. In opposition, the coalition opposed the payments on the grounds that the package was poorly targeted, ineffective in supporting employment and unaffordable. And were they right? They were right. The total amount of borrowed government money spent on stimulus payments to date is estimated to be around $7.7 billion. Let me repeat that: $7.7 billion of borrowed money. I would hate to think how many taxpayer dollars we are spending on interest just servicing that portion of the debt. That is $7.7 billion, plus interest, that our children and our children's children will have to find. If you combine that with the debt left by the Queensland state Labor government, that is an enormous amount of money for the five people in my family.
Since the introduction of the stimulus cheques, more than 21,000 payments have been made to dead people, totalling more than $18 million. This includes the payment of 40 stimulus cheques to deceased individuals so far this financial year. Since its introduction, more than 16,000 stimulus payments have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas, totalling around $14 million. While that is great for France, Spain, England or wherever our citizens decide to reside, it is not great for Australia.
In my electorate of Hinkler, fruit and vegetable growers are continuing to receive stimulus cheques for backpackers they employed years ago who are no longer even in the country. As an example, a gentleman named Craig van Rooyen, the owner of Sweet Sensations on the outskirts of Bundaberg, employs up to 35 backpackers a day, depending on the crop, through the Working Holiday visa program. He grows lychees, macadamias and mangoes. He has previously grown strawberries and bananas. Mr van Rooyen is of South African descent but he has managed to pick up the Australian vernacular. When my office informed him of this bill's introduction to parliament his response was, 'It's about bloody time.' He said he forwarded stimulus cheques on to backpackers if he knew they were still in the country, as he was satisfied that at least they would spend the money in this nation, but he continues to receive the cheques for people who left the country years ago. These he does not forward on. His position on this matter is shared by many growers across the Hinkler electorate.
This emergency economic stimulus is no longer warranted, so it makes absolutely no sense for the ATO to keep administering the cheques. More than 480,000 payments totalling more than $400 million were made over the financial years following the original payment of stimulus cheques—that is, 4½ years on from the GFC. Stopping the cheques now will save taxpayers an estimated $250,000 over the forward estimates. During the 2013 federal election, the coalition made a commitment to end Labor's waste, and this repeal bill delivers on that commitment. We are doing what we said we would do.
But Labor waste was not confined to stimulus cheques; it extends far beyond that. For example, Labor wasted $67 million on administering a program to install set-top boxes in people's homes for an average of $350 each, even though Harvey Norman offers customers the same deal for $168. How many of those are now in operation? I would suggest: very few. Government bureaucrats sold two billiard tables for $6,000 and then promptly stumped up $100,000 to investigate whether the sale was good value. Departments purchased gold-plated coffee machines for $15,000 each. Senate estimates revealed Labor spent $8.5 million on advertising the schoolkids bonus scheme, which was an automatic payment. In mid-2013, just one of the 28 GP superclinics promised during the previous election was operational. Labor was spending $440,000 a month to maintain an empty detention centre in Tasmania. A dozen climate change bureaucrats left taxpayers with a $1,700 bill for one dinner. The Department of Parliamentary Services spent about $2.4 million on training that included advice on how to get a good night's sleep. I hope that was successful.
We come to the famous school halls. I worked on many of the BER projects. I saw probably over a hundred of these projects rolled out across the state. I will give an example of the absolutely ridiculous amount of administration that went with it. In Western Queensland, I went to a BER project where the building did not look exactly the way it should have looked. I spoke to the builder and the builder said, 'If we walk around the back you'll see why it's been changed and shortened.' There was a camphor laurel tree. For those who know anything about camphor laurel, it is a noxious weed. However, instead of knocking the tree over, they built around it, so the building got smaller and became less value for money. There is currently a program around independent public schools. If that program were in place, can you imagine the school principal and the school board accepting those changes from a contractor? Even though the rollout was terribly managed for BER projects, it was a huge investment in infrastructure. We could have had much better value for taxpayers' money if that program were in place—if you had local content, local principals and local people making decisions in the best interests of their school. That is what should have happened. The projects that I saw that were delayed, the ones that were run by private schools, were far more beneficial. They got more building, they got more equipment and they more things inside the building. It was much greater. It has been suggested that the Independent Public Schools program would have helped with this infrastructure spend.
Then we get to the famous home insulation scheme.
Mr Frydenberg: Infamous!
Mr PITT: Infamous! How could you possibly not make the connection between a roof full of alfoil and live wiring in a house which is five, 10, 15, 20 or up to 50 years old? Even with no technical knowledge, how could you not make the connection that it was dangerous? How could you not make the connection that it could cause a fire?
It has been an absolute tragedy for that project to pull up because of the deaths of young workers, a number of which were in Queensland. It is right, fair and just that we should do an investigation into that matter, and I hope we get to the bottom of it.
Possibly the two biggest program failures in Australian history have, of course, been the National Broadband Network and the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Project—NBN and SIHIP, as they are known. The rollout of the National Broadband Network is currently two years behind schedule, with final completion due 11 years later than promised by Kevin Rudd. The cost to taxpayers of completing the NBN under Labor's plan has blown out to $73 billion.
Mr Stephen Jones: Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I have been very patient. Normally with a tax bill a lot of latitude is given to speakers, but it is very difficult to see how these completely unrelated programs are relevant to any tax bill or the matter under consideration.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): I give the call to the member for Hinkler and he will be relevant to the bill.
Mr PITT: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. But this bill is about repairing Labor's waste, and it is great to set some examples. These are examples that we are aware of and they need to be known to the Australian people. I think it is important that we demonstrate what they are and we continue on that path.
In my region of Hinkler, people were told that they would be connected to the National Broadband Network by Christmas, would you believe? After six years, they would have it in four months. It was a ridiculous outcome. Our plan to use a mix of technologies will save taxpayers $32 billion, keep monthly bills lower and deliver the NBN to all Australians, four years sooner than under Labor's plan. The average household bill will be $72 per month compared with $139 per month under Labor's plan.
SIHIP was also out of control under Labor. In its first year the scheme was double over budget and had failed to deliver a single house. There was no transparency in expenditure. As an ,example the Labor government spent $42 million on consultants on house design in the Northern Territory, only to ignore the advice they received. Targets were only met because the Labor government continually lowered the bar on building standards. Much of the work was what is referred to as 'fix and make safe', instead of the complete renovations that were promised.
In 2006, before the scheme started, 75 per cent of Indigenous people lived in overcrowded dwellings. In 2011, despite the government spending $1.7 billion on Indigenous housing, the figure remained at 75 per cent. Quick fixes were the hallmark of the Rudd and Gillard governments. They threw money at problems, but the only results they delivered were more debt and deficit.
The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook released in December last year forecast a $47 billion deficit in 2013-14 and $123 billion worth of cumulative deficits over the forward estimates. So, despite the Rudd and Gillard governments asking Australians to pay 43 new or increased taxes in 2013-14 alone, they spent $47 billion more than they earned. Under Labor, real government spending grew at around 3.5 per cent over the five years from 2007-08 to 2012-13 and is expected to grow further to 3.7 per cent over the medium term.
If we were to retain the policies we inherited, the budget would not return to surplus within the 10-year medium-term projections, with gross debt on issue increasing to $667 billion. For those mums and dads who are listening to this speech, in simple terms it means this: if you continue to spend more than you earn, and you fill your credit card and you fill the credit card that is sent to you in the mail, you will eventually have to pay the money back and there will be very, very difficult decisions. We are getting on with those decisions.
Politicians talk about debt and deficit and use fancy terminology like 'horizontal fiscal equalisation'. But at the end of the day Australians just want to know that they are getting a fair go. They want to know that we, their elected representatives, are spending their hard-earned money wisely to deliver the services and infrastructure that they need. Under Labor, Australia was living beyond its means. We were spending more than we earned, year after year after year, leaving future generations with a massive credit card bill. That is not sustainable.
This bill, to put an end to the $900 stimulus cheques, is another step towards prudent and responsible budget management. The adults are in the room and they are back in charge.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (12:56): I rise to speak on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. All of us in this House—my colleagues on this side of the House—view debt very seriously. They view taxpayers' money very seriously. As someone who is a small business owner, someone who has built a small business from scratch, I know a lot about debt as well. I do know that when you front up to the bank to borrow money, you actually have to be able to prove that you can pay it back, that you can make your commitments. That is what we have always had to do as a business. Every time we have borrowed money we have had to demonstrate very clearly to the bank that we could actually pay off what we borrowed and that we had the capacity to pay it off.
But when I sat here, as many of my colleagues did, from 2007-08 and we watched the decisions made by the Labor government of the day, I had no words. I sat on the other side of the chamber and I could not believe the decisions that were being made. But, more importantly, I could not believe the ease with which debt was being committed to. Taxpayers' dollars were being committed, and what was being done with them—without appropriate scrutiny, without accountability and even, in some instances, without any form of regulation—was a bit like a free-for-all. There was almost an air of desperation around the government at the time. It was actually appalling to sit in this chamber and watch the announcements parade in. There was almost an air of excitement about what was going to be announced next. But what we did not see—and what appalled me as a small business person who had had to borrow and demonstrate how we were going to pay debts off—was how it was going to be paid off. We never ever saw that, and I sat here day after day after day waiting to hear the plan as to how this was going to be paid off. How was the government going to generate surpluses to pay off the debt and deficit for things like $900 stimulus cheques? I never ever heard it. We are still waiting for that. We have waited for so long that we have now had a change of government—and what we are looking at is that if we do not make tough decisions, and the right decisions, then in the medium term the debt will be $667 billion.
But there is another side to this. I have sat still and listened to what Labor have said since the election and since the release of the MYEFO figures. I think we need to keep a tab on what else is being promised, what else the Labor government historically and now Labor opposition said they would do if they were in government, because the $667 billion is just the minor end of the deal if they were in government. If you have continuous spending, with no concern and no plan to pay it back, you cannot run a business, let alone a household, and certainly not the Australian economy. But that is what we have seen and that is what would still be happening if there had not been a change of government. Where was the plan? I saw so many of them, one after the other, come into this place and with great excitement talk about how they were going to spend taxpayers' money next. I looked for the plan as to how it would be paid off, and the thing that dismayed me most is that I realised that this is about intergenerational debt.
Each successive government should come into this place with the idea of leaving the condition of the parliament and the condition of the country better than what they found it. But that is not what we have inherited. We know that Labor inherited surpluses and savings when they came to government. That gave them the flexibility to make decisions about how they would spend it. Then they decided that they would accumulate the amount of debt and deficit that we see today—literally, they were out of control. We need to take every single measure that we can to reduce that. Even in the way we allocate our spending and in the scrutiny we apply to what we do, there will be a far different approach from what Labor had. That is what people right around Australia, and particularly in my electorate, are expecting. That is what they voted for. They voted for those who could be in charge of the budget, for those who would make good decisions, and certainly not decisions like this one we are debating: the $900 cheques that were just handed out. We have also heard about the length of time that these cheques have been running—long after the stimulus package itself.
Being a farmer and someone from rural and regional Australia, I was very interested that there were claims made at the time about the various measures that might have kept Australia out of technical recession. When I looked at the figures, it was the agricultural exports that kept us out of technical recession, but I never heard anything about that from the other side of politics. Labor never ever acknowledged that. They claimed that it was because of a range of their measures, but when you looked at the figures you saw that it was the agricultural exports—the people in our rural and regional areas just toughing it out, day after day, doing what they do best. We know that they are some of the best producers of food and fibre in the world. They just kept at it right throughout that global financial crisis and kept Australia out of technical recession. But I never heard that from the other side of this House.
This measure was just one of so many wasteful spending measures decided on by the Labor government. There were verdicts left, right and centre about how well this was spent. The other side has had a lot to say, but I have looked at what was said by some others and I saw an article from The Australian entitled 'Damning verdict on the stimulus'. The article was written by Adam Creighton and it included discussion about the $8 billion worth of cheques and comments by Mr Tony Makin, an Australian economics professor. There were also comments from a Treasury official that showed Australians on average spent only an extra dollar of their $900 windfall. I remember hearing at the time in this place that this was supposed to be the biggest stimulus for the retail sector. If the people receiving the cheques only spent a dollar of it at the time, where was the stimulus for the retail sector that was meant to happen? The article quotes the authors of a paper saying:
The effect of the fiscal transfer on the change in household consumption expenditures is insignificant and quantitatively small—the average household spent less than 0.2 per cent of the income windfall.
So there have been a range of people who have had a look at the stimulus; it is not just what is being said on this side of the House.
We saw money literally flying out the doors. Much has been said by my colleagues about where that money went. We saw $2.5 billion spent on the pink batts program, and we saw what happened with that. There was inappropriate planning; there was a lack of accountability. We saw a similar thing with the school halls program, and a lot has been said about that and the types of projects that were built. Like my colleagues, I had people come to see me about the obscene waste and the fact that they were not allowed to build what their school actually needed. We also saw money wasted going into GP superclinics, with all sorts of promises. This was taxpayers' dollars. What I could never get over when I looked across the chamber was that it was almost like it was somebody else's money and it just did not matter where it went or how it went. It was somebody else's money, somehow, and no responsibility was taken for how it was spent. Well, I take it really seriously and my colleagues on this side take it extremely seriously, which is why we are committed to the measures we are taking. When I saw the ridiculous waste of GroceryWatch, I just thought, 'What the?' When I went out in my communities throughout the south-west, people would say to me, 'What is going on?' It was same with the Fuelwatch idea, and everything from Green Start to solar homes—it was like there was money just flying out the door.
I will go back to where I started. What bothered me most was that there was no plan from Labor to pay any of this off. Right up until the election, we did not see a plan to pay off any of this. It was on the never-never, on the tick, someone else's problem, and now we see exactly where that has led us as a nation. I look around my electorate—like my colleagues do in theirs—and imagine what I could do with the interest bill alone, of $10 billion a year. Imagine the good programs and projects that we could all be doing with the interest. Look at health; look at ageing—there are so many areas where there are people in need, and yet we see this extraordinary and dreadful waste. I can recall the dismay that I felt as I looked across at the faces on the government side. I never saw one ounce of accountability on any face; no sense of responsibility at all. It was somebody else's money and it did not matter. Well, it matters to us. That is why we will take the measures necessary, and this is one of them.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:09): I rise today to support the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. This bill repeals the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No. 2) 2009, the tax bonus act. That act was responsible for the millions of what were commonly referred to as $900 stimulus cheques. Hundreds of thousands of those payments were made after the GFC had passed, and common sense tells me that we do not need to be borrowing money to give to taxpayers to stimulate an economy after the danger has passed.
The cheques were first handed out after the 2007-08 financial year to Australians who paid tax during that income year, and they were designed to stimulate the Australian economy during the global financial crisis—we all get that. In total, the Australian government had to borrow $7.7 billion to make these payments. I will say that again: $7.7 billion of borrowed money to make these payments. Most payments were made in 2009. However, in true Labor style—they are Australia's waste-creation gold medallists—over 480,000 payments, totalling $400 million, were made after the GFC, and they still continue to be handed out today.
Mr Fletcher: Shame!
Mrs GRIGGS: It is a shame. It is an absolute disgrace. There is a stimulus package to oil the Australian economy during tough economic times, and then there is plain, unadulterated incompetence, gladhanding and—dare I say it—electoral pork-barrelling. The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act miraculously managed to do both at the same time.
Let us look at the other ways Labor have wasted the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars by handing out cheques where it was impossible for them to stimulate the Australian economy. Last year—four years after the global financial crisis—15,000 cheques were handed out, totalling $13 million of borrowed money. It just does not make sense to me. Over 16,000 stimulus cheques have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not understand how sending cheques overseas is going to stimulate the Australian economy. That is around $14 million Labor borrowed to stimulate our economy, and they sent it overseas. It just does not make sense. I suppose it was the global financial crisis—'Think global, act local,' they say on that side—but this might be taking it a little bit too far. We all know that Kevin Rudd thought he was the Prime Minister of the entire world, but really he was just the Prime Minister of Australia, and he was sending cheques to all these people living overseas.
You would think that would be it, but there is more and it gets worse. Here we are, years on from the GFC, and we are still handing out $900 stimulus cheques to people who have passed away. The Labor Party just do not seem to get it. Dead men do not tell tales and dead men do not splurge at Myer sales. The Labor Party still have not come up with a plausible explanation for this particular act of administrative incompetence. Why would they be sending cheques to people who have passed away? I would absolutely love to hear a plausible explanation of how they could possibly do that and think that it is okay. The Rudd-Gillard government made over 21,000 payments to people who had passed away, which represents more than $1.8 million of borrowed money that was sent to people who had passed away. It just does not make sense. But there is some good news. The coalition is here to put a stop to this waste—to put a stop to the abysmal waste and mindless spending of other people's money that became a hallmark of the former administration.
The bill deals with just one example of Labor's waste, and unfortunately it represents only a small portion of the taxpayer dollars that they wasted. The release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December last year ruled off the legacy of the former Labor government. The MYEFO forecast a $47 billion deficit in 2013-14—a $47 billion deficit—and $123 billion worth of cumulative deficit over the forward estimates. It is just unbelievable. We have the Labor Party to thank for this debt. We have the Labor Party to thank for the fact that, if the coalition had not formed government, the budget would not have returned to surplus for at least another 10 years.
Thankfully, the coalition did form government. Thankfully, the adults are now in charge. Thankfully, we are ending the waste. This is our first repeal bill to sort out the mess that Labor has left behind. We are doing what we said before the election that we would do, and that is to end the waste and return the budget to surplus. I made a promise to my electorate, a promise to the people of Solomon, to end the waste of their hard-earned tax dollars. That is exactly what I am doing, standing here today in support of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013.
The budget this government has inherited is simply unsustainable. We must act quickly but responsibly, and that is exactly what we are doing. Responsible governments know what they are spending and what their financial liabilities are. The Rudd government started this stimulus program having no idea how much they would be handing out, and, quite frankly, it shows, because five years later we are still handing out these cheques. As a responsible government, the coalition will be ending the waste by halting programs that are unsustainable and uncalculated.
The Labor government spent $14 million stimulating the Australian economy, as I said, by sending money overseas. I am sure that my constituents in Darwin and Palmerston could think of much better ways to stimulate the Australian economy with $14 million. How about spending it here, for starters? Spending $14 million in Australia is a pretty good way to start stimulating the economy, isn't it?
That $14 million could have been spent on the extensions of Tiger Brennan Drive, the highway in Darwin. The Labor government had previously committed $70 million to that project, then they removed it in the 2013 budget, thinking no-one would notice. But we noticed. Territorians are smarter than the Labor Party think they are, and they demanded that their funding be reinstated.
So I had Minister Bishop visit my electorate. On behalf of the coalition, we committed to that project and to bringing forward the funding so that the works on Tiger Brennan Drive could begin this financial year. And that is what it did. Thanks to the coalition government, Tiger Brennan Drive is being expanded right now, as we speak.
I know someone else who might have liked the $14 million. That was the Jingili BMX Club. They were promised $1 million by the Labor government in 2009 or 2010, and it was only in the lead-up to the 2013 election that the Labor candidate re-announced those same funds and the club actually received the funds to build their all-weather track, allowing our local BMX riders to get through the wet season.
Today I have talked about a number of examples of the waste that the Labor government bestowed on the Australian people, so I am proud to be able to speak to this first piece of repeal legislation. I understand that many pieces of legislation are going to be repealed, which is going to stop the waste and mismanagement that the Labor Party bestowed on us in the last six years.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:20): I rise to speak on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013. This bill repeals the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No. 2) 2009, commonly known as the tax bonus act, to ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments, which were commonly known as the $900 stimulus cheques. It may come as a surprise to many people listening to the debate here in parliament today to discover that those $900 cheques, which were designed to stimulate the economy back in 2009, are still being given out today, and they are still being given out with borrowed money. This bill brings this sad period of waste, this reckless spending, to an end.
In fact, if we look through some of the numbers, we find out that in the last financial year, 2012-13, the previous Labor government sent out 15,000 additional $900 cheques. Where did they get the money from? They borrowed every cent. So to save us from the GFC back in 2009, this Labor government, while still borrowing money, was still sending out $900 cheques in 2012-13, and they sent out no less than 15,000 of them.
Going back to those original $900 cheques, it is worthwhile considering what they were actually spent on. I found an interesting section in one of the local papers from Cairns. They went around the CBD at the time the cheques were being given out and asked locals what they were going to spend their $900 on. I will quote a few of the responses.
Mr Entsch: My constituents.
Mr CRAIG KELLY: Constituents of the good member for Leichhardt here. One responder said: 'I'll be spending it on the ladies, high-class ladies. That is how I will roll.' That is where one of the $900 amounts went. Another one said, 'Tattoos. I'll spend my $900 on tattoos straightaway.' Hell, yes. That will get the money straight back in the economy. Another said, 'Tattoos and guitar stuff. I will also shower my wife with gifts.' But there were a few that were a bit more prudent. One said, 'I'll be paying off my credit card and paying off my electricity bill.' Another said, 'I don't know. I'll probably put it into my other savings account and I will save it.' So this was an extremely poorly targeted stimulus program. It was an awful lot of spending but very little true stimulus to the Australian economy. I think Professor Sinclair Davidson put it best as he put down the idea of the theory behind what the former Labor government did. He said:
The classic argument for fiscal stimulus presumes that the central cause of our current economic problems is this: We, the people and our government, are not doing nearly enough borrowing and spending on consumer goods. The government must step in force us all to borrow and spend more. This diagnosis is tragically comic once said aloud.
He went on to Australianise the comment, outlining the previous Labor government's idea of why they brought these so-called $900 cheques in. He said that this is the theory, the problem that the government identified, that Australians had not been borrowing and spending enough on alcohol, pokies, tobacco and prostitutes and there had not been nearly enough purchasing of plasma televisions. Therefore the government had to step in, borrow money and ensure that more consumer spending occurred in these areas.
This was the true premise of what the previous Labor government did. But what they neglected, and what every single speaker on this bill on the opposition side has failed to mention, is that all the money was borrowed and it has to be paid back at some time by future generations. In the meantime, until that debt is paid back, we have to service the interest. There might have been some excuse for so-called stimulating the economy for a short period of time if the previous Labor government had been able to bring the government budget quickly back into surplus. Maybe there is an argument about short-term stimulus spending. But that argument can only be valid if it is a short period of time, the debt is repaid and the budget returns to balance or into surplus. But this is not what happened under the previous government. Despite the promises, despite the rhetoric that the budget would be returning to surplus, despite the comments we saw of the former Treasurer standing at the dispatch box promising that the budget would return to surplus, this nation now faces the situation that, unless there is a change of policy by the new coalition government, unless we change tack and introduce policies to clean up the mess of the previous Labor government, in four years time this nation will be in debt to the tune of $667 billion. What that does is put the burden on future generations and onto our kids and perhaps even our grandchildren not only to service that interest but to continue sometime in the future to pay the debt off. Just think: if nothing is done and that debt blows out to that $667 billion then we as a nation are going to have to face an interest bill repayment of close to $30 billion a year, over $2 billion a month—two thousand million dollars every month of our nation's wealth will simply go to service interest on the debt that has been racked up by the policies of the previous Labor government. And that has an opportunity cost. We can only wonder at the cost of that. That means higher taxes and lower government services, all because of the debt that the previous government racked up.
The great excuse for the previous Labor government racking up this enormous debt was that they saved the nation from the GFC and they saved all these jobs. The only problem is the number of unemployed people. The unemployment queues today are over 220,000 people longer than they were when the previous government came to office. We can fill the MCG twice with the additional number of people that are unemployed today than there were when the previous Labor government came to office. That is the mess we are in. While we also had these so-called stimulus programs, the previous Labor government gave us the carbon tax and the mining tax. They wrapped up our entrepreneurs and our small business sector, the true creators of our nation's jobs, in red and green tape. In our important building and construction sector, they abolished the commission that we had, the cop on the beat. Everything that they were doing in practical terms had the opposite of a stimulus effect on the economy. The true way to stimulate an economy is to take the shackles off the small business community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Broadband Network
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (13:30): These are the signatures of 272,000 people who want the real NBN, Labor's NBN, not the second-rate NBN that this government is building. Unfortunately their petition has fallen on deaf ears; the Liberal Party is not listening.
The coalition went to the election promising a second-rate broadband network and now they are not even going to build that. Before the election the Prime Minister promised that everyone would have access to 25 megabits per second by the end of 2016. That has now gone. That promise was broken in December. He also promised nine million Australian homes and businesses would get fibre to the node. That has now gone. They have broken that promise too. So the NBN is now, effectively, dead. They are not building a national broadband network, they are building a series of networks of different capabilities, different speeds and different technologies.
What you get is potluck. It is a lucky dip. About 24 per cent of Australians will get fibre to the home, 31 per cent will get fibre to a box in the street and 11 per cent to a box in the basement of their apartment, 27 per cent will get broadband from the pay TV cable in their street and seven per cent from fixed wireless and satellite services. The minister calls this MTM, the multi-technology model, but I think it will end up being known as 'Malcolm Turnbull's mess'.
Egypt
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:31): I rise to support Peter Greste, who, as we speak, remains in custody in Egypt because he has had the courage to report on the conflict in that country. Peter was school captain at Indooroopilly State High School in Ryan, and I have known his parents, Juris and Lois, for many years. They are his greatest advocates. I thank the foreign minister for her efforts. She has been in constant communication with the post and with the Egyptian government on Peter's behalf. While the news of a trial date relieves some of the uncertainty of Peter's situation, his detention and that of his Al Jazeera colleagues requires our constant attention. I know that there is strong bipartisan support for Peter in this parliament at this difficult time.
I take this opportunity to call upon the government of Egypt to immediately release Peter and, importantly, release his colleagues. Every democracy confronts the challenges of a free press. We often disagree with reporting—as recent events demonstrate—but for all of those challenges one strong truth endures. A free and robust media and open public debate of ideas and ideologies is essential to the freedom of people including those that the Egyptian government claims to represent.
Heatwaves
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:33): Yesterday was Adelaide's 13th straight day over 40 degrees and my home city of Melbourne has had seven straight days of over 40 degrees. These heatwaves are quite debilitating, as anyone living through them can testify. They are not only unpleasant but also dangerous. The Melbourne heatwave of 2009, which preceded the Black Saturday fires, was killing people well before the fires did. In Victoria, there was a 62 per cent increase in deaths over the normal rate, some 374 deaths more than the average. Not only are the heatwaves unpleasant and dangerous but also they generate massive extra electricity use and potentially threaten electricity shortages and blackouts at the time our cities can least afford them. We hear a lot about the need for baseline energy but the fact is that we need electricity to meet peak demand.
For South Australia, a bright spot in this rather grim picture has been the performance of its solar PV. During the heatwave nine per cent of South Australia's electricity demand was met by solar PV. Not only that, Australia's only solar panel manufacturing plant, Tindo Solar, is based in South Australia. The contribution of solar PV to meeting peak demand during heatwaves and the manufacturing jobs in solar PV that South Australia very much needs will be under threat if the carbon price is abolished and if the renewable energy target is tampered with. I urge the Liberal government to leave the renewable energy target alone. It is doing a power of good and in a world of heatwaves we are going to need it more than ever.
Rio Tinto
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:34): I rise to respond to misinformation being pedalled by the member for Lingiari about the coalition's role in the shutdown of Rio Tinto in Gove. I welcome the member's return after five months of sulking after being left out of the shadow ministry. As usual his bile and his deceit require clarification and correction.
He knows that Labor governments were in power, both in the Northern Territory and in Canberra, when rumblings first emerged that Rio was looking to wind back its Gove operation. In fact, when the Territory Labor government was negotiating its export licence agreement with Rio, it ignored advice to link the operation of the refinery with its ability to export bauxite. Ignoring that advice now means that Rio can still export bauxite while closing down its refinery. That is why more than 1,000 jobs in Gove will be lost.
Where was the federal Labor government while this was happening? They were fighting amongst themselves about who should be the leader. It is all well and good for Mr Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, to tell the coalition government what it should be doing to address this crisis, but this crisis was created by Labor governments here and in Darwin.
I would also like to remind the House that it was the member for Lingiari who could have saved 400 houses in my electorate and he did not. (Time expired)
Police Numbers
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (13:36): I rise today to speak about a very concerning matter which is the decline in police numbers on the North Coast of New South Wales. This is an issue that my community is very worried about. I condemn the North Coast National Party state MPs for slashing the police numbers in our area. I call on the New South Wales government to immediately restore our police numbers to full strength. This is what our community demands.
In the past two years police numbers in the Tweed-Byron Local Area Command have dropped by 20 officers. In February 2012 there were 198 officers and the latest official figures reveal that there are now only 178 officers in the Tweed-Byron LAC. This is a very concerning drop. These figures are from the official New South Wales government police figures.
As a former police officer, I share the community's disappointment in the North Coast Nationals' failure to deliver local police. In fact, they are putting at risk our community's safety. Recently, the New South Wales shadow minister for the North Coast, Walt Secord, and I launched a community based petition called Operation Safer Streets—North Coast. This petition has been presented to state parliament. We will continue to present more signatures, as we have been overwhelmed by the number of people wanting to sign this petition when we have been doorknocking and speaking to locals as well as those coming in to my mobile office.
We have had an increase in crime in our community, with more bikies coming over the border. I call on the New South Wales government to reinstate our police numbers. (Time expired)
Lindsay Electorate: Awards
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (13:37): The best qualities of the people of Western Sydney were once again on show at this year's Australia Day Awards. Firstly, Harold Hunt of St Marys and George Rabie of Emu Plains were awarded an Order of Australia Medal for their services to the local community. For many years, both Harold and George have been outstanding local ambassadors who epitomise everything that is good about our Western Sydney community.
I also extend my congratulations to the six recipients of the Penrith City Council Awards, which celebrated our region's finest values by recognising local people making a real difference in our community. The bushfires that devastated the Blue Mountains in October put on show Penrith's Citizen of the Year Peter Camilleri's generosity of spirit and commitment to helping others. I witnessed firsthand Peter turning his business, Penrith Storage King, into a collection point for donated goods to help those who had lost their homes. The business also operated as a drop-off point for water and supplies for the Rural Fire Service and State Emergency Services. Thank you, Peter, for all you have done.
Bede Johnston was awarded Penrith Sports Person of the Year. In memory of his sister Kate, who lost her battle with an extremely rare blood disorder in May 2013, Bede competed in the ironman triathlon in Port Macquarie. He raised over $5,000 for the Leukaemia Foundation and also qualified for the World Championships in Hawaii last October.
I also congratulate Robert and Joyce Moynahan, Phil Lacey, Elizabeth Reibelt and the one and only Gina Field from Nepean Regional Security. (Time expired)
Dans, Mr Des Keith
Mr GRAY (Brand) (13:39): I rise to honour the life of Des Dans. A dedicated Labor man, Des Keith Dans lived life according to simple principles. He was committed to Labor values and the betterment of his community. He followed his beliefs throughout his life.
During the war, he served in the Navy. Post war he served in the merchant marine. His commitment to workers' rights saw him serve union members in the Seamen's Union of Australia and ultimately serve Western Australia through the state parliament. His abilities were recognised in the series of senior portfolios he held over the years, including being Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, industrial relations minister, water resources minister, tourism minister and racing and gambling minister.
Des Dans's service, dedication and commitment have benefitted Western Australia and helped to make it the place it is today. Particular regard needs to be paid to how Des helped transform WA in the 1980s. His ability to get things done resulted in landmark decisions being made. He is well known for being minister responsible for the defence of the America's Cup in 1987, a task which resulted in the transformation of Fremantle into the thriving port city it is today. However, this is only one of the many achievements he oversaw. Other achievements include the establishment of Hillarys Boat Harbour, a development that has changed the face of Perth's northern coastal suburbs, and the establishment of Burswood Casino, the largest centre of tourism related training west of Melbourne.
On 2 January 2014, Des Dans died aged 89. He is survived by his wife of 52 years, Rikki, and children, Jody and Peter. His passing means Western Australia has lost a dedicated servant, our party has lost a valued comrade and his family has lost a loved husband and father. For his dedication to our country, Des Dans deserves the respect we offer with this tribute in our national parliament.
Forde Electorate: Country Women's Association
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:40): I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic work of the members of the Beenleigh Branch of the Queensland Country Women's Association. Shortly before the election was called, I was honoured to be invited to attend their 66th annual meeting. Since the meeting, I have been looking forward to sharing some of their achievements.
During 2012-13, the branch members, under the wonderful leadership of Chairperson Mrs Denise Blyth, Vice President Aileen Coles, and Secretary and International Officer Mary Clements, completed an impressive 2,452.5 volunteer hours for the year. The majority of these hours were spent hand-making donations for the Logan Hospital Special Care Unit and emergency wards. Over the past year they have donated a number of trauma teddies, scarves, beanies, slippers, rugs and cot blankets to needy people in the community. In doing so, they have gone a long way to brightening the lives of many people in our community who appreciate the support they receive.
Newcastle Electorate: Surf Life Saving Clubs
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:42): Last week, more than 3,500 people converged on Newcastle for the 2014 Navy Australian Surf Rowers Open. It was a pleasure to welcome all of the competitors to Newcastle as well as the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray Griggs. I would like to acknowledge the contribution of local organisations and individuals who helped successfully organise the event.
Rhonda Scruton, CEO of the Hunter Surf Life Saving, and Callan Nickerson, President of the Stockton Surf Life Saving Club deserve particular praise. I would also like to recognise the work of those behind the scenes, in particular the staff of the Newcastle City Council who looked after a lot of things that often go unnoticed in major events such as this. Whether it is emptying bins, allocating parking areas or, importantly, preparing and maintaining the beach for competition, the council staff have been key contributors to the success of this event for the last three years. I would like to congratulate the various winners of the event and look forward to welcoming all parties back to Newcastle when the event returns.
Beyond events such as this, Surf Life Saving Clubs, with more than 150,000 members up and down the coast of Australia, play a vital role in keeping our communities safe. This week also sees some of the world's best surfers converge on Newcastle for the annual Surfest event, a fantastic event that Newcastle is very proud to host. I wish the competitors every success and look forward to a fortnight of events.
Hughes Electorate: Chinese New Year
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:43): This past Sunday I had the great pleasure of being involved in a wonderful and colourful event in my electorate, celebrating the Chinese New Year with our inaugural Hughes Chinese New Year celebrations. The afternoon was a huge success, with large crowds packing into the Wattle Grove Community Centre to see the colour and talent on show in displays and performances including a traditional Chinese fashion show, a martial arts demonstration, a Chinese cooking demonstration with iron chef Bob Wu and a traditional Chinese lion dance. The standout feature for me was the violin performance by four young children from Wattle Grove, aged just four to six. They wowed the crowd with an enchanting musical recital.
Upon completing their enchanting performance, the four young virtuosos received not one but two standing ovations. It was an amazing display of genuine talent from these gifted youngsters. I would like to pay a special tribute to the event organisers: Cindy Ren, Jerry Jin, Caroline and Thomas Dobson and Professor Frank Zumbo. A special mention to iron chef and culinary expert Bob Wu, costume coordinator Belinda Lam and lion dance team leader Michael Lam. I also congratulate the other helpers: Maggie Mi, Lucy Zhai, John Tower, Jiarong Yu, Simmi Ming, Haicheng Xu, Jing An, Lei Shi, Zongzheng Gao, Denis Wu and Rachel Hembrow and the many others. (Time expired)
Chisholm Electorate: Automotive Industry
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (13:45): Workers work everywhere but mostly they work in the suburbs, like the ones I represent. Toyota's decision has become a nightmare yet again for people who live in my electorate. Not only is it a home to Toyota's technical centre in Notting Hill with 150 employees; it is also home to the largest car component manufacturer in the country. When we continually talk about jobs in regional areas, people forget there are jobs in the suburbs and we need to protect them as much as we protect any job anywhere in this country. My thoughts are with those workers who are sitting in limbo not knowing their future because they are not directly employed by Toyota or Holden but their work is completely dependent upon Toyota and Holden. I have already seen enough car component manufacturers shut down in my electorate. Actually they have been shutting down since the Howard days. We never get a rescue plan into the suburbs. Nobody ever talks about bailing them out. Nobody ever looks at the cost of housing in my suburbs, where the mean average is around $1 million to buy a home. Nobody talks about looking out for them. I am crying out to this government to do something more than just being callous about these workers and discarding them to the scrap heap, and to look at more than just retraining. What are they being retrained for? They are not all going to work on the east-west tunnel. It is going to be a short lived experience anyway. (Time expired)
Lyne Electorate: Australia Day Honours List
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:46): I rise to acknowledge the recent inclusion of a number of my constituents in the seat of Lyne on the Australia Day Honours lists. First of all, I would like to congratulate Rodney O'Regan of Hillville who was recognised with an Order of Australia Medal for service to the welfare of veterans and their families and for his service to military history. Lynette Mayo of Cundletown was recognised with an OAM for her community work and for her service to the community of the Mid North Coast. Port Macquarie's Ryley Batt received recognition for his service to sport, having been an inspiration to many in wheelchair rugby, and for his efforts as a gold medallist at the London 2012 Paralympics. Howard Croker of Oxley Island, who has spent his life involved in the sport of rowing, also received an OAM. Recently retired Mid North Coast magistrate Wayne Evans was awarded an OAM for service to law and to the community of the region. John Ingram received an OAM for service to the refugee community.
Congratulations also to our citizens of the year throughout the Lyne electorate. Port Macquarie-Hastings Citizen of the Year was Ally Costanzo, who was recognised for her work with some of the most vulnerable in our community. Senior Citizen of the Year was Laurie Barber, a former Rotarian, and Young Citizen of the Year was Ahlia Westaway-Griffiths. (Time expired)
Automotive Industry
Infrastructure
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (13:48): I also wish to join the member for Chisholm in speaking about the impact on jobs of the Toyota closure. I note that the Prime Minister has spoken about the need to reinvigorate the Victorian economy and about infrastructure. I have a suggestion: do not cut the $3 billion that has been allocated to the Melbourne metro project. This project was recommended by Infrastructure Australia and will create jobs. The regional rail link project had more than 3½ thousand at its peak working directly on the project, thereby keeping the Victorian economy going in recent times. As that reaches completion, the Melbourne metro project needs to be stepped up. This is a vital project for Victoria and indeed for the nation, one that will boost jobs and boost productivity. It is a part of what a government would be interested in doing if it were serious about infrastructure and dealing with urban congestion. When the former Labor government came to office, Australia was ranked 20th out of 25 OECD countries for investment in infrastructure. The latest figures show that in both 2012 and 2011, we were ranked first in the OECD. That was the inheritance those opposite received when they got into government. To deliver on infrastructure, you actually have to invest, not just talk. (Time expired)
Capricornia Electorate
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:50): Firstly, I want to inform the House that while in Canberra this week I hosted talks with key mining executives about employment issues facing the Central Queensland coalfields. Rest assured, as the hardworking member for Capricornia, I have not been idle. There are two key issues here: the unfortunate recent job losses in the mining sector and the impact fly in, fly out workers from Cairns and the Gold Coast are having on our local mining towns. I will be making a further statement about this later today. In the meantime, I draw the House's attention to a new exhibition at the Rockhampton Art Gallery titled 'Cream'. It was featured in Brisbane's weekend Courier Mail. 'Cream' refers to the cream of Rockhampton Gallery's own public art collection, which is worth $14 million. The 'Cream' exhibition covers four decades of Australian art from 1940 to 1980 and includes works by Sidney Nolan and Arthur Boyd. Thirty-five artworks from Rockhampton will go on tour until 2016 at venues near Melbourne and in New South Wales, and at five other key galleries in Queensland. The tour is possible thanks to a contribution from the Australian government via the Australia Council. 'Cream' is a prime example of the diversity of the electorate of Capricornia. We not only offer our nation the wealth generated from our resource and agriculture exports but also make a real contribution to Australia's cultural interests. Finally, I am pleased to note that visitor numbers to the Rockhampton Art Gallery under the guidance of director Tracy Cooper-Lavery have increased dramatically in the past three years from 8,500 to 23,700. (Time expired)
MIND Australia: A Day in Your Shoes Program
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:52): Today I rise to inform the House of a great new program that we have kick-started in my electorate called A Day in Your Shoes. On Wednesday, 4 February, I had the opportunity to spend the day with staff of MIND Australia. Throughout the day I got to attend a number of the facilities in the Bendigo area. I spent time meeting with clients and I spent time learning from staff about the challenges they face in their jobs. This project allows me to learn about organisations in my electorate and how government can better support them.
MIND Australia do an incredible amount of work for our community, providing both the young and adults with mental health services. Spending a day with the staff and with the clients allowed an insight for me into the complexity of mental health care. Those working in mental health care in my electorate do an amazing job and have high compassion and high regard for those they work with. The services at MIND Australia, like others, are essential, ensuring that everybody has the support and the guidance they need when they most need it.
As part of my day I visited the PARC service, a short-term residential service for people who are either leaving the acute mental care or would benefit from 24-hour support to avoid a hospital admission—a step-up or step-down program. These services work. It is a model that works and I encourage others to engage with the services in their area to learn how they are working. (Time expired)
National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:53): I was delighted to welcome the Assistant Minister for Defence, Stuart Robert, to my electorate in Brisbane recently to launch a family health program which provides free basic health care to all defence families. Brisbane is the home to Gallipoli Barracks, one of the largest military bases in Australia and, as a result, I have the honour of representing thousands of ADF members. I wholeheartedly welcome the Abbott government's National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program which will benefit some 5,700 dependants of ADF members who reside in and around Brisbane. The launch of the National ADF Family Health Program fulfils one of the government's key defence election commitments and will help ease the pressure on defence families. So in five months we have managed to deliver on a promise that Labor failed to deliver for six long years.
Our ADF members lose countless hours of precious family time while they serve our country. Under the government's national program, every dependant of a full-time ADF member and reservist on continuous full-time service will be eligible for this program. Each eligible ADF dependant will be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses when visiting their local general practitioner. They may claim up to $400 per year for allied health services such as physiotherapy, dentistry and mental health support.
I am very proud of this government and the fact that they have recognised how precious our ADF personnel are and how important they are as a military capability. The National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program is a good one. (Time expired)
Evans, Ms Sheridan Elizabeth
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:54): I rise today to pay tribute to longstanding member of the ACT Labor Party, Sheridan Elizabeth Evans, who tragically lost her brave battle with melanoma over the weekend. Sheridan was a longstanding and active member of the party. She was an intelligent, dedicated and community-minded person who upheld the Labor values of fairness, equality and opportunity. Sheridan was also a loyal friend and staff member to the former member for Fraser, the Honourable Bob McMullan, for many years. On Sheridan's passing, Bob said:
Sheridan was to us above all else a great friend. She was as close as a person can be to being a member of the family without being related. But of course she was also more: a great campaign director in every election I ever contested; a talented and committed staff member for me and other ministers and public servant in the finest traditions. She will leave a hole in our lives.
Since her passing, I have spoken to a number of ACT Labor Party members and former colleagues of Sheridan's who have all expressed grief and shock at a life lost far too soon. On behalf of ACT Labor I express my deepest sympathies to her friends and family including her brother, former Senator Chris Evans. May she rest in peace. She will be greatly missed by her ACT Labor family.
Pearce Electorate: Bushfires
Mr PORTER (Pearce) (13:56): I rise to recognise the tremendous efforts of Western Australia's career and volunteer firefighters who fought to save the many homes affected by the Perth Hills fires on 11 January this year. Fifty-six homes in the suburbs of Stoneville and Parkerville in the electorate of Pearce were destroyed on 11 January in a fire, the damage bill for which is ultimately expected to be significantly in excess of $20 million.
This bushfire started on a day when the temperature exceeded 40 degrees Celsius. Modelling since the incident has shown that 450 homes could have been lost in the fire that weekend but for the quick response of the firefighters and the use of the state's $12 million water-bombing fleet, a fleet that received a federal government contribution last year of $2.6 million. It is now very apparent that high-quality emergency service responses ensured losses were minimised.
About 200 volunteers attended the evacuation centre set up by the WA Department for Child Protection to provide support for those people who had been displaced by the fire. A number of partner agencies including the Shire of Mundaring, the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Volunteering WA, the Rapid Relief Team and Youth Care assisted the department at the evacuation centre.
Unfortunately, bushfires like this are not uncommon in the Pearce electorate, but how the government, its agencies and the community have learned to prepare for them has dramatically improved in recent years. Following the release of the reports by Mick Keelty in 2011 into the Perth Hills bushfire and the Margaret River bushfires, the WA government invested $80 million to ensure all recommendations in both reports were acted upon. The stoicism of those affected by the fires should be praised, as should the outstanding efforts of firefighters and support agencies. (Time expired)
Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (13:58): An alarming story on the 7:30 Report last night highlighted the need to keep the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission. The ABC uncovered a children's education charity which has received nearly $1 million in donations but cannot or will not say where some of the funds have gone. The ACNC shines a light on bad behaviour in the sector as well as strengthening charities and celebrating exemplary work.
The Australian public deserves and needs a charities regulator that provides them with confidence in the charities they donate to and receive services from and provide tax deductions to. Why can't this government understand that transparency and accountability are keys to the growth of the charity sector in Australia?
The fact is that the government has a tin ear for dialogue with the charitable sector. In wishing to abolish the commission, Minister Andrews is going against the vast majority of informed voices in the sector, four out of five of whom want to keep the ACNC. The sector supports an independent regulator as a one-stop shop to strengthen charities, grow their profile, harmonise fundraising law and reduce red tape over time and, despite the government's rhetoric about red tape, the reverse is true. The government should be working to support charities and charities deserve better than a back-to-the-future approach. (Time expired)
Regional Australia
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (13:59): I rise to talk about the importance of regional Australia and to highlight to the House just how important it is we get people to live in regional Australia. Eighty-seven per cent of the people who live in Australia live 50 kilometres from the coast. Can I tell you that in the town I live in, Mildura, you can buy a very good two-bedroom house for $185,000. You can buy a four-bedroom house with a pizza oven out the back, a pool out the back and a wonderful entertaining area for $350,000.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): I wish to note that today marks six years since the historic national apology given by then Prime Minister Rudd and supported by then Opposition Leader Nelson here in this parliament. It was a historic day in our national life. It was a day when ancient wrongs and ancient injustices were recognised and acknowledged. The marvellous thing about that day was that an apology was given and, as I read the mood of Indigenous Australia that day, the apology was accepted. I say to the Indigenous people of our country: your grace and forgiveness has been a mark of character.
In calling to mind and remembering the national apology, it is important to note that this is not the first fault-free generation in history and certainly this generation is not morally superior to its predecessors. I am confident that future generations will learn from our mistakes just as we have learned from the mistakes of our predecessors. Nevertheless, on this day it is important to acknowledge that historic day just six years ago, to place on record our appreciation of what Kevin Rudd and Brendan Nelson did that day and to resolve yet again to turn goodwill into real improvements in the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): Today we mark the sixth anniversary of a healing moment of national unity. I, like many other members in this place who were here that day, will never forget that remarkable moment when Prime Minister Rudd said sorry and reached out for a nation's forgiveness. I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister also in acknowledging the Hon. Brendan Nelson's words on that day. What I saw that day in the galleries and as people were making their path to the parliament to hear these words, and what I saw of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians not only here but around Australia, was an acceptance of Prime Minister Rudd's words with grace and understanding. The national apology marked the end of a damaging period of division and denial. It showed that Australia had come a long way in its willingness to face a historical truth and to right the wrongs of the past.
Of course, it is not enough for us to look back on that occasion with fondness, because the apology was also a declaration of intent, a call to close the gap and deliver meaningful change in education, health and employment outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Until all of us, from the first Australians to our newest arrivals, enjoy the same opportunities for a long and happy life full of meaning and quality, this anniversary will always remind us that there is still more to do.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to today's labour force figures, which show that over 63,000 full-time jobs have been lost since the government came to power. One job has been lost every three minutes in Australia since the Prime Minister was elected. When will the Prime Minister give us a real plan and start fighting for Australian jobs?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:04): Like every other member of this House, I am conscious of the ABS statistics released earlier today and I very much regret the fact that unemployment is edging up. This is bad news. None of us like it. All of us must do what we can to prevent it. I do make two points, though. The first point is that, in the last economic statement released by members opposite when they were in government, unemployment was projected to rise to 6¼ per cent in the first half of this calendar year. So what has happened is that unemployment has done what members opposite said it would do under their own policies. Unemployment has done what the Labor Party said it would do under Labor's policy. Members opposite can hardly blame this government for the consequences of their own policies.
Members opposite created the problem and we on this side of the parliament are fixing it. That is what we are doing. Every single policy, every single measure that this government has put in place since the election, is designed to make it easier for businesses to create jobs. Whether it is taking off the carbon tax, whether it is taking off the mining tax, whether it is restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission, whether it is giving environmental approval to $400 billion worth of new projects, or whether it is actually concluding negotiations for a free trade agreement with Korea—every single measure that we have put in place is designed to create jobs. That is why the workers of Australia know who their real friends in this parliament are.
Economy
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the government's plan to build a stronger economy for all Australians?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:06): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and I welcome her commitment to getting on with job creation, particularly in Western Sydney. We have a plan for Western Sydney. We have a plan for Australia. It means stopping the boats. It means fixing the budget. It means building the future. It means creating an Australia where everyone can expect a fair go and everyone is encouraged to have a go. That is the kind of Australia that this government is creating.
We have only had five months. We have made a good start, but we did inherit a mess: 50,000-plus illegal arrivals by boat under the border protection disasters of members opposite; a Commonwealth debt skyrocketing toward $667 billion because of the policies of members opposite; under members opposite unemployment queues were 200,000 people longer when they finished than when they started. Two hundred thousand extra unemployed Australians were the legacy of members opposite after six years in government. There was Mitsubishi, which closed down under them. There was Ford, which announced it was departing under them.
They created the problem; this government is fixing it. Members opposite created the problem; this government is fixing it. We have $20 billion worth of savings before the Senate because governments, like businesses and households, have to live within their means. That is $15 billion worth of savings that we took to the election plus $5 billion worth of savings that members opposite took to the election, and they are opposing all of it, even the savings that they took to the election. We have legislation before the Senate to abolish the carbon tax and to abolish the mining tax. Abolishing the carbon tax alone will add almost $1 trillion to our GDP over the next few decades. We will restore the ABCC. That will add $6 billion in productivity improvements every year in that industry. There are $400 billion worth of environmental approvals thanks to the new minister. There is a Korean free-trade agreement negotiated thanks to the Minister for Trade. And there is WestConnex, funded to the tune of $1½ billion under this government.
Everything we are doing is designed to make it easier to create jobs. That is what we mean when we say Australia is under new management and open for business.
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:10): My question is for the Prime Minister. I refer to today's labour force figures, which show unemployment has risen to six per cent. The unemployment rate in Australia is now higher than any time in the last 10 years. Why has the government failed to develop a plan to stand up for Australian jobs?
Mr Pyne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday you asked the opposition to tighten up their questions because they contained argument. Both of the questions the Leader of the Opposition has asked today are full of argument and supposition; and, quite frankly, when we were in opposition we had to be much more disciplined in our questioning. I ask you to ask the opposition to get their act together.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Leader of the House for his intervention, but the question will stand.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:11): Like the Leader of the Opposition, I am dismayed that unemployment went up last month. But this can hardly come as a shock to the Leader of the Opposition because the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member—the minister for employment—of a government which forecast that under its policies unemployment would hit 6¼ per cent at about this time. How can the Leader of the Opposition protest against a development which he forecast would happen under his policies?
The Leader of the Opposition says where is our plan. Our plan is to get rid of the carbon tax; his plan is to keep the carbon tax. Our plan is to get rid of the mining tax; his plan is to keep the mining tax. Our plan is to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission; his plan is to keep running a protection racket for a protection racket.
I do not say that the 200,000 increase in unemployment under the former government was all the former government's fault. I do not say that the 80,000 increase in unemployment when the member opposite was the employment minister was all his fault. I do not say that the 130,000 jobs that disappeared in the manufacturing industry when members opposite were in power was all their fault.
Opposition members: Yes you did!
The SPEAKER: We'll have quiet on my left.
Mr ABBOTT: What I do say is that they made a bad situation worse with their taxes and their regulations and that is why we are getting rid of them.
Infrastructure
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (14:13): My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on infrastructure investment commitments by the federal government in Victoria? How will they help in creating jobs in my home state?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:13): Thank you to the member for Wannon for the question. I recognise the role that he played to ensure that the transport needs of Victoria are well and truly on the governments agenda as we plan our infrastructure projects for the term ahead.
He and others in his area would already be starting to notice the fact that there are significant road projects under way or announced and about to begin for those areas. Let us look at projects like the Koonda spur road, the Great Ocean Road, the Princes Highway west, the Western Highway—some of those in the member's own electorate.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will contain himself.
Mr TRUSS: I am looking forward to seeing a number of those projects when I visit the member for Wannon in his electorate tomorrow for the Warrnambool field days. It will be great to see this government in action and developing and delivering on its commitments. The Australian government has committed $6½ billion—
Mr Albanese: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: notwithstanding the fact that it is possible, as my colleague suggests, that he has stolen my folder—
The SPEAKER: The point of order we wish to hear.
Mr Albanese: In order to be relevant to the question that was asked, he needs to indicate a single project in Victoria that has begun under his watch that is a result of his—
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. I would remind the member for Grayndler that, as the former Leader of the House, he knows full well that what he presented was not a point of order but an argumentative discussion. We will not have any more of that.
Mr TRUSS: We have a range of commitments worth $6.5 billion that we included from Victoria on our infrastructure program.
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Unless the member for Parramatta wants to leave again, she will desist.
Mr TRUSS: That will help pick up some of the slack that was left to us by a government that was all talk but very, very little shovel. The facts are that the biggest of those projects is the $1.5 billion contribution—
Ms King interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat will remove herself under 94(a).
The member for Ballarat then left the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: If she goes home, she can drive on the Western Highway and the Princes Highway and she can drive on the Great Ocean Road—all projects that this government is committed to deliver.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler! I have been very tolerant, if he wishes to remain in the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: This is an example of a government that is about delivering results in the country.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Grayndler will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Grayndler then left the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: I could give him a list of New South Wales roads he might like to drive on, which this government will be delivering, roads that have been left behind and that he failed to deliver but which we are committed to make happen.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide may join the member for Grayndler by leaving under 94(a).
The member for Adelaide then left the chamber.
Mr TRUSS: On top of those projects I have already mentioned, we have a commitment to the Black Spot Program, Roads to Recovery and our new bridges program.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Unless the member for Chifley wishes to join them, he will desist.
Mr TRUSS: This is a government that will get on with the job of building the infrastructure of the 21st century and making a real difference to the people and the economy of Victoria, making sure that our country grows.
Employment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:18): My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday afternoon, 1,300 Western Australian workers lost their jobs at Forge mining services. These job losses come on top of the worst unemployment figures this nation has seen in a decade—in fact, the worst figures since the Prime Minister was minister for employment. When will the Prime Minister start fighting for Australian jobs?
The SPEAKER: I give the call to the honourable the Prime Minister, but he will ignore the rhetoric contained within the question; otherwise it might be out of order.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:18): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, but I make this fundamental point in response: how can the Leader of the Opposition complain when unemployment does what Labor said unemployment would do under Labor's own policies? I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to Labor members: you created the problem, this government is fixing the problem and you should stop obstructing the fix. That is what should happen.
The Leader of the Opposition has asked me about a business in Western Australia which has gone into receivership and where jobs will be shed. This is a tragedy for the workers of that business—absolutely no doubt about that. But I ask this question of the Leader of the Opposition: is it going to be easier for mining businesses to flourish with a mining tax or without a mining tax? Is it going to be easier for mining businesses to flourish with a carbon tax or without a carbon tax? The truth is that the carbon tax and the mining tax are anti-Western Australian taxes. They are both daggers aimed at the heart of the Western Australian economy. The government wants to repeal them. The Leader of the Opposition wants to stop this.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT: He says, because he cannot shut up—
Ms Owens interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta has been warned.
Mr ABBOTT: that he asked about Forge. He says, because he cannot keep quiet, 'What about Forge?' Well, the best thing we can do for the businesses that the workers of Forge depend on for their jobs is to unshackle them by repealing the carbon tax and repealing the mining tax. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are serious and fair dinkum about this, get out of the way and let the cure be put in place.
East West Link
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:21): My question is to the Prime Minister. In response to questioning from the Greens, Infrastructure Australia has revealed to Senate estimates that every $1 spent on the proposed East West Link will generate only 80c of direct benefits in return, and that is according to the Victorian Liberal government's own business case. Prime Minister, will you now abandon your pledge to tip $1½ billion into this toxic project, which will not just wreck inner city Melbourne but lose money as well?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:21): I thank the member for his question, and I presume that he and the Leader of the Opposition are on a unity ticket on this, as they are on so many other things. The Greens oppose the East West Link. The Leader of the Opposition likewise opposes the East West Link. I have two pieces of information for the member and, indeed, for his collaborator the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: I assume that the Leader of the Opposition has been given a document from the Victorian government, the published business case, stating that there will be $1.40 of value for every $1 invested in the East West Link. The other point I make to the Leader of the Opposition, who is so concerned, and to the member who asked the question: if the Leader of the Opposition is as concerned about jobs as he claims, and as I believe deep down he is, he will support a project that will create almost 3,500 jobs in its construction phase. He will support that. I am quite happy for support for the East West Link in this parliament to be a litmus test. Who is in favour of jobs in Victoria? Those who support the East West Link are in favour of jobs in Victoria. Those who are not, like the Leader of the Opposition and the member who asked the question, are against Victorian jobs.
Economy
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (14:24): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on what the International Monetary Fund article IV assessment says about the government's policies to resolve the legacy of debt and deficit?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:24): I thank the honourable member for Braddon for his question. He recognises, like the IMF recognises, that we have been left with a significant economic challenge. The IMF report recognises that the government has inherited a significant budgetary problem. Labor left behind $123 billion of deficits and, if no remedial action is taken, $667 billion of debt—a huge amount of money. The fact is: they left us with a growth rate less than three per cent, which is the trend growth rate for Australia. And they left us with rising unemployment. In many ways that is the most devastating of the indices. If Labor were re-elected, unemployment would be going up to 6.25 per cent on their own pre-budget data.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY: That is right. It is no surprise under Labor.
Mr Shorten: We'd still have a car industry.
Mr HOCKEY: You'd still have a car industry if Labor was re-elected? Is that right, Bill? The last six years never happened. I know that this chant that you are entering into today is part of the therapy of being in opposition, but let me tell you: at some point you have to deal with reality, mate. The reality is that Labor cannot wipe away the last six years. They cannot wipe away the last six years on unemployment. They cannot wipe away the last six years, five of which had below-trend growth. They cannot wipe away $123 billion of deficits and they cannot wipe away $667 billion of debt. But I will tell you what: they can help us to wipe it away; they can help us to deal with it; they can help us and back our plan. And our plan is about getting rid of the carbon tax, getting rid of the mining tax, getting the budget back into shape and putting in place a sensible industrial relations regime, including the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. These things are not easy but they must be done. If you do want to create more jobs, if you do want to bring down the unemployment rate, the economy has to grow faster. It has to grow faster. You cannot just click your fingers and expect it will happen. It has to come from changes in this place and the Senate. And those changes are our plan. They are our plan to get rid of the carbon tax, to get rid of the mining tax, to free up the labour market. And do you know what? Smaller government is bigger enterprise, and it is enterprise that creates jobs.
Employment
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Tuesday when he said:
One thing this government is not going to do, though, is simply hand over $25 million in borrowed money to a highly profitable company that made $215 million in after-tax profit last year.
I also note that a few hours ago Cadbury's overseas parent company, Mondelez, reported a profit of $3.9 billion in 2013.
The SPEAKER: The honourable member's time has elapsed. There is no question before the chair. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is going to have to be more attentive. I call the honourable member for Robertson.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister that the New South Wales Treasurer estimates that repealing the carbon tax—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. There have been a number of times in this House when the question following the context has been allowed—
The SPEAKER: Not while I've been in the chair. We have time limits on questions and answers for a very specific purpose. I do believe that someone who holds a position as Deputy Leader of the Opposition ought to be able to comply. I call the honourable member for Robertson.
Mrs WICKS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my right! Begin again.
Mrs WICKS: My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister that the New South Wales Treasurer estimates that repealing the carbon tax can reduce power prices by 10 per cent in New South Wales. How will scrapping the carbon tax deliver lower electricity prices?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:29): Let me say this. The member for Robertson is right to be concerned about puffed up electricity bills. The member for Robertson is right to be concerned about overinflated electricity bills. And the member for Robertson is dead right to be concerned about the effect of dodgy electricity bills on families and jobs. So she is also right when she quotes the New South Wales Treasurer, Minister Baird, who said:
If Federal Labor would now get out of the way and allow Tony Abbott to abolish the carbon tax, price relief for NSW households in 2014 … would be around 10 per cent …
So the New South Wales government is absolutely right, and when you look around Australia the same applies. The Australian Treasury has estimated that the average electricity bill across the country would go down by nine per cent if the Leader of the Opposition were to allow his senators to move out of the way and abolish the carbon tax. Gas prices would go down by seven per cent. Household bills would go down, on average, by $550. So when you look at the carbon tax you look at an electricity tax.
What is the impact of that electricity tax? At the moment, the Clean Energy Regulator is preparing the final calculations for the cost of last year's carbon tax. It is likely to be close to $7½ billion. The electricity component alone is likely to be close to $4 billion—in the case of Macquarie Generation: a $900 million electricity bill and a $1 billion asset write-down which could have delivered infrastructure for New South Wales; in the case of Victoria, $1.3 billion of electricity bills; if you go to Queensland, $800 million of electricity bills; and if you look at Western Australia, $200 million for the primary generator there. These are real and significant bills right now which are having an impact on families and businesses.
If the opposition is concerned about jobs and competitiveness, the cost of doing business is fundamental. And right at the heart of the cost of doing business is the price of gas and the price of electricity and the impact of electricity bills. Against that background, there is a moment in time over the coming weeks when the opposition can stand up for Australian jobs and do something that matters. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: your senators are on an industrial go-slow right now. Put them back to work, vote for repeal of the carbon tax and get out of the way of lower electricity bills.
Employment
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Tuesday when he said he would never give $25 million—
The SPEAKER: Would the deputy leader resume her seat. The member for Herbert, on a point of order?
Mr Ewen Jones: Yes, Madam Speaker: if you could just explain to her she has only got 30 seconds.
The SPEAKER: I would say to the member for Herbert: that was too clever by half. Consider yourself warned! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Can I start again, please?
The SPEAKER: Yes, you may.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Thank you. Can the clock start again, please?
The SPEAKER: Yes, it will start again.
Ms PLIBERSEK: Thank you. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Tuesday that he would never give $25 million to a highly profitable company. I also note that a few hours ago Cadbury's overseas parent company reported a profit of $3.9 billion in 2013. How do you explain the inconsistent treatment of these two companies?
Government members interjecting—
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:33): If the Leader of the Opposition didn't hog so many of the questions maybe some of his fellow frontbenchers would get some practice at asking a question!
One was a grant for tourism infrastructure; it had nothing to do with the business as such. The other was a request for $25 million from the taxpayer from a company whose parent had made $215 million in after-tax profit in the last six months. One was local tourism infrastructure. The other was business welfare, from a company with a better balance sheet than the Commonwealth of Australia.
I am delighted that we have seen some announcements from SPC Ardmona today—I really am. I want to thank all the people in this House, all the frontbenchers, everyone in this House on this side of the parliament, including the local member, who have been wishing well this great institution. We said SPC Ardmona had a good future, and it does. We said that it did not need $25 million from the Commonwealth, and it does not.
Asylum Seekers
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on the progress of Operation Sovereign Borders? What challenges are there to implementing all the government's border protection plans?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:35): I thank my neighbour from the shire, the member for Hughes, for his question. I know he is interested in an update because just before Australia Day he relayed to me the story of when he was at the railway station at Holsworthy and a commuter returned at the end of the day and was quite pleased to learn that at that stage there had been 36 days when there had been no successful people-smuggling venture to Australia. I can update the member today: you can tell your constituent from Holsworthy it has now been 56 days since there has been a successful people-smuggling venture to Australia. I can understand why your constituent on that day was so pleased, because he had been waiting for a very, very long time to be able to get that sort of news about successful border protection policies. There is still a long way to go in this operation, but the truth is these policies are getting the results they were designed to get.
The great shame is: these were the policies we implored those opposite to restore, year after year after year. The captains of border chaos that still litter the front bench of the opposition, who were responsible for that chaos, had the opportunity to restore those policies, and we now know those policies are the policies that are getting results.
I want to acknowledge in this place here today those who are responsible for getting those results, and that is the men and women who serve as part of Operation Sovereign Borders, who are implementing these policies and getting the results. We believe they should be appreciated.
Members opposite believe they should have an inquiry into them. The member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Isaacs called for a public inquiry into the service of those men and women in Operation Sovereign Borders and the unsubstantiated and outrageous allegations against our Navy. It is amazing that they are happy to call for an inquiry into unsubstantiated sledges against our Navy, but, when it comes to a royal commission into union rorts and slush funds, that is something they oppose.
When it comes to the issue of border protection, they could have implemented our policy, and they chose not to. Nothing has changed. The challenges are just as difficult today as they were six months ago. The people who can implement them are the same today as they were six months ago. The push factors are the same today as they were six months ago. I will tell you what has changed: there is a government that believes in strong border protection policies and has the will to implement those policies and has the strength to continue with those policies in the face of the opposition of those who sit opposite.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:39): I advise the House that we have with us today a former Speaker of the House and former member for Wakefield, the Honourable Neil Andrew AO. We also have with us His Excellency the Ambassador for Switzerland, together with their national councillor. We bid you all welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Business Investment
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the answer he just gave that the government's $16 million grant to Cadbury in Tasmania was a local tourism infrastructure grant. Why then did the Prime Minister's own press release announcing the grant state:
A portion of this commitment will go towards a trial to grow cocoa trees in northern Australia.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:39): I stand by the answer I have given.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I seek leave to table the press release of the Prime Minister where he says that this grant will be going to ensuring that there will be a trial to grow cocoa trees in northern Australia.
The SPEAKER: You are merely seeking to table it. You do not need to read it out. That is out of order.
Leave not granted.
Workplace Relations
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Education, representing the Minister for Employment. How will the proposed royal commission into trade union governance and corruption prevent honest workers from being ripped off by dishonest union bosses?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I will call the Minister for Education, but before I do there will be silence on my left—and that particularly includes member for Charlton.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:41): I welcome the question from the member for Dobell, who is a very good member who replaced a very bad member in the seat of Dobell at the last election. It is particularly apposite for the member for Dobell to ask this question about royal commissions, because the royal commission that we announced on Monday into union governance and corruption will go to the heart of issues like slush funds in unions—slush funds like the one conducted by the Health Services Union, which was represented as national secretary by the former member for Dobell.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left. I realise it is Thursday and I realise that people are anxious to return home. Some of you might like to return more quickly than others.
Mr PYNE: I understand the sensitivity of the Labor Party on this issue, because the Health Services Union has given $1.2 million of its members' money to the Labor Party since 2007, like the CFMEU, which has given $5 million of its union members' money to the Labor Party since 2007. They have fallen a bit more quiet, because they do not like the public to know—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr Watts interjecting —
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton and the member for Gellibrand will both remove themselves under 94(a).
The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will remove himself immediately!
The member for Moreton then left the chamber.
Mr PYNE: and they certainly do not like workers to know that the Health Services Union and the CFMEU, both of which will be the subject of this royal commission, gave between them over $6 million of their union members' hard-earned money to the Labor Party to keep them in government from 2007 and to dismantle the Australian Building and Construction Commission to ensure that it was defanged and then eventually abolished and replaced with a tiger that was so toothless it was unable to even prosecute if two parties had agreed and settled a matter, in spite of it being criminal or civil activity.
I am not surprised at all that the Labor Party is sensitive about this answer, but it is worse than that, because the Leader of the Opposition continues to stand in the way of the royal commission, the re-establishment of the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, which would address the issues to do with slush funds and corruption in the union movement.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition spent some of the summer in Paris, where he obviously picked up his latest idea to crack down on the unions at workplaces around Australia, because he came back from Paris and said he would attack them with the fashion police. He would make sure they did not wear their colours on worksites if they were bikie members and union members. He got some very good ideas from his trip to Paris, the fashion capital of Europe, because he returned and unveiled this startling policy to strike fear into the hearts of union members. We want to put a tough industrial cop on the beat; he wants to put the fashion police on the beat. He believes that the best way to attack union thuggery is by exposing it in the pages of Vogue magazine. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he will never rise above his background.
Employment
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. I note that the Prime Minister has previously referred to high unemployment as one of the justifications for providing $16 million to Cadbury, in the Tasmanian seat of Denison. Why didn't the government also provide assistance to workers in my electorate of Wakefield, where unemployment is higher?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:44): We stand by all of our election commitments.
Telecommunications
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister outline the status of the Interim Satellite Service established by the former government to serve the bush?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:45): I thank the honourable member for his question. As he knows very well, there are many Australians in regional and remote areas for whom fixed-line broadband services are simply not practical and a satellite service is the solution. There is a real role for government to play in providing that. Under the Howard government, the Australian Broadband Guarantee provided just that. It provided an equipment subsidy. So it did not come as a surprise, I suppose, that in 2010, ahead of the final long-term satellite solution of the NBN, the Labor government announced that it was spending $351 million on an interim satellite solution.
This is probably the worst example of misspent and mismanaged funds in the whole NBN saga. At the outset, Senator Conroy said that there were 165,000 premises eligible, but he did not buy sufficient services to enable 165,000 premises to get a service. In fact, he only bought 48,000 services. So he promised it to 165,000 but could only get 48,000. And then—in what can only be described as the Labor government's departure from the real world of Australia and entry into its own fantasy world of Conrovia—at the beginning of 2013, in a press release, the NBN Co announced that the number of eligible customers for the broadband satellite had increased to 250,000, so it had gone up. They had changed the eligibility, but of course nothing had been done to improve the service.
The tragedy of this is that not only are there tens of thousands of people who cannot get the service but were told they could; the quality of the service is now little better than dial-up. Under the old Broadband Guarantee, we required ISPs to ensure that people got 65 per cent of their peak speed 80 per cent of the time. No such guarantee was given and no such restriction or rule was made, and as a consequence of that we now have the situation where the 48,000 lucky people who got the service are getting a far inferior service to what they got under the Howard government Australian Broadband Guarantee—three times the subsidy, Labor spent on this, and for a fraction of the service level.
Assistant Minister for Health: Staffing
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:48): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Minister for Employment's statement at Senate estimates:
The Prime Minister avails himself of all forms of advice in relation to staff appointments. At the end of the day, they are the Prime Minister's decision.
Why did the Prime Minister appoint Senator Nash's chief of staff when he had a shareholding in a food industry lobbying firm?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:48): I thank the member for his question. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions in the Senate, and I would refer the member to the answers that have been given in the Senate.
Mackay Electorate: GP Superclinic
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the Mackay GP superclinic in my electorate, which was promised more than three years ago. It is still not open and is yet to see a single patient. Will the minister update the House on how the delays to the Mackay GP superclinic have affected the provision of health services in my electorate?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:49): Thank you very much to the member for Capricornia, who is a great local advocate for people who need health services. When we came into government, we knew that Labor hailed the GP Super Clinics Program as one of their great successes in health, and I thought: 'Well, I should look for some examples. I should look to see the great successes of the former Minister for Health, the member for Sydney.' I was speaking to the member for Capricornia, and she happened to mention this particular instance, and I thought, 'We should get some detail.'
Do you know that, to her credit, the former health minister announced this GP superclinic on 10 August 2010? It was a $7 million commitment of taxpayers' money to this GP so-called superclinic. But the problem was that it took 643 days for the former government to put pen to paper to sign the actual funding agreement. The former health minister says that this program drove her crazy, even though it was one of her greatest achievements. Do you know that today, here we are in 2014 and we know that there has been not a patient seen, because there is no building? There are no rooms for the doctors to practise in.
An honourable member: It's a virtual clinic!
Mr DUTTON: It is a virtual clinic, as Labor would have it.
The Labor government wasted billions and billions of dollars. At a time when the Medicare levy only raises $10 billion yet the Commonwealth spends $62 billion on health; when medical services 10 years ago cost us $8.1 billion and yet today, having gone up by 124 per cent, are costing us $18 billion a year; and when we know that Alzheimer's, for argument's sake, has gone up by 170 per cent, Labor still decided to waste billions of dollars on these stupid programs when they should have been spending it on patients and the sorts of services that delivered outcomes for Australian people who deserve elective surgery and who deserve the sorts of services that they could not get under Labor.
There are many, many examples of the way in which Labor wasted money. We were elected to clean up Labor's mess. We will do it in health, and I will make sure that this government gets money back into front-line health services so that we can help the ageing in our population meet the health needs that they have in the 21st century. I will make sure that we clean up the billion-dollar mess that Labor blew on e-health. I will make sure that we clean up this superclinic program. That is because I want to make sure that we get the health needs right for the Australian people in the 21st century.
Assistant Minister for Health: Staffing
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the previous answer he gave to me where he asked me to check what was happening in Senate question time. I refer to the fact that in the Senate Senator Nash has stated that all information was given to the Prime Minister's office. In the light of that, when did the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office become aware that Senator Nash's chief of staff had a shareholding in the food industry lobbying firm Australian Public Affairs?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:52): I take the question that has been asked of me on notice and if there is anything to come back to him on I will.
Australia-United States Relationship
Mr WILSON (O'Connor) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I remind the minister that my electorate and the state of Western Australia host significant investment in mining and energy. How important is Australia's relationship with the United States and is the minister aware of any opposing views on the importance of our bilateral relationship?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:53): I thank the member for O'Connor for his question. He understands the importance of the strategic and economic relationship with the United States. In fact, our strategic alliance with the United States is, as former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said, our bedrock, the guiding principle of Australia's engagement with the region and the world. In economic terms and taking into account two-way investment stocks and two-way trade in goods and services and the impact of the free trade agreement that we have with the United States, it is also our most important economic partner. One trillion dollars in investment stocks is unparalleled in our history and the $630 billion of US investment has helped underpin the development of critical infrastructure in mining and resources and agriculture, not only in Western Australia but across the nation. It has enabled us to export record levels of commodities to Asia, particularly to China, which is now our largest and most important two-way merchandise trading partner.
These are facts, and successive leaders on both sides of the parliament have acknowledged this. For virtually every Labor leader from Curtin to Gillard and Rudd, this has been an article of faith. Labor leaders have consistently prioritised the United States relationship. Take Gough Whitlam's words in Washington in 1973. He was speaking about our many relationships. He said, 'Undoubtedly the most important of those relationships is the American connection, many sided, deep and enduring.' Kevin Rudd more recently as Prime Minister said, 'There is no more important relationship for Australia than our relationship with the United States of America.' Kevin Rudd again said, 'Our relationship with the United States is Australia's most important relationship.
So I was rather surprised to find that there has been a change in Labor's foreign policy and they are walking away from this bipartisan position. Apparently Labor senator Sam Dastyari is now articulating the view that to reaffirm as I did the strategic and economic importance of the relationship was a diplomatic stumble which was guided more by a misplaced sense of Australian identity. The one and only Labor leader who has ever up until now rejected the importance of the US relationship was Mark Latham. He said it was the last manifestation of the White Australia policy. His insulting and reckless commentary was rejected by the Australian people, but it seems that the Latham doctrine lives on. We should not be surprised that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition could not even bring herself to stand as a matter of protocol when the 43rd President of the United States addressed this parliament. Seriously, the Leader of the Opposition should know better than to embrace the regressive Latham doctrine.
Assistant Minister for Health: Staffing
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister and refers to an aspect of this issue that has not been raised in the Senate. Is the Prime Minister aware that Minister Nash did not disclose at the meeting of the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council which the minister chaired in December that her chief of staff held a shareholding in a food industry lobbying firm, notwithstanding that conflicts to be declared were on the agenda? Why hasn't the Prime Minister taken any action in accordance with his own ministerial code of conduct?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:56): I am sure that the member opposite is raising these matters because he is concerned to ensure that the ministerial guidelines have been fully complied with. I am concerned to ensure that the ministerial guidelines have been fully complied with as well. I will take the question on notice and if there is anything more to say I will say it.
G20 Meeting
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (14:57): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the G20 finance ministers' meeting being held next week?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for the question and recognise that he recognises that the G20 finance ministers' and central bank governors' meeting in Sydney next week is very important. I want to recognise that the member for Lilley and the member for McMahon both attended previous G20 finance ministers' meetings—in the case of the member for Lilley, quite a number of them. The G20 was at first at its best as a finance ministers' meeting, out of the ashes of the Asian financial crisis. Then it became a leaders' meeting, after the real impact of the global financial crisis. Now it is a finance ministers' meeting held five times a year, and Australia is the chair of the G20. The G20 is the 20 largest economies in the world, representing 85 per cent of the world economy and 75 per cent of the world's trade. In Sydney next week the world's economy is going to be focused on that meeting. It will be at times a difficult meeting. There are going to be discussions about the impact of the US's tapering and what that means for currencies around the world. For a lot of Australians it seems quite remote, but the fact is that the currency has a big impact on many Australian businesses, as we have seen this week. Therefore it is a discussion not only that we will participate in but, as chair, we will lead. I refer you to the Prime Minister's outstanding speech in Davos earlier this year. It was lauded by chief executives and finance ministers and other leaders around the world for its direction.
The Australian Prime Minister wants the world to focus on getting rid of unnecessary regulation, on reducing taxes, on growth through freer trade, on a fairer taxation system, on empowering business to get on with the job rather than expecting governments, which are cash poor, to do the heaving lifting. That direction, which the Prime Minister stated in Davos for the G20, is going to reverberate around the world and around the global economy over the next 12 months and beyond. We are going to facilitate that with the G20 finance ministers next week. It is a long way to come to Australia for a meeting. The fact that every key finance minister and central banker in the world is coming to Sydney next week to discuss the world economy says a lot about what we can lead and the way we can take the world.
Department of Health: Health Star Rating Website
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to Minister Nash's intervention to remove the health star rating system website developed by state and territory governments. Given that we now know that this intervention occurred in the context of a serious conflict of interest, why did the government not immediately reinstate the website? When did the government change its policy on this issue and why?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:01): My understanding, which I say in response to the member opposite, is that the system in question, the star arrangement in question, was not ready to go and that is why it was not proceeded with.
Education
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Education. I remind the minister that Ashgrove State School and Kenmore State High School in my electorate of Ryan transitioned to become independent public schools in 2013. This year, a further nine public schools in my electorate will benefit from this program. Minister, what is the government doing to deliver world-class education for Australian students?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:02): I welcome the question from the member for Ryan, who I know is an enthusiastic advocate for independent public schools and one of the new ambassadors for independent public schools. On Monday last week, I announced an initiative for independent public schools of $70 million to encourage the states and territories to work with the Commonwealth so that 1,500 more public schools can become independent public schools by 2017.
Our policies are unashamedly about putting students first in education, about standards and about quality. All the domestic and international research into education indicates that the more autonomy a school enjoys, the better the outcomes for the students. That is why we are pursuing independent public schools—so that students get better quality education and better results. This is virtually a bipartisan policy or it has been in the past. The member for McMahon wrote in Hearts & Minds:
Western Australia, with the support of the federal Labor government, has taken some tentative steps towards more independence for its public schools.
In fact Julia Gillard, when she was the Minister for Education, said:
… Today in Western Australia, as a result of our resources and reforms, more than 30 state schools are now called independent public schools, …
Another Labor figure said:
A report released today on the Labor Government’s Empowering Local Schools initiative shows positive progress in engaging parents in school decision-making and improving learning opportunities …
… … …
More than 900 schools across Australia are working to increase their authority through an initiative to give school principals more power to make local decisions.
He went on:
… schools that enjoy greater local school authority in relation to resource allocation tend to show better student performance than those with less autonomy.
Guess who said that, Madam Speaker? You are so smart, I do not even need to ask you to guess. I know that you would know it is the current Leader of the Opposition when he was the Minister for Education in July 2013. Somewhere along the line he had a Damascene conversion, a phrase that he would remember, and he decided to oppose independent public schools. He said they would create a two-tiered system. Do you know who else opposes independent public schools and calls them a two-tiered system? Again, Madam Speaker, I do not need to ask you to guess. It is the Australian Education Union.
So, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition demonstrates time and time again that he is simply a union official speaking for union officials. He cannot rise above his background. He is running a protection racket for a protection racket, only in this case he is hurting students' outcomes. He should get behind our independent public schools model because, if he did, he would be putting students first.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement:
No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.
Does the Prime Minister stand by this statement?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:05): Of course I stand by all the commitments that this government made prior to the election. If there is one lesson that members opposite should have learnt from the experience of the previous term of parliament it is that you cannot say one thing before an election and do the opposite afterwards.
Let us never, ever forget the former Prime Minister's statement prior to the 2010 election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' What did we get? After the election, in order to save her job, she broke her commitment to the Australian people. In order to win the support of the Greens member of this parliament, in order to stay in government, she broke a solemn pledge. Unlike members opposite, if this government says something, it means it. We will keep our commitments.
It is interesting, is it not, that members opposite are trying to stop us from keeping our commitments, but we will, one way or another, keep our commitments. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition has talked about cuts to health and cuts to education. The only government that, in recent times, has cut health and cut education is the government in which he was a senior minister.
The former minister for health is saying it is not true. The former minister for health cut $1.6 billion out of public hospitals. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2012-13 cut $1.6 billion out of public hospitals. What kind of parallel universe are members opposite living in? Conrobia comes to health policy; conrobia comes to education policy. The former minister, now Leader of the Opposition, cut $3.9 billion out of education. He is shaking his head. He has a terrible case of amnesia. Dr Gillespie, please attend to this man!
The Australian people want a government that is competent and trustworthy. The test of a trustworthy government is: does it keep its commitments? And we will.
Child Care
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (15:08): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. I refer the minister to the June quarter 2013 report into child care and early learning produced by the Department of Education stating that childcare fees in long day care centres have risen by nearly $70 a week in recent years. Families in my electorate tell me that this is making their limited childcare options unaffordable. Will the minister outline what action the government is taking to reduce childcare fees?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (15:09): It was a terrific opportunity to visit the member for Corangamite's electorate last week to meet with the learning centre at Belmont, attend a roundtable hosted by the Torquay Early Learning Centre and meet with the Surf Coast Shire. Things have changed in the electorate of Corangamite. We now have a connected, energetic, community based member. It was a delight to spend the day with her, but I heard the same message there as I have heard across Australia. Sadly the legacy of the previous government was revealed in a report released last week. This report told us that childcare costs in long day care centres have gone up 50 per cent and for most families that is an extra $70 a week.
That is what we have inherited, but we have a plan. We have launched our Productivity Commission inquiry. Submissions closed last week and we will have a draft report in July.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Charlton will excuse himself from the House. He will not put his hand to his mouth to make it a megaphone.
The member for Charlton then left the chamber.
Ms LEY: We will have a final report in October. Things are moving quickly and I want to reassure the three-quarters of a million families who took their children back to child care last week—many of whom are struggling with rising costs and are unable to take up the careers they would like to have to meet their needs because they cannot find affordable child care near them—that we have already acted to cut red tape in concert with state and territory ministers. I look forward to the outcome of our Productivity Commission review. I thank the shadow minister for making a submission to the review and helpfully telling us all the problems in the childcare landscape at the moment—she is not in the House today. Isn't that an admission of all the things she failed to fix when she was childcare minister in the Labor government?
Mr Abbott: After 25 questions and answers, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms PLIBERSEK: I do, several times.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms PLIBERSEK: The Minister for Health referred to a press release from me as health minister in 2010. I was not the health minister in 2010. I did not become health minister until December 2011.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:12): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr SHORTEN: The Manager of Government Business claimed again today during question time that our plan for tackling crime in the building and construction industry is not serious. The opposition has proposed an AFP-led task force, working with the powerful Australian Crime Commission to crack down on these allegations. The most serious response is a police response and that is what I, on behalf of Labor, propose it.
The SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that that is argument. The deputy leader gave a personal explanation quite properly. It has to be a statement about what was said and why it is untrue, not arguing a position you have taken.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a further personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr SHORTEN: Yes, most grievously by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr SHORTEN: The foreign minister accused me of being anti-American. I like America.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (15:13): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mrs GRIGGS: Absolutely.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mrs GRIGGS: On the member for Lingiari's website and media report, he has issued a statement:
Significantly, the Member for Solomon voted three times to disallow debate on an issue that seriously effects the Northern Territory. By doing so she has shown that she is not prepared to stand up for territory small business, jobs and communities.
I suggest that the member for Lingiari apologise, update his website and check the Hansard.
The SPEAKER: The member is engaging in argument and will resume her seat. If the member for Solomon is saying she did not vote in that manner then she may say so, but not engage in argument.
Mrs GRIGGS: I did not participate in that vote and I would like the member for Lingiari to make an apology, update his website and check Hansard.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Manufacturing Sector
The SPEAKER ( 15:15 ): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to have any plan to fight for Australian jobs particularly those jobs recently lost in the manufacturing sector
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 SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): Australians who have been following politics this week could be forgiven for thinking that the government lives in a parallel universe to ordinary Australians. What an out of touch mob they have demonstrated themselves to be this week. We have had the worst week for Australian job losses for a very long time. We have had the worst rate of unemployment reported in a decade, in fact since the Prime Minister was last employment minister. In Australia, we are confronted with the unambiguous fact that one Australian has lost their job every three minutes under this Abbott government. I can understand that the Abbott government do not want to talk about unemployment. Whilst they are not talking about it, I cannot understand why they are not at least working on a plan for unemployment. Instead, we hear the Prime Minister of Australia almost in breach of the Trade Practices Act—false and misleading conduct, passing himself off as a Prime Minister—saying he is the worker's best friend. My goodness me, if he is the worker's best friend, they do not need enemies. How on earth can someone protest to be the worker's best friend, the best friend of wage-earning, tax-paying employees in Australia, when 63,000-plus full-time jobs have gone since they came into power? Now, of course, when confronted with this bad news, what does the government do? It reaches for the blame cannon. They blame everyone but themselves. They blame the car industry as being a rust bucket. They blame car workers as being overpaid and uncooperative.
When it came to SPC, they were praying and hoping that a state government would rescue them from their own inconsistent position. Today, we had a question to the Prime Minister in question time that said, 'Prime Minister, you said that you would not give $25 million to attract $160 million of investment for SPC because the company was already making a profit.' He was asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, 'Prime Minister, how is that consistent with giving Cadbury $16 million when their parent company made a $3.9 billion profit?' That is just straightforward hypocrisy. We had the Prime Minister try to hide behind that and call Cadbury a tourist attraction—and, indeed, it is—but what he did not do was read his own press release, which in fact showed that that grant provides for the growing of cocoa trees in Northern Australia. Under this government, you can do tourism in the Northern Territory or Northern Queensland, but you cannot get a manufacturing job anywhere in Australia.
We see a big problem with unemployment in this country. It is a real issue. The government say, 'There was always projected softening in the labour markets, so it was inevitable.' People of Australia know that if you believed that this was inevitable, where is your plan? If you read the projections and simply said, 'Well, it was inevitable; don't look at us; don't blame us; what can we do?' then what good are you? This is a most important point in the debate about unemployment in Australia. If you think that the car industry's demise was inevitable, where is your plan for transition? If you think that the rise in unemployment was inevitable, where is your plan for transition? If you think it was inevitable that 63,000 jobs would be lost—full-time jobs, real jobs, tax-paying jobs, jobs which let families pay the mortgages, the debts and educate their kids—and you think that these things are just the way of the world, what is your plan to do something about it?
Look at Holden—goaded by the Treasurer. What an arrogant and cynical act to goad a car company and say, 'We're not interested in you.' Then they looked at the car component industry. They rushed at the Holden news. I remember the Prime Minister at this dispatch box saying, 'We'll do the right thing by the car component industry.' All he has done is write their funeral notice. Toyota then made their announcement. What did we hear? 'It's the workers' fault.' Then Toyota said, 'It's actually not the employees' fault.' What did the government do then? They said the company was wrong.
Corporate Australia should be on notice that this government will throw you overboard and make your private discussions public just to save the skin of those on the government benches. We see Rio Tinto in Gove—the forgotten people. It was fantastic that we had the Closing the Gap contributions yesterday. But in talking about closing the gap in unemployment in Nhulunbuy, Arnhem Land and Gove Peninsula you do nothing about it. Thousands of people are losing their jobs without so much as a whimper, a whisper or a cry of concern from the government. We get shoulder shrugging and see the issue getting kicked down the road. They are not interested. But it is not good enough.
What concerns me is that this is the government that will look at a set of unemployment statistics and say, 'We have no plan.' Every time we asked them this week, 'What is your plan?' they wanted to refight the last election. The people of Australia will get sick of this lazy government, simply blaming everything on the past and offering no vision for the future. What if we had predicted the end of the car industry at the last election? 'Don't vote for the coalition, don't vote for them in Corangamite, don't vote for them in Deakin and don't vote for them in marginal seats across Australia because, when they get elected, Holden will close, tens of thousands of car component workers will lose their jobs and 1,000 small businesses which supply components will not have companies to supply to.' If we had predicted before the election that Toyota would go, we would have been laughed out of court. The problem is that the truth is even worse than what we imagined. Instead, they simply say that this is the way of the world. They say that nothing can be done, that Australia can no longer compete in manufacturing in the First World in the 21st century.
The problem is the government does not understand that the car industry contributes $600 million directly in R&D. It spends $800 million on computing, on engineering, on technical services. This government is dumbing this country down. They do not understand the value of innovation; they just understand the price of their own political fortunes.
We need to be a nation that builds things. The vision of this government is that we should go back to being a farm and a quarry. They look at the 21st century and want to take us back to the 19th century. They have never seen a manufacturing worker's job they will fight for and they have never seen a well-paid set of workers' conditions which they will have any regard for. And where is their plan? The car industry was not in our projections for unemployment, but it has gone anyway.
Last night 1,300 engineers, white-collar workers, draftspeople, designers—1,300 people in the last 24 hours—were retrenched. Exactly this time 24 hours ago, 1,300 people—who not listening to the platitudes of the lazy crew opposite, not listening to their lack of plans—were just getting on doing their jobs. Do you know what happened to them? They were told, 'You're gone. There is no more money in this company. You are retrenched.' From the Gascoigne to the Kimberley to the Pilbara to Far North Queensland, 1,300 people were sacked—but not in our projections.
Then the government says, 'This is just what happens.' This government says there is no role for government in the creation of jobs. What an abrogation of responsibility. The plan that the government has is to dumb down this country and get rid of the trade training centres. Why didn't we think of that? You need a skilled workforce so you get rid of the trade training centres! We need infrastructure, so what are they doing? They decide not to build any more public sector transport, any more rail in Australia—why didn't we think of making it harder for people to get to work? Then there is the NBN. They want to cut that down and carve it up. Of course, why on earth didn't we think that the NBN contributes nothing to productivity, contributes nothing to our nation's wealth?
The future of this country cannot be taken for granted. With unemployment at six per cent and going up, despite 20 or so questions this week we heard not an answer on jobs—not one 'not answer', not two 'not answers'—none. Twenty times or so they ducked and weaved and dissembled. They blamed employees, they blamed the car industry, they blamed everything except taking a look in the mirror to see the source of some of the misery. I do not hold the government responsible for all the job losses in this country. There are many factors at work. But what I do hold the government responsible for is that they do not have an inch of fight in them. They have a small heart when it comes to fighting for jobs. If those opposite think that all is well in the country and if they pat themselves on the shoulder as they leave parliament this week, then shame on them. Fighting unemployment is the No. 1 task of any government, coalition or Labor. Unemployment is an unmitigated misery and, if the government just wants to say that there is nothing they can do, then that tells me there are two opposition leaders in Australia and no Prime Minister! (Time expired)
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (15:25): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter of public importance. In August last year the member for McMahon stood in this chamber and delivered Labor's final economic statement which revealed that unemployment was heading towards 6.25 per cent. We all know that unemployment is a lagging indicator and that what we are debating here today is not the result of five months of coalition government; we are debating the result of six years of Labor mismanagement.
Contrary to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition, we took a comprehensive plan to the Australian people—and here it is—Our Plan: Real Solutions for All Australians. You might have seen that. The Australian people definitely saw that. They voted for that and that is why you are sitting where you are today. The Australian people elected us and threw you out. They elected us to fix Labor's mess. We were elected to address the issue of $123 billion of projected deficits. We were elected to address the issue of a debt that was exploding towards $667 billion. We were elected to implement our plan for a stronger economy and a stronger Australia. We have a plan. We put it to the Australian people. They voted for that plan and all the opposition can do is stand in the way.
The government is all about building a stronger Australia, building a stronger economy and creating jobs. As the Treasurer said earlier today, the budget will be about growth. The G20 is about growth. Our policies are all about a stronger economy which will create new jobs and new opportunities. Some Australian communities and families are doing it tough, but the doom and gloom of the members opposite is only making it worse. We need the opportunity to put our agenda in place. We need the opportunity to get the economic settings right to address the changing nature of the Australian economy. Australia has coped before with change and it will cope into the future.
We have great reasons to be optimistic. There are new opportunities being created all the time by great businesses. Jetstar has expanded its operations in South Australia, creating 120 new positions. Carabella Resources new coalmine in Central Queensland will create 100 new local jobs. Arrium Mining in Whyalla will create an additional 100 jobs and a new packing facility at Erskine Park in Western Sydney will employ 400 people. You do not hear the opposition talking about any of that. They do not want to mention the positives.
The Australian government is investing in new infrastructure that will create new jobs and build the economy. The East West Link will support 3,200 jobs during construction. WestConnex will support 10,000 jobs during construction and the Pacific Highway, a vitally important project on the east coast of Australia, will support some 8,600 jobs. The Australian economy is creating jobs, but we can do much more if we remove unnecessary taxes and unnecessary red tape and get the economy back in the black. The best thing that government can do for workers and job seekers is to build a strong economy and this economy in transition is no different. We have no choice but to adapt to the challenges that we face.
The government is implementing a policy agenda that encourages and unleashes the potential of Australian businesses. That is why we are scrapping the carbon tax that is weighing so heavily on Australian businesses; that is why we are scrapping the mining tax that is putting so much pressure on mining companies; that is why we are slashing red tape, lowering taxes and imposing the rule of law in the construction industry with the reintroduction of an ABCC with real teeth that can ensure that we have a productive and lawful sector. The carbon tax adds up to $400 to the cost of every vehicle produced in this country. How can members opposite possibly claim that they are somehow supporting the car industry when they are continuing to maintain a carbon levy on every car that rolls off the production line? We are scrapping the mining tax which will help restore confidence in the Australian mining sector.
With the reintroduction of the ABCC, we will see better efficiency in the construction industry, we will see a better working environment on our construction sites and we will see more confidence to invest in new developments. The ABCC, when it was introduced by the Howard government, created at least $6 billion per year in benefits to the community and significantly increased productivity in the construction industry. What have the members to fear from a lawful construction industry? I guess they have their union cronies to fear. That is probably why they are against it. They have their union cronies to fear. They are just puppets dancing to the tune set by their union cronies and that is why they are opposing the ABCC.
If we make it easier for Australian businesses to create jobs and make it easier for them to invest by building confidence, that is the way we will build a stronger economy. Sadly, Labor is more about pointing fingers than being part of the solution. Labor has a choice to make. They can join with the opposition and build a stronger economy or they can continue to oppose. How can they go down the streets in their electorate and say that maintaining the carbon tax is good for you—
Mr Dreyfus: Have you forgotten that you are the government? I know you have forgotten that you are the government!
Mr HARTSUYKER: We are indeed the government and the Australian people are very pleased we are the government, and they have made you the opposition. When you go down the streets of your electorate, I hope you are explaining to people how the carbon tax is good for them and how paying higher electricity bills is good for them. Go into a business that uses a lot of electricity and tell them why pushing up their costs of doing business is good for them. I do not think they will believe you. You should talk to mining companies and tell them how the mining tax is good for them. You should talk to construction workers and tell them why having thuggery and lawlessness and bullying is good for them.
One thing members opposite seem to forget with regard to the car industry is that Mitsubishi left on their watch. We were not in government when Mitsubishi left. Ford made the announcement that they were leaving on Labor's watch. Those opposite seem to have forgotten that. Do you remember that, member for McMahon? Do you remember that Ford announced that they were leaving the country on your watch? You are sitting there quietly. You are not often quiet, member for McMahon. He has nothing to say. Ford left on your watch. We heard all the claims about Ford.
Let me read you something about Ford. In 2012, Julia Gillard announced $34 million for Ford, saying it would create 300 new jobs. Only a short time later, what happened? Three hundred and thirty employees lost their jobs inside eight months. Then it got far worse. Julia Gillard announced $215 million for Holden, saying it would secure Holden's future in Australia—until when, 2020? No—2022! But only months later, 670 jobs were lost. The Leader of the Opposition seems to claim that Labor would be the saviour of the car industry. If history is any indication, they could not save Mitsubishi and they could not stop Ford announcing that they were leaving the country, but somehow the Leader of the Opposition expects us to believe that they could have saved the car industry. The reality is that these are commercial decisions made by commercial companies and they are the result of a long-term period of transition that is disadvantageous to that industry in Australia.
I hope that the opposition will change their tune. I doubt it, but I hope they will change their tune. I hope they will give the Australian workers a break. I hope that they will get behind the government and support the abolition of the carbon tax. I hope they will get behind the government and support the abolition of the mining tax and support the reintroduction of the ABCC so that we can have the return of the rule of law. I hope that they will support our budget measures, which will help to bring the budget back into the black. And I would really hope that they would support their own budget measures on which they seem to have changed their mind.
I end my contribution with a plea to the Leader of the Opposition: I would hope that he would put as much effort into supporting the jobs of hardworking Australians as he does into supporting the interests of dodgy unionists.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:35): We heard the Prime Minister again today at the dispatch box solemnly assuring Australians that the government would keep all their solemn election promises, apart from the ones they will not, apparently keep. There was one election promise that the assistant minister waved around, the plan for Australia. Included in that plan for Australia is a solemn pledge to create one million jobs over the next five years—a key election promise of the government.
We know from a leak inside the Liberal Party—I am not going to allege who it was—that this was a pledge made up by the then Leader of the Opposition. We know from inside the Liberal Party that they had no modelling to show that they could create a million jobs over five years. They had no basis in their policies for that commitment; they just plucked the figure of one million out of the air. Nevertheless, it is in writing. The now Prime Minister says you can only believe what he says if it is in writing—those are his words. Well, it is in writing, in their plan for Australia—their key pledge to create one million jobs over the next five years. Let us get a little update on how that is going. How is that coming along? We have had an update in today's unemployment figures. We know that, in January, 7,100 full-time jobs were lost across Australia.
I accept that monthly figures move around, monthly figures will go up and down and you cannot read too much into one monthly figure. I completely accept that. But here we have a trend. Since the last election 54,000 full-time jobs had been lost before today. When you add today's announcement, we go to well over 60,000 full-time jobs lost since the election. There has not been a month since the election in which there has been a full-time job created in Australia.
Last year we saw 68,000 full-time jobs lost across the country. That is a very substantial figure. I will tell you how substantial it is. In 2009, when we faced the worst of the global financial crisis, we lost fewer full-time jobs than that in a whole year. In less than six months under this government we have lost more full-time jobs than were lost all through 2009. In fact, another telling fact is that there were more full-time jobs lost last calendar year than in any year since 1992. What a shame for Australia. All through the Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis, we saw more jobs lost last calendar year than in any year since 1992.
I do not assert that every single job lost since the election is the fault of the new government. Of course there are different forces at work in the economy. But this Prime Minister made a solemn pledge to create a million jobs and he has an obligation to have a plan to do so. We just heard about the plan from the assistant minister at the dispatch box. This so-called plan is on replay all the time.
Mr Hartsuyker: Here it is!
Mr BOWEN: That is the plan he is holding up and waving around. It says a million jobs. The problem is the Prime Minister's rhetoric which says: 'It's okay. Jobs come; jobs go. Some jobs get created; other jobs get lost.' The trouble is that jobs are not being created across the economy. The jobs lost at SPC, Holden, Toyota or Ford are not being replaced with other jobs being created across the economy because we see the figures in net terms.
But it is up to the government to explain their plan. How does their plan create a million jobs? How does it create jobs by increasing the tax on small business? Small business, we often hear, is the engine of the economy, and that is right. This government's policy is to increase tax on small business. How does it create jobs to put a levy on big business? We are going to abolish the instant asset write-off, which is a tax increase on small business, and we are going to put a levy on big business. How is that going to create jobs? How does it create jobs to abolish the schoolkids bonus, which families across the nation use to fund expenditure and creates economic activity at the same time? How does it create jobs for this government to embark on cutbacks? The assistant minister said it is our obligation to support their cuts. Well, the cuts never created a job. (Time expired)
Ms PRICE (Durack) (15:40): I am pleased to speak on this matter of public importance so that I can explain to the members opposite just how six years of Labor has hindered our economy. To help those same members I will also shed some light on the hypocrisy that Australians constantly have to endure when they turn on their television or listen to the radio and have to once again listen to those opposite.
Nobody on either side of this House wants job losses to occur. The coalition understands that industry and business underpin our economy and need to be supported; but, to support industry and business, we need to help them capitalise on investment opportunities and create new jobs. The answer to this is not an everlasting slush fund that creates a $123 billion deficit, as Labor did. We on this side of the chamber do want a viable automotive industry in Australia, but we expect the car manufacturing industry, like any industry, to stand on its own two feet. As the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have already stated, Toyota indicated that this decision was made in the context of a changing global environment for the car makers and there was nothing the government could do to prevent this decision.
Those opposite may want to sit and point fingers now, forgetting that, under Labor, one manufacturing job was lost every 19 minutes. In the last two years, the Labor Party broke $1.4 billion in promised funding commitments as they chopped and changed their car industry policies. Instead of throwing stones, the Labor Party needs to support jobs and industry as the coalition is doing.
The coalition has announced considered measures to strengthen Australia's manufacturing future and initiatives to provide targeted support for the regions recently impacted. These include the establishment of a $100 million growth fund to support economically responsible initiatives in regions facing pressure in their manufacturing areas and the establishment of a task force chaired by the Prime Minister to develop a national industry investment and competitiveness agenda which will focus on our strengths, create jobs and exploit our competitive advantages. It is important that those opposite and all Australians do, however, realise that it is not the role of government to create jobs but to create the right environment for business and industry to grow. This will encourage economic prosperity and that is where we create the new job opportunities.
Although government is the easy target, we know it is not always to blame. Our global economy is changing and, as a result, so must our key industries. To help create an environment of certainty, the Labor Party needs to stop playing politics and instead support our legislative plan to repeal the carbon tax, which slugged the sector for a further $460 million, and also help us repeal this ill-conceived mining tax that has burdened Australia's largest export industry for long enough.
The Western Australian resources sector generated the largest contribution to GDP of any state resources sector at 53 per cent of the national resources industry value, an add of $89 billion in 2011-12. A majority of these resource projects are in my electorate of Durack, and in particular in the Pilbara. It is this industry that the opposition need to support if they truly believe in saving jobs.
Members opposite have, however, already shown over the past six years that instead they want to put a drain on this industry, discourage investment and make Australia internationally uncompetitive by adding more regulation in an attempted cash grab. Australian business and industry need to focus on what we are good at so that we can once again increase domestic and international market confidence and confidence in the hip pocket of everyday Australians. That is why the coalition is focused on cutting red and green tape and reducing regulatory burdens so that people once again have the confidence to spend. The coalition government has swiftly moved to progress some $450 million worth of environmental approvals. All this helps to get mining projects out of the ground more quickly and also helps to create more Australian jobs.
In rural and regional areas, and particularly the area of Durack, our strengths are in developing the resources sector and investing in small business. Small business, as we know, is the backbone of Australia's economy and is ultimately the backbone of Durack's economy. Australia has many strengths, and it is time that those opposite started to support business and industry by helping this government and all Australians to develop and invest in them.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (15:45): From Elizabeth to Nhulunbuy and from Altona to Western Australia—from south to north and from east to west—we have a country that is reeling from the job losses that have been caused by the actions and the inaction of this government. You never saw headlines like 'Road to recession' under Labor. You never saw a headline like that during the GFC, because we kept jobs growth strong. We never saw a headline like that.
It is this government that is undermining economic confidence by getting rid of the schoolkids bonus, by putting taxes on small businesses, by upsetting people and by destroying industries. We have seen it all too clearly in my community, in Elizabeth, because we remember the headline from 11 December: 'Hockey dares GM to leave'. That was in The Australian Financial Review. The very next day, on 12 December, it had the headline 'Holden's dramatic exit puts Toyota at risk'. So there should be no surprises for those opposite about what happened and about who was responsible, because we know. The financial paper of this country, The Financial Review, told us in its headlines who was responsible, who issued the ultimatums and who clicked over the first domino: first Holden goes, then Toyota goes and then the entire automotive component industry goes—thousands of jobs right around the country.
We have seen today the Victorian government having to step in, play the role of the national government and save SPC and a whole economic ecosystem around Shepparton—not just factory workers, who this lot blame for the currency and for every other economic problem this country has. We had the Victorian government having to come in, play the role of the national government and save SPC, save factory workers and save farmers.
Now Holden and Toyota have announced their closure. Those opposite want us to believe this $100 million is going to stretch right across the country to somehow compensate for and repair the damage that is being done. We will see a range of automotive component companies go, one after another. What we hear, rather than a plan, is platitudes. It stretches across industries: cars, alumina, whitegoods and food production. In South Australia we see shipbuilding looking down the barrel of the valley of death.
Ms Claydon: And in Victoria.
Mr CHAMPION: And in Victoria.
Ms Claydon: And in Newcastle.
Mr CHAMPION: And in Newcastle. My colleagues are helping me, which is good. We have seen mining construction and mining services start to dip.
Mr Christensen: Why did that happen?
Mr CHAMPION: Our friend over there might tell us about the ethanol industry and what might happen to them. We might see what happens to them.
This is a government with no policy on jobs. They have a figure but they have no policy. All they have is aggression, bullying, lectures, platitudes and blame. When all of that is finished, the Prime Minister comes in here and has no answers at all. So, when I ask him a question about what is the difference between unemployment in Denison and unemployment in Wakefield, what answer do I get? 'Refer to my previous answers.' That is not good enough. I remember seeing those opposite, back when I was at university, castigating Prime Minister Keating for not turning up to question time and answering questions. This Prime Minister turns up and just does not answer the questions. So it as an interesting approach: bullying, lectures, platitudes, finger pointing at workers and then not showing up. We saw the Treasurer giving us lectures about Abdul the kebab shop owner. I wonder how kebab shops are doing in Elizabeth, Shepparton, Orange or Altona, because you have to actually sell your kebabs to be able to update your oven, and under the previous government you got loss carry-back anyway, which might have helped you buy that.
We get no answers and no plan. All we get is blame and aggression from those opposite, particularly directed at the victims of their economic incompetence, which is the most tragic thing. From Elizabeth to Nhulunbuy, south to north, and from Altona to Western Australia, east to west, we see the consequences of this government's actions.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (15:51): This is not a socialist economy, in contrast to what many from the other side of the House might believe. Businesses create jobs, not governments. The coalition's plan is for half a million jobs in the next five years and a million jobs in the next 10, and we will do that by supporting the private sector, not by growing the public sector as the last government did. This means lower taxes, less and better regulation, more spending on infrastructure, less waste and reduced government expenditure to prevent crowding out of the private sector and private businesses. This means a better environment for small businesses, engendering the confidence required to encourage investment and employment.
Many are asking what sectors are going to provide those jobs. The good news is that we laid out that direction before the last election. I know those on the other side never accepted that, because it was not a Soviet-style five-year plan. But we recognised that these jobs would come from building on our strengths, not propping up our weaknesses. We know that job creation will come from fostering fast-growing markets to our north—in agriculture, in mining, in manufacturing innovation, in education, in tourism and in advanced services.
Let me expand on a couple of these opportunities that, clearly, the member for Wakefield does not want to hear about. In my electorate we see enormous strength in manufacturing innovation. In Cowra, in the western part of my electorate, Brumby Aircraft is manufacturing highly innovative light aircraft and is starting to export those aircraft into China. Brumby is innovative, smart, leading edge and a wonderful example of what Australia is capable of. But Brumby needs market access, supportive regulation and access to investment. All of these things are things that this government can deliver and the last government could not.
In contrast to what those opposite obviously believe, we see enormous potential in our traditional strengths of mining, agriculture and energy. There is much discussion about the potential to continue to grow our export markets for food, fibre, minerals and gas, particularly as we release the pressure on the dollar from the profligate government spending that we saw from the last government. Unfortunately, policies from the last government did enormous damage to those sectors. Whether it was the mining tax, the shutdown of live exports or the impact of the carbon tax, they were hostile to our traditional strengths. Meanwhile, these markets for food, fibre, energy and minerals are growing at an unprecedented rate.
With the wonderful focus on market access driven by our Minister for Trade and Investment, I am confident that our ability to continue to create jobs and prosperity in these sectors is assured. But I want to focus for a moment not just on our commodity exports but on our service providers in these sectors. The importance of the commodity support sectors is not yet widely understood. I want to quote from a report that I recently co-authored in my work prior to coming to this place, a report called Earth, fire, wind and water:
The growth of domestic and export support sectors on the back of commodity industry growth is an important and untold story in the Australian economy.
And it has many miles yet to run—
Given the right policy settings—
And we are clearly setting those up now—
the opportunity for the service cluster may prove to be larger than the underlying commodity sector growth.
Many of the support services businesses are ‘buried’ in larger businesses …
Many of the faster growing players in the services sector are still private. Most have emerged only recently from modest beginnings, and have not needed external equity capital to support their growth (at least until now).
Firms in these service sectors are often small and growing fast, which means they are inclined to stay out of public debates. The noisiest sectors are often those hosting large business organisations that are facing decline. Ain't that the truth! The commodity sectors directly employ around 450,000, but these service sectors are already employing about 250,000 in addition.
Better known companies include Orica, in explosives; Incitec Pivot, in fertiliser; Skilled, in labour hire; Campbell Brothers, in testing services; Worley Parsons, in engineering; and a host of software companies. Many of these companies are growing faster offshore than onshore and are establishing global positions with Australian employees, based on based on unique capabilities, developed in their home market of Australia.
Only our macroeconomic and microeconomic settings will ensure that this job creation happens and that it translates into new jobs in electorates like mine.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:56): The unemployment rate was lower under Labor in the depths of the global financial crisis than it is under the Liberal Party during a global recovery. That is the fact today, with the release of the labour market statistics. Yet there is no plan from the government to deal with this fact. If your name is Peter Costello or if your name is Tim Wilson, the labour market has really turned up since the election of the Abbott government, but for everyone else it has gotten worse. That is the reality of today's job market.
It has been a devastating week in the labour market in Australia. It has been a week that proved that this government are determined to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. What we have is a government that are determined to chase jobs away to satisfy this extreme ideology of theirs—this scorched earth ideology that says to workers, whether they are in the manufacturing sector or elsewhere, 'You're on your own.' And every time the government think that they are striking a blow for ideological purity, the reality is that it strikes at the heart of the Australian workforce.
Never before has an industry minister or an employment minister had such a detrimental impact on industry and employment in such a short time in office. Never before have a Prime Minister and a Treasurer—who say Australia is open for business—chased so many businesses away in such a short time. Speakers before me have gone through why this has been an awful week. On Monday, we had the Toyota announcement. We had all kinds of demeaning things said about workers by the Treasurer and others in this House. And today it has culminated in the release of some pretty bad unemployment figures. You would think, with all this going on, we would get more than the smirking arrogance that we get in question time from those opposite. You would think that we would get more than crocodile tears about workers in Australia. You would think that we would get some kind of plan. Instead, we get this really cruel and callous indifference to the plight of the Australian worker.
Their message this week to workers is: 'Yes, there have been job losses and, yes, it is all your fault.' This side of the House does not blame the workers for the situation that so many of them find themselves in. It is not enough to wander around in a high-vis vest during an election campaign and say that you care about jobs. It is not enough to have a fancy, glossy brochure that says that there will be a million new jobs in five years. That is not enough. It is not enough to come in here and cry your crocodile tears about Australian workers. You need to have a plan.
The reason that Cadbury got the money they got is that they asked for it during an election campaign. The reason SPC did not get it and the reason manufacturing workers are in such strife is that the election has been and gone and these guys have been elected. That is the difference between Cadbury and so many other companies in Australia.
This week we saw the true colours of those opposite. We saw the mask slip a little bit when it comes to how they feel about Australian workers. It actually began when the Treasurer stood over there and, in a remarkable thing for a Treasurer to do, dared a big Australian company to leave our shores. He stood over there and beat his chest, and then, all through The Financial Review, we read all the sycophants on that side saying how great he was, how ideologically pure he was. That set in train a sequence of events that culminated in Toyota hitting the fence earlier this week. As other speakers have said, this will have devastating consequences for components manufacturers right through Australia.
It is not well known that there are 7,000 Queenslanders employed in the automotive manufacturing sector. It is important that we recognise the South Australian and Victorian contributions to that industry, but right around Australia there are people making components. In my own electorate there are 508 people employed in this sector. I know from talking to a lot of them that they are mostly involved in electronic manufacturing for cars. That is something we want them in; that is a good job to be in—helping make electronics for cars. There are 508 of them, and their jobs are at risk. It would be cold comfort for them to hear what I thought was probably the low point of the week, which was when the Minister for Industry came in here and said, 'It's not a catastrophe.'
It is a catastrophe when people lose their jobs, when they have to explain to their families that they are not going to have a job, that it is going to be hard to find a new one. Not everyone gets re-employed immediately, or even at all. That is a catastrophe for a lot of people. The industry minister should go to the industrial part of my electorate and say to them that it is not a catastrophe. The biggest difference between our side and that side is our approach to jobs: nearly a million created during a global financial crisis; more than 63,000 already lost by those opposite in just five months.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (16:01): Nobody likes to hear about someone losing their job. Nobody likes getting that type of news from their boss. The opposition have been barking loudly about job losses in Victoria, but they need to look at the role they have directly played in obstructing job growth in other parts of the country. There is another, more important part of this country, and it is called Queensland. The issue of job losses in my seat of Capricornia is a serious one too. But the opposition do not talk about Queensland, because their plan for job creation was to introduce the carbon tax and the mining tax. What a terrific plan! Do you want to know what it has done for job creation? While everyone harps on about job losses in the car sector, mining companies report that in Queensland alone their industry has lost 11,000 mining related jobs in the past year or more. This government only took up office five months ago. Do the maths. The mining sector was bleeding under Labor's reckless carbon tax for some time. One company told me it would pay $46 million—
Mr Christensen: How much?
Ms LANDRY: $46 million—as a direct result of the carbon tax and potentially millions more in indirect costs associated with the tax. This is a tax their competitors overseas do not face. The carbon tax is the equivalent of loading up a pack horse with 10 tonnes of bricks. It inhibits the potential for resource companies to use that money to invest in growth that might lead to more jobs. For some reason, the Labor Party wants to keep that tax in place.
The live cattle trade is another example of a Labor plan that has destroyed job growth in the bush. One night, as we all slept, the Labor Party shut down Australia's cattle export trade. There was no warning. Cattle producers lost their marketplace. Farm workers lost their jobs. Livestock truck drivers lost their jobs. Cattle buyers lost their jobs. People on the shipping terminals lost their jobs. And the blokes who deliver the cattle drench lost their jobs. Our cattle producers in Capricornia are still paying for that plan. Cattle that could no longer be shipped overseas were flooded onto the domestic market, causing beef prices to plummet. If the cattle industry had been left to prosper, people might still have those types of jobs.
Then there is our local abattoir, Teys Australia. This meat processor is among Rockhampton's biggest employers, providing more than 1,000 jobs. They too pay carbon tax. In fact, it has cost the local abattoir nearly $1.8 million in direct and indirect costs associated with this reckless tax. As their customers do not pay for the carbon tax, this money effectively comes out of the pockets of Australian cattle producers via reduced prices that the meat processor can pay for cattle. How many more jobs could be created here if there was no carbon tax?
As Toyota drivers might say, 'Oh what feeling!' Oh what a feeling of shame, that is—a feeling of shame that Labor is destroying opportunities for jobs growth through its carbon tax. The best thing our government can do for the workers in Australia is to build a stronger, more prosperous economy. That is why we are committed to scrapping Labor's carbon tax.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (16:04): Just like Labor members speaking before me today, I have an electorate that depends upon manufacturing. More Wyndham residents work in manufacturing than in any other industry: 10.6 per cent of local people work as machine operators and drivers, which is almost double the national average and represents more than 10,000 workers, and 15 per cent work in related industries as tradespeople and technicians, constituting another 15,000 local residents. So Monday's announcement regarding Toyota was a heavy blow for my community, not just for those working directly for Toyota but for those in components industries and those working for related small businesses. What the government do not seem to understand is that the economy is akin to an ecosystem and when you rip huge holes in it the shockwaves spread.
This will spread across our community: to the contracted technicians and cleaners who depend upon work from Toyota; to those who work in the laundries that service the Toyota plant; even to those who work in the local cafe where Toyota employees stop for their morning coffee. The list goes on and on and extends deep into the families and communities of my electorate and into Melbourne's west as a whole. This will hurt husbands, wives, partners and children, neighbours and friends. Many will already be facing financial stress, struggling to meet mortgage or rent payments and pay for groceries. This is yet another burden to bear.
I know that this is a sentiment being felt around the country, by Holden workers in Elizabeth, by those at Rio Tinto in Nhulunbuy, by SPC employees in Shepparton. The Australian manufacturing industry is hurting and Australian workers are hurting. Yet we have a government that simply does not seem to care, a government so irresponsible they fail to intervene time and time again, even when it will cost hundreds of thousands their livelihood. This back-to-the-future government will take us back to a country that only exports raw materials, like we did last century. This government that cares so little for Australian workers is willing to break promise after promise. I draw your attention to the statement the Prime Minister made on 28 November 2012:
… I am committing a future coalition government to creating one million new jobs within five years and two million new jobs over the next decade.
But then, yesterday or the day before, Mr Abbott said in this very chamber, 'Governments do not create jobs,' and he has no plan for manufacturing jobs. So which is it, Prime Minister? Is this your solemn promise?
If you think it could not get any worse, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be wrong. Not only have they broken yet another solemn promise to workers; they are now blaming them and demonising them when they lose their jobs. It is easy to swan around parliament in the air conditioning and plush surrounds while at the same time complaining that manufacturing workers have it too easy. Their attitude seems to be: 'They earn too much. They ask too much.' Really? Is a worker who wants fair wages and conditions asking too much?
Would the Prime Minister be willing to look Toyota workers, Holden workers and SPC workers in the eye this week and tell them they earn too much? Of course he would not, because bullies are really cowards. Instead of bullying Australian workers, maybe the Abbott government should examine its conscience. What kind of government attacks people who have just lost their jobs and spreads misinformation about the conditions of workers so as to mitigate their own responsibility? The answer is just across the chamber.
The Prime Minister must ask himself these questions and more. Who is he really governing for? If it is not for hardworking Australians, if it is not small businesses and if it is not for Australian industries, then who? A government that believes in a fair, just and more prosperous Australia with opportunity for all would not be doing this. It just would not. We see the starkest contrast between the Liberal and Labor parties. We support workers; they do not. We support the manufacturing industry; they do not. We believe in Australian jobs, and it is clear that they do not. I call on the Abbott government to step up to support these workers and to just plain care. I call on the government to commit to securing jobs and training for those affected by their irresponsible and callous decision making, because these workers need opportunities, not to join the unemployment queue.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:07): I have a message for our nation and for the people I represent in the federal electorate of Corangamite. We are fighting for jobs, we are fighting for a bright future in manufacturing and we are fighting for opportunity. We have just heard comments from the member for Lalor, who I note is leaving the chamber, obviously not wanting to stay around to hear what we have to say. We do have the answers. That is why the Australian people rejected Labor at the last election. Some of the comments that were just made were utterly offensive. We all acknowledge that everyone in this chamber on both sides wants jobs, but the problem with Labor is that they failed.
For workers of Toyota, Holden and Ford, and their families, this is a very tough time. As a government, we are determined to build a strong and prosperous economy, a safe and secure Australia. We are determined to abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax, to end the waste, to slash red tape and to get the nation's finances back on track. Let us never forget Labor's legacy to this nation. Over the forward estimates we are staring in the face of $123 billion in cumulative deficits and government debt of $667 billion. As economic managers, the people of Australia has given Labor a big F. That is F for fail. Our job, as a government which understands the importance of responsible economic management, is to get our country back on track. Part of that challenge is to build the confidence of business to invest, to grow and to employ. Labor destroyed that confidence with its jobs-destroying carbon tax and its jobs-destroying mining tax. Labor destroyed that confidence with its waste and incompetence.
I also want to draw your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker to the words of the member for Corio, who claims that we will be a dumber nation when we stop making cars. These words are typical of what we are hearing from the other side—the negativity and the dragging down of our nation. They drag down the fine men and women who work in our auto industry, who, with retraining and support—which is what we will do—will have the skills and know-how to go from strength to strength. This negativity does us enormous damage.
Let us not forget that under Labor 130,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing. Let us talk about jobs under Labor. In my region, 510 workers from Ford lost their job under Labor. They said they had a plan, but they monumentally failed to save Ford. Their plan simply did not work. At Boral there were 90 jobs lost, and at Fonterra there were 130 jobs lost, and, let me assure you, the carbon tax on manufacturing was one of the major factors because it drives up the cost of energy and that drives up the cost of manufacturing.
What are we doing? We have a $100 million growth fund underpinned by the work of the Industry and Manufacturing Economic Review Panel. We are focused on the challenges, but we are focused on what we can do: investing in advanced manufacturing, food processing, IT and communications. In my region, we have the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, a $24.5 million fund there to directly grow jobs. We are building the roads of the 21st century, investing in infrastructure, duplicating the Princes Highway, upgrading the Great Ocean Road and investing in science, innovation and agriculture through initiatives like the Geelong Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases and the Golden Plains intensive agricultural precinct.
We have a bright future in manufacturing. Do not allow the Labor Party to drag our nation down. We are doing some amazing work in Geelong in carbon fibre production, and we are bringing the headquarters of the National Disability Insurance Agency—and, yes, the NDIA was an initiative of the previous government—to Geelong. Today I was with a delegation headed by the City of Greater Geelong Mayor, Councillor Darryn Lyons. We are fighting tooth and nail for a big part of the LAND 400 Defence project, a $10 billion project, and we are not giving up. We have a great deal of confidence, and through our policies we will build the jobs of the future. We will not be dragged down by Labor's negativity and we will not be dragged down by the way that they are telling us that they do not have the solutions. I can tell you that, after the last six years, it has been a monumental failure and we are working very hard to turn that around.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! As there are no more speakers—the time has not quite expired—the discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2013
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2013
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2013
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House is of the opinion that the $900 payments, along with infrastructure investments including in schools, roads and social housing, prevented recession and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and small businesses following the Global Financial Crisis."
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) (16:15): The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Hughes in continuation.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:15): One of the great concerns I have had during this debate on the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013 is the delusion—the most dangerous delusion—that I have heard from speakers on the other side of the chamber. They have attempted to create the fiction that somehow Labor's reckless spending over the last 5½ years has so-called saved Australia from the so-called GFC. They are trying to spin the fiction that their raining down $900 cheques upon people, their pink batts scheme and their building of overpriced school halls were something that saved this nation from the so-called GFC. And I say 'so-called GFC' because, if you look at our nearest neighbours, China, India, Vietnam and Indonesia, these countries in our region all continued to grow while the countries of Europe and North America went into recession.
The true reasons why Australia did better than Europe and North America during that period were several, and none of them have anything to do with the reckless spending of the Labor government. Firstly, it should be noted that in the year 2008-09 our GDP per capita actually fell. Our GDP per capita in that year fell by 0.8 per cent. It was only because of increasing levels of migration that our overall GDP grew, but the slice of the pie that every person received during that period was smaller. However, we succeeded during that period because of the strength of our region. The Chinese economic machine hardly took its foot off the accelerator. We had experienced before that a decade of strong growth through the policies of the Howard and Costello government. We had the lowering of interest rates. Our interest rates declined by three per cent, putting a lot of money into the pockets of people who were paying off mortgages. We also had a substantial fall in the currency. Our currency fell to a bit less than US60c, and this stimulated our export industry. We also had strong prudential regulations, the legacy of the good policies of Peter Costello, the former Treasurer. This is why we did well during a period when European and North American countries experienced recession.
In fact, the reckless spending that we saw from the Labor government made the problem worse. Labor come in here and talk about how they are concerned about unemployment. Under the Labor government, the unemployment queues in this country increased. They increased by 200,000 people. We could fill the MCG twice with the number of people who were unemployed when that government left office compared to the number when they took office. As I said, this is a dangerous and deluded theory that the current opposition come up with.
These $900 cheques are a stark reminder of the folly of Keynesian spending. We know that Keynesian spending has been tried and tried and tried again. Every single time, it has failed. I can understand that for members of the Labor government, with their trade union backgrounds, having absolutely no experience in government, the Keynesian policy of spending looks good in theory, but in practice, as history shows, it does not work.
I think perhaps the best quote from history of why it did not work is the comments of the American treasurer Henry Morgenthau, FDR's treasurer, who was the architect of stimulus spending during the Great Depression in the USA. He said:
… we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!
That quote could equally sum up the experience that Australia has had from the Labor government.
But we now face a situation where we have inherited Labor's legacy of growing unemployment, so what should we do? Should we roll out another lot of $900 cheques and get our nation further into debt? I say no. To get this country moving, to get jobs created, we need to get rid of the carbon tax, we need to get rid of the mining tax, we need to reduce the red and green tape on small business, and we need to release the creativity and the ingenuity of our Australian people. But sadly, although we in government are trying to do that, we have been blocked in that, in everything the government is doing in the Senate. (Time expired)
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:21): I rise to speak in support of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Repeal Bill 2013, the bill to repeal the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No. 2) 2009, otherwise known as the tax bonus act. I note the comments prior to question time by the member for Forrest about her experience in this place for six years during the previous administration. I was watching, of course, from the sidelines. In fact, my wife runs a small business. We know very well how hard it is to pay back money once borrowed. I also note the comments of the member for Hughes and the experience in Europe. I would encourage those opposite to perhaps go onto YouTube and google Nigel Farage, the genius of mutual indebtedness. It is startling. I do not pretend to be able to emulate his fine performance in the European Parliament but it talks about the indebtedness of European countries and the notion that throwing more money at it, throwing borrowed money at more debt, is the solution. It simply isn't. This should be a simple and straightforward process that will ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments—that is, no further payments in what we now know as the infamous $900 stimulus cheque saga.
While the magnitude of the savings in this matter is not of enormous significance, it is symbolic of the waste and the recklessness and disregard for taxpayers' money that was a hallmark of the previous Labor government. This was a government whose legacy is cumulative projected deficits of $123 billion over the forward estimates and $667 billion of projected debt, a debt that is already costing $10 billion a year in interest payments to service. Every saving that we can find will help us to deliver on the plan that we put to the Australian people before 7 September, to build a stronger and more prosperous economy, and every saving is a worthwhile saving no matter the magnitude. We are keeping our commitments. We will stop the waste and restore faith in the political system. I note that the minister's explanatory notes state that, given that stimulus to the economy is no longer required, the government considers further payments are not warranted. By repealing this legislation, we are able to remove some government waste—waste with borrowed money.
As I touched on before, this is about restoring confidence of the Australian people in their government. It is about showing that government can and should rightly respect taxpayers' money, that we understand fundamentally that government does not create wealth, that government in and of itself has nothing. Government is the servant of the people. Governments spend money raised in taxation from hardworking individuals and businesses. It is a simple proposition in line with the commitments we made and what every Australian expects of the government. As is the case with households balancing the family budget, we make choices. Waste of any kind, particularly waste of money that is hard to come by, particularly for families and particularly for people on age pensions, is simply wrong. We understand how cost-of-living increases are diminishing the ability of families to get ahead and pensioners to enjoy a financially secure retirement. Waste was a hallmark of the previous government. It is abhorrent to see taxpayers' money wasted and it is right that every effort be made to rein in government spending where it is not required. Families understand this. Low-income families particularly understand this. It is what they expect of their government and it is what we are doing. This bill ensures that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further payments given that stimulus to the economy is no longer required. Families make financial choices to manage the family budget and so must government.
In recent years—and I know in the urban, rural and regional communities that make up my electorate of Lyons—the cost-of-living increases seen under the previous administration have been a significant burden on the family budget. Not only families but small businesses, from farmers to engineering businesses to country supermarkets to rural abattoirs, are affected. All Tasmanians who are obliged to move people or goods in or out of Tasmania have seen their costs rise due to increased costs on Bass Strait in part due to increased cost of fuel as a result of the carbon tax. The carbon tax insidiously impacts on the lives of individuals, families and businesses, and we are committed to seeing this legislation repealed. I urge those on the other side to see sense and support our efforts, not only to get the budget back under control but to reduce the cost burden on every Australian by supporting our repeal of the carbon tax in the Senate. So when we see families struggling to balance the budget, when we see small businesses passing on the costs under the carbon tax to customers, again increasing the cost of living, when we see farmers paying the carbon tax for costs of goods they produce but are unable to pass on down the supply chain, we undermine confidence and we stifle the entrepreneurial spirit that lies within every Australian.
The repeal of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians (No. 2) Act 2009 should be supported unanimously. It is symbolic of waste and it flies in the face of the choices that families and businesses make every day to cut their cloth to fit. In the same way as families are obliged to cut their cloth, so too should government. Things have changed. Australia is under new management. We have a plan: our commitment to the Australian people to build a strong and prosperous economy. Only the Labor Party stands in the way of us delivering $20 billion of savings currently before the parliament, including $5 billion of savings proposed by the previous government which they now oppose. Our commitments are about creating more jobs, with lower taxes, less red tape and policies that encourage everyone to have a go and to stop the waste. The Commission of Audit is underway, with the principal purpose of delivering better value for taxpayers' dollars. Supporting the repeal of this legislation will help deliver on all these commitments.
We opposed this package in opposition because we understood that it was poorly targeted and ineffective in supporting employment, particularly employment in the private sector. By way of example, in Northern Tasmania in a former life I was able to have a game of golf and played golf with the owner of an establishment that has poker machines in the venue. When the first round of the $900 cheques hit bank accounts, they advertised a free breakfast with $25 of gaming tickets, and the takings for that week increased by $75,000. This is where the money went. Coming from Tasmania, where we have an unemployment rate by far the worst in the country and well above the national average, I know just how ineffective it has been. Nothing is more important in Tasmania than jobs. We went to the election with our economic growth plan for our state and we are delivering on that plan. I know and believe that Tasmanians are ready to also soon elect a Hodgman government after so many years of financial mismanagement under Labor and more recently Labor and the Greens.
But most of all we opposed this package because it was unaffordable. History shows that legislation was passed.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:30): Order! It being 4.30 pm I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Williamstown Shipyards
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:30): I speak today as a representative of a community still reeling from the loss of 2,500 manufacturing jobs at the Toyota Altona plant. With the loss of these jobs and the flow-on effects to the thousand more manufacturers of component parts that supply the Altona plant, manufacturing in my electorate is under enormous pressure. In this context, it is even more important than ever before that the federal government does everything possible to support jobs in other industries which are currently under threat in Melbourne's west. I speak here of the BAE shipyards, which are an iconic part of the identity of Williamstown and Melbourne's west. They represent a shipbuilding legacy that stretches back over 150 years and is woven into our nation's history. There are dry docks at the Williamstown shipyards that were built with convict labour and are now protected by the National Trust as a significant part of Australia's national heritage.
For 150 years the shipyards have been at the cutting edge of the maritime industry, constantly advancing the craft of shipbuilding through the innovation of the Williamstown workers. Today that translates into some of the most advanced manufacturing work in Australia combining high-tech equipment with scientific expertise to build air warfare destroyers and landing and helicopter docks that play a key strategic role in Australia's Defence Forces.
I have visited the BAE shipyards in Williamstown many times and I see the pride that these workers take in playing a key part in one of Australia's most important strategic industries. I know, most importantly, that BAE is a business that has been investing in the future of Melbourne's west. BAE is a business that thinks long-term and in recent years has trained over 30 new apprentices. In recent months they have finalised an in-house apprenticeship program directly targeted at the future shipbuilding workers of Melbourne's west. In the long term, the future of our maritime industry should be rosy.
In 2013, the then Labor government released the Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan, which articulated the government's commitment to enhancing and maintaining the necessary skills, expertise and capacity in Australia's naval shipbuilding industry, to ensure successful delivery and sustainment of Australia's future naval capabilities, particularly the future submarine. The Future Submarine Industry Skills Plan set out a long-term approach to maintaining naval shipbuilding capability and used future naval shipbuilding projects as a way to improve skills and productivity in the shipbuilding industry.
In future years the Australian Navy has requirements for the replacement of Australia's Armidale-class patrol boats, submarines and the replacement of the current Anzac-class frigates with the new Future frigates. There are decades of shipbuilding work required for Australia's future and where better to build these warships than in the high-tech shipyards of Williamstown. However, despite this potentially rosy future, the survival of the Williamstown shipyards in the short term currently hangs in the balance. The shipyards current construction contracts are nearing completion and without further contracts there will be no work to replace them. The now infamous 'valley of death' is upon the Williamstown shipyards, where a gap in Defence contracts will be unsustainable for BAE and they will be forced to cease operations. This will lead to a loss of over 1,000 jobs on top of the 2,500 jobs lost at Toyota. We have already seen the early effects of this 'valley of death' with the lay-off of 30 welders by BAE in December last year due to a lack of work. This issue needs to be resolved in weeks not months. To save the shipyards the government must act now. This is an issue with a straightforward solution.
Labor saw the 'valley of death' and vowed to act. In August 2013, I visited this shipyards with then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. He announced that after the election we would fast track Defence contracts to replace Australia's supply ships HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius and secure the futures of over 1,000 workers at the Williamstown shipyards. The response to this from the then shadow defence minister David Johnston in the other place was to mouth platitudes about building another aircraft or destroyer. After the election I wrote to Senator Johnston asking for details of this commitment. The response I received gave no guarantees to the workers of Williamstown that they would be supported by the coalition government.
The Prime Minister claims that we need jobs in growing industries. The Prime Minister claims that defence spending will grow to two per cent of GDP under his government in the next 10 years. If the Prime Minister is to be believed the defence sector will be a growing industry capable of supporting a vastly expanded naval shipbuilding industry, so why will the Prime Minister not pick up his pen and sign the Defence contracts that will secure the jobs of Williamstown workers? Even Liberal Premier Denis Napthine has realised that something must be done and is pleading with the Prime Minister to act, but the coalition government is not listening. When the Liberal Premier came to Canberra cap in hand in the wake of the thousands of job losses at Toyota, the defence minister was not even in the room to hear his appeals.
I do not want to see a Williamstown where abandoned shipyards are filled with high-rise apartments rather than jobs for Australian workers. The Prime Minister needs to listen to the advice of his state counterpart and ensure that there is adequate work to enable the Williamstown shipyards to cross the 'valley of death' and to thrive in a growing industry of the future. (Time expired)
Zambian Plane Crash
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (16:35): I wish to raise my concerns about an investigation into the crash of a light aircraft near Victoria Falls in Zambia on 9 September 2004 in which three Australian citizens were killed: Justine Watters and her husband Matthew, both 26, and Matthew's mother Shirley, 58. Also killed in that crash were their British friends, Justin and Rebecca Ward, also 26, and the Canadian pilot, Mike Channer, 24.
It is important that the Australian parliament maintains an interest in this case because the South African authorities have failed to take action on this tragic matter. I stand here today in respect of my colleagues' work on this issue. I thank the member for Brand, Gary Gray, for his strident support of this issue and for raising this matter in detail in his address-in-reply contribution. I also thank the former member for Pearce, Judi Moylan, who, before her retirement, committed a tireless pursuit of justice and truth in this matter.
The UK parliament also continues to pursue the matter, with the shadow minister for foreign and Commonwealth affairs, John Speller, questioning the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mark Simmonds, as to the recent representations his department made to the government of South Africa. Mr Simmonds stated that, most recently, the deputy high commissioner met the South African Civil Aviation Authority on 18 November 2013. I will table this document at the end.
These representations must continue. The plane passengers in question were on holiday when they took the flight on a Cessna airplane known as ZS-KOX. During the flight, the plane's propeller fell off at 8,000 feet. The ZS-KOX was a South African registered and maintained aircraft maintained by an authorised maintenance organisation, Nelair Engineering. In 2006, Nelair had its aircraft maintenance licence revoked. It was surprisingly reinstated in 2007. Nelair continued to operate and was linked to two other major crashes, with one incident also involving a propeller coming off a plane. When news of Nelair's reinstatement became public, the licence was again revoked.
Following the 2004 crash, a joint demarche signed by the High Commissions of Australia, Britain and Canada was presented to the South African Civil Aviation Authority. The demarche sought assurance that the South African Civil Aviation Authority had handed over necessary evidence to the South African Prosecuting Authority. It also sought to clarify the relationship between Nelair and Raylen Turbine Services, which is said to be a phoenix company in the air maintenance business in South Africa. The similarities between the two companies include: the staff and principals in both companies are basically the same; Raylen spelt backwards is similar to Nelair, as you can see; and facilities used and shared responsibilities are within the same team or ownership. You can see how incestuous the phoenix operation is.
The Zambian Department of Civil Aviation has since conducted an investigation into the crash. The investigation determined that the cause of the accident was the in-flight detachment of the propeller—in other words, the department was also aware that the propeller fell off. It says probable contributing factors were improper torque of the propeller studs, failure to wire-lock the studs, failure to follow correct propeller installation procedures and failure to use manufacturer approved parts. Basically, they used a garden bolt to put on the propeller.
Details of the crash were also referred to the South African National Prosecution Authority for review. The NPA then referred the matter to the police for investigation. However, most significantly, the case has been severely hampered as the South African Civil Aviation Authority claims to have lost the key pre-crash maintenance file. Additionally, plane components analysed by the American National Transportation Safety Board, which were held in storage by the Zambian Department of Civil Aviation, also went missing and cannot be traced. The NPA decided it was possible that offences of culpable homicide had been committed. However, the NPA has been frustrated in its investigations.
Since essential evidence has gone missing, criminal prosecution is now unlikely. Raylen continues to operate without scrutiny. How can this be? Despite direct representations to the South African government by the Howard government, the Gillard and Rudd governments, and now the Abbott government, through ongoing representations by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the investigation into the crash and issues about the operation of Nelair or Raylen remain unresolved.
South Africa is meant to be a modern and responsible nation with a government that protects its citizens and its visitors. If it wishes to encourage tourism, it cannot allow these things to continue to be unresolved. You cannot bring back those who perished, but there can and must be justice. I wish to table the question on notice and acknowledge the presence of the member for Brand in the chamber.
Department of Health: Health Star Rating Website
Ms KING (Ballarat) (16:40): I go to a matter that has been raised in the media, the other place and this place in relation to the health food star-rating system and the Department of Health website that announced the system and was responsible for its further development. We know that the health food star-rating website was uploaded on Wednesday and an email was sent to all stakeholders informing them of the website. By 8 pm on Wednesday that website had been pulled.
Senator Nash's chief of staff, we understand from her comments in the Senate, rang the person responsible for the program in the Department of Health and that person has now been removed from having direct responsibility for that position. The purpose of the call was to have the website pulled. We understand he was quite correctly told that it was not within a Commonwealth minister's decision to have that website pulled, as it was not a Commonwealth ministerial website. It was, in fact, a state and territory ministerial website with the Commonwealth as one player. The matter was escalated by Senator Nash within the Department of Health, and the website was pulled by 8 pm.
The minister has provided two separate explanations for this. The first is the website was inadvertently put up as it was a draft. The second is that it was subject to a cost-benefit analysis as unanimously agreed by the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation. Neither of these statements is true. All the public health officials—in fact, I have copies of letters from two members present at that ministerial council meeting—believed there was agreement that the food star-rating system would proceed. At the December meeting only the final calculator was agreed, and it had been agreed at a previous meeting chaired by my colleague the member for Blair. All the public health officials have seen the website, as I have. They believe the website was not a draft but was finalised and agreed by all the states and territories, as two state and territory colleagues have stated in writing. They all believe it was ready to go.
On the cost-benefit analysis statement, I go to the ministerial communique from the forum in December. It was clearly shown that, despite the minister attempting to have the ministerial council ensure that a regulatory impact statement was made for a voluntary system for which a RIS is not required, she was not successful. Instead she took the decision to instruct the department to broaden the existing cost-benefit analysis for the front-of-pack labelling system and the communique clearly states that. This decision does not have any effect whatsoever on the ministerial council's decision. The minister took the decision to instruct her department to do some additional work for her own benefit. The food-rating website was not contingent upon that decision.
We know what has been said in the course of Senate proceedings this week. We know that Minister Nash's chief of staff, a former chairperson of a company that lobbies on behalf of the food industry, remained a shareholder of that company at the time of the ministerial council meeting and the intervention to pull the website. No such declaration was made at the ministerial council meeting. I have chaired those meetings, as have my colleagues, and it is a standing item that such declarations be made. In fact, a minister from Tasmania would regularly declare that her chief of staff had a conflict of interest as he owned a winery. I fail to see how this is not a similar serious matter for declaration.
The only reason we know of this shareholding is that the minister had to explain it to the Senate late on Tuesday night. I will take the Prime Minister at face value that he appeared to be unaware of this matter during question time, but I again state that Assistant Minister Nash needs to make a ministerial statement and fully explain this matter to the Senate. I urge the Prime Minister, who said that he will take this matter on notice, to now involve himself in it, to make a full explanation to the House as to what happened in terms of his office, his knowledge of this and the appointment of the chief of staff and Assistant Minister Nash.
Taxation Reform
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (16:45): I am rising on a matter I feel strongly about. At the election, the coalition promised that we would review the taxation system within two years of coming to government. We will prepare a comprehensive white paper on tax reform. My view is that the review should start well within the two years and I am hoping that it will start in earnest soon as there is a vital need to do so. This will maximise the opportunity for selling any tax reforms that may eventuate. The coalition explicitly said that we will take proposals from that white paper to a subsequent election. As the Prime Minister said, when opposition leader, in his budget-in-reply speech to this House on 16 May last year, 'We will finish the job that the Henry review started and the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government squibbed.' As he further said, 'We want taxes that are lower, simpler and fairer.'
One issue that small businesses and farmers in my electorate of Eden-Monaro have been raising with me is the burden of income taxation. A key issue is capital income taxation—by that, I mean the capital gains tax, CGT. Not too many years ago in 2006, I was commissioned by then Treasurer Peter Costello to do an independent taxation review with Dick Warburton, Chairman of the Board of Taxation. It was an international comparison of Australia's tax system. With the greatest respect, while Peter Costello was hoping to get me to conclude that we had a sublime taxation system, it did not quite work out that way. In one area, capital income, the review showed we had one of the heaviest taxation burdens in the OECD. The review, which ran to 415 pages, noted on page 206:
Capital gains are taxed in many different ways around the world. New Zealand does not impose CGT and of those that have a CGT regime some have a stepped rate (as the holding period increases the tax rate decreases), some have a flat rate and others (such as Australia and Canada) use a discount system for taxing capital gains (only a proportion of the gain is taxable).
Page 207 of the review noted:
For the short-term holding period, Australia’s top marginal tax rate on capital gains is the third highest of the OECD-10 comparable countries while for the long-term holding period Australia’s rate … is the second highest.'
I say again, many countries have a stepped or tiered capital gains tax regime. Simply put, the longer you hold an asset the lower the relative taxation burden on the capital gain. In many countries, the tax burden falls to zero if it is a long-term investment. In other countries, they recognise that that is good for business investment and ultimately for jobs.
Many members will know that I am a former chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. When I had that job, I oversaw the publication of a very good document entitled Taxation reform blueprint: A strategy for the Australian Taxation System 2004-2014. We have now reached 2014 and there is still some unfinished business. Thus the ACCI had a policy where, if you held an asset for five years, the capital gains tax burden would be halved and then fall to zero if the asset was held for 10 years or more. There are also other reform options related to capital gains tax, including rollover provisions, carry-back of losses and franking credits. As the ACCI tax reform blueprint noted, the 2004 pre-election survey showed that CGT was either a major or a moderate concern for 61.7 per cent of businesses. More recent surveys reconfirm this.
The ACCI pre-election survey of over 1,000 businesses across the whole of Australia in 2013 showed that the level of concern had in fact risen to 68.4 per cent. I think there should be a debate on capital gains tax, not to increase it, as some left-wing advocacy groups would argue, but to decrease the CGT burden so that small businesses and farmers in electorates like mine can prosper and invest in jobs growth in the regions. It will have spin-offs for venture capital and research and development. However, I think that the most important thing is that we get the tax review going as soon as possible.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (16:50): Today, as usual, economists' predictions were wrong. They predicted jobs growth last month of 15,000 and a steady unemployment rate. Instead we lost 3,700 jobs and the unemployment rate increased from 5.8 per cent to six per cent. This is the highest figure since 2003—over a decade. It is higher than the peak of the global financial crisis. The number of people out of work is well over 700,000 and the workforce participation rate is at its lowest level in years. In my home state of Victoria the unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent. It is the worst since January 2002.
For the past four months, I have consistently drawn attention to our rising unemployment and urged us to rein in our out-of-control migrant worker programs. I have pointed out that the 457 visa temporary worker program is completely uncapped and that over a million temporary visa holders have work rights in Australia. I have pointed out that last year a record 129,000 permanent migrants arrived under the permanent migrant worker program. It is called the 'skilled migration' program but it is not in fact about nuclear physicists or neurosurgeons. The largest category of entrants last year were cooks and hairdressers also made it into the top five. Apparently, notwithstanding the great success of My Kitchen Rules and Masterchef, we are unable to find or train young Australian cooks.
Years ago there was talk about a real wages overhang. But what we have here is a migration program overhang where we continue to bring in record numbers of migrant workers long after the economic conditions used to justify these programs have melted away—after Ford, Holden and Toyota have all announced their departure, when Forge in Western Australia yesterday sacked 1,300 workers, and when jobs at Rio, Electrolux and BP are going. It has to stop. The size of the temporary and permanent migrant worker programs is a recipe for more young Australians to be out of work, with all the negative consequences that unemployment has in relation to mental health, drugs, crime, and social harmony.
If we do not do this, where will the workers from Ford, Holden, Toyota, Gove, Electrolux, BP and Forge go? The market theory, enthusiastically promoted by this government, is that these workers can be retrained for, and should be prepared to work in, other areas. This theory falls flat on its face when those workers are subjected to ferocious competition for low-paid jobs from both temporary and permanent migrant workers. We are on a road which leads to growing and long-term unemployment, social disadvantage and hardship, and an outsized welfare bill.
Unemployment is not about statistics. This hardship has a human face. Yesterday my colleague the member for Moreton put in a job advertisement for one of his constituents and today I want to do the same thing for one of mine. Robert Livesay is a 59-year-old maintenance fitter and turner. As a qualified fitter and turner, he worked at Holden in Port Melbourne for 20 years, doing maintenance fitting and production machining. He has a forklift certificate, a working at heights certificate, a confined space entry certificate and so on. He was made redundant by Holden back in 2008 and since then has only found occasional work.
He wants a job and he sought my help in finding one. I asked him about working in the mining industry. He said he has applied frequently for mining jobs and is prepared to travel at his own expense. For all that, he has managed to land a grand total of a couple of weeks work. I ask any employer who might have something for Robert to contact my office.
There are three claims that I often hear from some of those opposite and from some employers, economists, and media commentators: first, that workers who lose their jobs in manufacturing will find other, better jobs in other industries; second, that our welfare bill is too high and that people on unemployment benefits and disability pensions need to get off their backsides and find work; and, third, that Australia is short of workers and needs to bring in more migrant workers. Robert Livesay is a living rebuttal of each of those claims and I say to anyone who wants to make those claims: either put up or shut up! Find Robert a job. If Robert is too old or his skills and experience are not useful to us, cut the charade and stop spouting this market fundamentalist rubbish.
Trade Unions
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:55): I rise to commend the government's determination to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which will help battle union corruption in electorates across the country including my electorate of Corangamite. When the ABCC was in place, it resulted in fewer days lost due to union industrial actions. It also ensured a greater degree of confidence in our very important building and construction sector.
What we are doing is keeping our commitment to bring back the ABCC with full power, full authority and full funding. When the ABCC was in place it resulted in nine per cent productivity growth in the construction industry and $7.5 billion in consumer savings. The ABCC was prepared to prosecute and punish company officials and dramatically attack union corruption and union unlawfulness on worksites across Australia.
In Victoria, around 10 per cent of Victorians work in building and construction. We have a major issue. The cost of construction runs at about 20 per cent to 30 per cent higher than it should. Recently we announced a wonderful story in the Geelong region, the establishment of 50 new jobs at Little Creatures brewery in Geelong in my home state of Victoria. Little Creatures, by Lion, made an investment of $60 million and created 50 new jobs, but they went through hell and back to open their business and to employ people who live in the Geelong region. They endured union pickets, which were unlawful. There was some terrible conduct. They had to go to court and they got orders, yet the conduct continued. In fact the CFMEU and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union were ordered by the Supreme Court not to picket and not to prevent free access to the site or cause anyone to hinder work at the site, yet that conduct continued.
Similarly, Boral have endured a terrible time working on a very important project in Victoria, the multibillion-dollar regional rail link. Since the middle of 2012, the CFMEU has run an orchestrated and costly campaign against Boral because it has refused to give in to demands by the union to stop doing business with the Grocon group. This conduct is unlawful and our current system is too cumbersome and too slow to deal with the unlawful conduct of unions such as the CFMEU.
According to Boral's CEO, Mike Kane, company trucks have been stopped. Its workers have been intimidated. Drivers have been harassed and threatened and many of its clients have been warned by union officials against doing business with Boral. This unlawful campaign has cost of Boral more than $10 million in lost sales and legal fees.
As for Grocon, the CFMEU has waged a 12-year war against Grocon. It has waged industrial strife and terror on Grocon, an incredibly important company in Victoria. This is utterly unacceptable. We are tackling the hard questions. The Australian Building and Construction Commission will call this unlawful behaviour to account. We are not talking about good working men and women who are members of unions. I was once a member of the union; unions do some very good work. But some of these union bosses have overstepped the line to the point where they are wreaking havoc on the Victorian economy.
We are very proud of our commitment to stamp out unlawful union conduct and to build confidence in the building and construction industry in Victoria and across Australia. Equally, we are also very proud of our announcement that we will hold a royal commission into trade union governance and corruption. So we are tackling the hard questions. We are working on building productivity. We are fighting for jobs and we are very proud of our commitments.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 17:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Pyne: To move:
That standing order 1 be amended to read as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times(amendments to existing subject, as follows)
The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows provided that any time taken by interruptions for the purposes.
Mr Pyne: To move:
That standing order 131(a) be amended to read as follows:
131 Successive divisions
(a) If a division is called no more than 90 seconds following a division, the Speaker shall appoint tellers immediately and the bells shall be rung for one minute.
Mr Palmer: To present a Bill for an Act to provide for a Parliamentary Joint Committee to investigate establishing an Australia Fund, and for related purposes.
Mr Neumann: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples (Congress) is the national representative body of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(b) Congress:
(i) was established with a view to creating a new relationship with governments to reset the relationship based on partnership and genuine engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(ii) is owned and controlled by its membership and independent of government;
(2) recognises:
(a) the important role of Congress as a leader and advocate for recognising the status and rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as First Nations Peoples in Australia; and
(b) that the existence of an effective national body is essential to the Government’s ability to fulfil its Closing the Gap targets;
(3) acknowledges that:
(a) Congress received Deductible Gift Recipient status in July 2013, allowing it to begin to pursue income opportunities with corporate Australia and the wider community;
(b) the previous Labor Government committed:
(i) $29.2 million over four years to establish Congress; and
(ii) $15 million over three years in the 2013 budget to support Congress to continue to develop income opportunities to sustain the organisation; and
(c) ongoing Commonwealth funding beyond 2013 is essential to support the continued sustainability of an independent national voice for First Nation Peoples;
(4) notes with concern that the Government plans to cut the $15 million funding and abandon the commitment to the sustainability of Congress as the national representative body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and
(5) calls on the Government to commit to the sustainability of a strong Congress by honouring the $15 million funding commitment.
Mr Conroy: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the proud naval shipbuilding history of Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) the ability to build and maintain naval ships is essential to our national defence capability;
(b) over 4,000 skilled workers are currently employed in the Naval Shipbuilding Industry throughout Australia, most notably in Port Adelaide, Williamstown, Sydney, the Hunter and Henderson;
(c) as current contracted work reaches the end of the production phase, these jobs and shipyards will begin to come under threat; and
(d) once these jobs and skills are lost, it will be very difficult for the industry to be re-established; and
(3) calls on the Government to continue the work begun by the last Government and to provide additional Commonwealth contracts to ensure that these jobs and valuable skills are not lost.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 9:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Canberra Electorate: Australian Public Service
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (09:30): It has been more than five months since the Abbott government was elected. For my electorate of Canberra, for the city of Canberra, for the ACT and the surrounding region, those five months have been dominated by uncertainty.
The Abbott government was elected, promising to slash 12,000 Public Service jobs through natural attrition as a starting point, to increase the efficiency dividend and also to put an indefinite freeze on all Public Service hiring. The coalition was warned prior to the election—it was warned by Labor, it was warned by public servants; it was warned by economists—that natural attrition would not work. Nonetheless, its pre-election promise was that jobs would be cut through natural attrition alone. However, after coming to power the coalition realised what had been blatantly obvious to the rest of us for so long—that there is no way it could meet its target of $5.2 billion worth of Commonwealth Public Service job cuts through natural attrition.
It makes perfect sense that natural attrition simply will not work. Why would any public servant voluntarily leave their job—their secure job—when there is a hiring freeze in place and when the Canberra economy is coming under significant pressure from the government's mass job cuts. They would not—it is as simple as that. Once the government realised the promise of natural attrition was not going to work, it was in a bit of a bind, but rather than deal with the situation itself—rather than making the tough decision—it left it to the Commission of Audit to do its dirty work. Now, like so many other Australians, Canberrans are waiting with bated breath for the Commission of Audit to report. At least we would not have to wait too long—or so we thought. The Commission of Audit was due to deliver its first report in January. However, January has come and gone and Canberrans and Australians are none the wiser.
Do those opposite know the pressure that this uncertainty is putting on Australians? Do they know that Canberra's small businesses are already suffering? Do they know that Australians on the disability support pension are anxious about this issue and fear their future financial security? The Abbott government must stop hiding behind the Commission of Audit. Australians deserve to know what we are facing because currently we fear the worst.
In 1996 the Howard government promised to cut 2,500 Public Service jobs through natural attrition; that ended up being over 30,000 nationwide and 15,000 here in Canberra. When the coalition last held office the Public Service was stripped of 8.2 per cent of its workforce—in five years, under the Liberals, over 15,800 permanent public servants in Canberra. In 1996 both business and non-business bankruptcies jumped sharply after the Liberals took the cleaver to the Public Service. (Time expired)
Kooyong Electorate: Scotch College
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (09:33): I rise to pay tribute to one of the great schools of Australia, Scotch College. Located in the heart of my electorate of Kooyong, Scotch is a tower of learning; a hub of sporting activity and excellence; and an educational institution which graduates young men with the very best community values of respect, responsibility and good citizenship.
Last year the Old Scotch Collegians Association, under the presidency of Bruce Brown, celebrated its centenary year. The association produced a wonderful book titled, With a Keen but Loving Eye, detailing the school's transition, from its inception with the support of Reverend James Forbes in 1851, then with just 40 students, to the current day with its student cohort of nearly 2,000.
Like their predecessors, these Scotch boys will go on to shape the future of our country, as Scotch alumni are represented in the Who's Who and the Australian Dictionary of Biography more times than students from any other school in Australia. From the armed forces to academia, from politics to the professions, Scotch graduates have made their mark on the national landscape. Tragically, over the course of the two world wars, more than 500 'old boys' gave their lives so we could enjoy ours.
Great figures like Sir John Monash, Sir Zelman Cowan, Sir Arthur Robinson, Sir James Balderstone and Jeff Kennett all attended Scotch. Indeed, of my six predecessors in the seat of Kooyong, three were Scotch College graduates, including William Knox, one of the founders of BHP; Sir John Latham, former Chief Justice of the High Court; and Andrew Peacock, a former foreign minister and Liberal leader.
One of the great characteristics of Scotch is the quality of its leadership. Remarkably, in its first hundred years the school was served by just four principals: Robert Lawson, Alexander Morrison, William Littlejohn and Colin Gilray.
They were succeeded by Richard Selby Smith, Colin Healey, Philip Roff, Dr FG Donaldson and the current principal, Tom Batty. Tom, a former head of house and mathematics teacher at Eton, is an outstanding leader and with his wife, Lee, a real asset to the school.
So too at the council level, the school is exceedingly well served by the work of its chairman, the Hon. Dr David Kemp, and his committee. David and his brother, Rod, who both attended the school in the 1950s, and David's son, Charles, who was recently school captain, are all passionate defenders of the best interests of the school.
I conclude by saying how much I have enjoyed my interaction with the Scotch community since becoming the federal member for Kooyong. I have had the opportunity to speak at speech nights in the impressive Memorial Hall, to attend OSCA nights replete with haggis and bagpipes, and to meet many of the parents and leaders of the school, including my good friends Michael Robinson and George Swinburne.
Just as Scotch was synonymous with the early years of Melbourne in the 1850s and made history as one of the two teams—the other being Melbourne Grammar—that participated in the first recorded match of Australian Rules Football in Australia, it will as a school be synonymous with the future of Melbourne, producing as it does the young men who will shape the destiny of our country.
Shortland Electorate: Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (09:36): I was devastated to learn in early February that the federal government was refusing to fund the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council community project that had been developed in San Remo in the southern part of my electorate. This was to support youth in the local area. The thing that was extremely special about this project was that it was a community project that everyone had contributed to, it was a partnership with a number of organisations within the community, a lot of work had gone into it and the previous government committed $2.7 million to fund this project. When I received the minister, I was surprised to hear him say that this was funded through the MRRT, when it was funded through the last budget and was under the RDAF funding. So I was at a loss to see how this would be the case. Furthermore, this funding was announced before the government went into the caretaker mode and the current minister, Minister Truss, is abrogating his responsibility to fund a vital community centre within the Shortland electorate.
I am, as I said earlier, devastated that the government has chosen to take this tack, because so many people have put in so much hard work into the development of the proposal for this centre. The Darkinjung land council has given the land, and organisations such as the San Remo Neighbourhood Centre and Youth Connect and a number of really dedicated people have worked so hard to see this come to fruition. The Darkinjung council, based on the fact that this offer had been made, actually employed an architect to design the building. This was going to have in it training centres, health services and child care in the future ,and it was really going to be a hub, something that is needed in the northern part of Wyong Shire. It seems to me that this government has no vision, will not honour our partnerships and cannot see the benefit of a project like this in a quite disadvantaged area in relation to services. It stands condemned for its failure to honour this proposal and to honour the funds for this and for not being interested in the welfare of the people in Shortland electorate.
Hinkler Electorate
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (09:39): Last week the Nationals held their first party room meeting of the year in my electorate of Hinkler. The party's visit was a clear demonstration of the Nationals' commitment to regional Australia. It gave my community an opportunity to show the rest of the country that after a tough couple of years of natural disasters Hinkler is open for business.
A year on from the floods and tornadoes, as part of the visit Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss and I announced that repairs to the rock wall at the port of Bundaberg would be underwritten by the federal and Queensland governments by natural disaster recovery and relief arrangements. While it is anticipated that insurers will meet a significant part of the costs, the announcement of government funding for the shortfall will ensure that the wall is repaired more quickly. Shipping access to the port is vital to local industries and jobs, which is why the now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and I made the commitment prior to the election to get it fixed. Since the election I have been in regular contact with Mr Truss's office to ensure the matter is resolved.
The sugar industry is just one group reliant on the port. The sugar industry generates around $230 million a year for the Wide Bay-Burnett region, supporting some 600 cane farmers and 800 direct local jobs. While in town the Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, discussed electricity pricing with Isis and Bundaberg canegrower groups and toured the farm and processing facilities at Macadamias Australia and Farmfresh Fine Foods before meeting with Bundaberg Fruit and Vegetable Growers.
The Assistant Minister for Employment, Luke Hartsuyker, had dinner with various local chamber of commerce groups and toured jobs service provider IMPACT, where he had his blood pressure taken by some local aged-care students. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Nigel Scullion, toured the construction site of the new Indigenous Wellbeing Centre and joined morning tea with staff at the Mater hospital, where construction is set to begin on new patient and family accommodation facilities.
We also attended a civic reception with Brisbane Lions AFL players Daniel Rich and Simon Black at Bundaberg East State School, which was devastated by the floods in January last year. MPs Andrew Broad, Michael McCormack, Darren Chester, George Christensen, Michelle Landry and Ken O'Dowd, Senator Bridget McKenzie and Senators-elect Matt Canavan, James McGrath and Barry O'Sullivan also keenly participated in the events. This included a tour of Central Queensland University's Bundaberg campus and a community breakfast at the Old Bundy Tavern.
Local constituents were encouraged and heartened by their genuine interest in the issues that are impacting their daily lives. I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and their willingness to engage with the Hinkler community. I trust that what they learnt will inform their deliberations here in this place.
Blair Electorate: Dementia
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (09:42): Last week I attended a community information session on dementia in the rural township of Lowood in my electorate of Blair. This is one of those occasions where my roles as a local member of parliament and as a shadow minister overlapped perfectly. The session was organised by Kate Hawkins of Alzheimer's Australia (Queensland). Kate is from Lowood. With her warm and supportive parents she is establishing a friendship group for families and friends of those living with dementia. This is important for a number of reasons.
Dementia is on track to become the leading cause of disability in Australia in the next few years. It is the third leading cause of death in Australia behind heart disease and stroke. After the age of 65 the likelihood of living with dementia doubles every five years. About 1,576 people in Ipswich and the Somerset region in the electorate of Blair suffer from dementia. That figure is due to increase dramatically over the next 30 to 40 years. A dementia tsunami is on the way, but the problem is dire now. Just now dementia costs our global community $600 billion annually. If dementia were a country it would have the world's 18th largest economy. In Australia there are about 320,000 people living with dementia. By 2050 there will be about one million Australians and about 5,000 locally in Blair living with dementia.
The Lowood community information session was aimed at increasing the awareness of dementia, improving people's understanding of prevention and helping people live well with dementia. As Kate appreciates, people in rural communities find it hard to access services. These friendship groups are vital. I want to commend the Somerset Regional Council for supporting this terrific work. It was great to see Mayor Graeme Lehmann and Councillor Dan Hall at the event. The event attracted a great turnout and together we played memory games, shared experiences and learnt a great deal about dementia. I must confess that I was not too good at some of the memory games. We had the great privilege of also listening to Gold Coast based geriatrician Dr Mohammed Khateeb, who was both entertaining and interesting. The doctor reminded us that dementia is not a normal part of ageing and that ageing is not something we should fear. We all want to live longer and better, and the only way we can do that is by ageing.
So I commend the work of Alzheimer's Australia Queensland for its commitment to ensuring that people living with dementia located outside metropolitan areas receive appropriate advice, friendship and help. It is important for all of us to understand that dementia affects all families in our communities, across every electorate. People living with dementia will benefit from early diagnosis, earlier treatment and greater friendship. I commend Alzheimer's Australia for the great work they do and congratulate them, and also the Lowood community, for a successful and informative event.
Petrie Electorate: Environment
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (09:45): I rise today here to quickly talk about the coalition's Green Army policy, a policy that brings together the largest standing environmental workforce in Australia's history. It will see the biggest deployment of personnel for environmental restoration that Australia has ever seen. This policy will deliver real environmental and community benefits to the Petrie electorate. I am looking forward to seeing these Green Army projects rolled out after 1 July this year. The projects, as we know, will restore riverbanks and creek beds, revegetate mangrove habitats and carry out other environmental conservation remediation works. There are 250 Green Army projects throughout the country, and I will briefly talk about three in my electorate now.
The first project is at the North Lakes Reserve, a 110-hectare site. I would like to thank the Mango Hill and North Lakes Environment Group for working on this project with me to develop this project for the people of North Lakes. The project will ensure that noxious weeds and trees are removed and native trees and vegetation are replanted to provide an environment for local animals, including koalas, kangaroos and birds that live in the area. It will also ensure that the local creek and the freshwater habitat there are cleaned up. The creek will be restocked with native fish that will help with mosquitoes and things there as well. So there are real, practical environmental benefits.
The second project is at Osprey House at Griffin, and I would like to thank the staff and volunteers at Osprey House for helping to plan this project with me. The third project is at Hays Inlet along the saltwater creek. The Redcliffe Environmental Forum have put in a lot of work with me on that project, and I am keen to see that kick off the ground there as well.
I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt, for coming out and visiting these projects with me. They will certainly make a big difference to the Petrie electorate. These projects will ensure that local jobs are created. They all run for about six months, and most of the people working on these jobs will be aged between 17 and 24. The projects will provide these young adults with the opportunity to learn some life skills that they can transfer to other jobs once these projects are completed. Finally, these Green Army projects are part of our Direct Action Plan, along with our one million solar homes project, which I hope to roll out through the Petrie electorate as well.
La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (09:48): I wish to congratulate the La Perouse Aboriginal Local Land Council on 30 years of wonderful service to Aboriginal people and our community. Established on 25 January 1984, the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council have been promoting the wonderful heritage, culture and history of Aboriginal people in our community. They highlight the connection with that wonderful historic land that is so important to Australia, a connection that dates back 7,000 years as significant heritage and connection with that area. They also provide business and enterprise support services for people in the local community and a number of important social services. They administer the social housing scheme, the Aboriginal cultural heritage protection program, a cultural awareness training program and many conferences and events that promote Aboriginal history and culture.
On 25 January this year, I was fortunate to attend a morning tea at the home of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, the historic Yarra Bay House. It was wonderful to hear the stories the elders—people like Vic Simms, whose family's connection with that land dates back thousands of years. Vic spoke of the significance of the area to his people. He told stories of their fight to maintain their connection with the land, to have their land recognised through land rights and the challenges of establishing an Aboriginal land council and securing the historic Yarra Bay House. He spoke fondly of the work of Frank Walker, the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and former member for Robertson in this place.
We also heard from Marcia Ella-Duncan, the chairperson of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, who spoke of her family connection with that land in that area and the significant events that have been part of the history of the land council, most notably the wonderful corroboree that took place on the shores of La Perouse during the bicentennial celebrations.
These are special people; they cherish their connection with our land. They are people who care about our community. They volunteer their time to promote their culture and heritage, and to deliver better services for our community. I am proud to know them. I wish to congratulate and thank the board of the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council, chaired by Marcia Ella-Duncan, Noeleen Timbery, Donnaleen Campbell, Shannon Field, Raymond Ingrey, Margie Scruse, Alan Daly, Shallan Foster and Jackie Puckeridge, and also the CEO, Chris Ingrey.
Banks Electorate: Chinese-Australian Organisations
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (09:51): My electorate of Banks is home to more than 33,000 Australians of Chinese descent. That contributes to our area being one of the most diverse and culturally-rich places in Australia. In recent weeks we have had the Chinese New Year celebrations, which is a very important time in my local community. During that time, I was able to visit with a number of great local Chinese-Australian organisations and celebrate Chinese New Year with them.
This morning I want to highlight one in particular: CanRevive. CanRevive is a cancer support service working within the Chinese community, both within Hurstville in my electorate and in Sydney more generally. It began in 1995, when three women—Priscilla Wong, Rose Yeung and Eleanor Yip, who had all experienced the benefits of cancer support groups—decided that it was important to establish such a support group for Chinese language speakers—Mandarin and Cantonese speakers—within the community.
CanRevive provides a range of support services in terms of home visits, telephone support and those sorts of social gatherings where people who are suffering from cancer can get together to discuss what they are going through and really benefit from support from their peers and, importantly, from people who speak their native tongue.
I would certainly like to congratulate Mrs Ella Lee, the President of CanRevive, Mr Eric Cheong, the Vice President, and all of the team on their activities and on their Chinese New Year celebration, which I did attend a couple of weeks ago.
I also attended the celebration of the Australian Chinese Community Association of NSW Inc.—or ACCA as it is known—a terrific organisation which has been going for 40 years, helping people in the Sydney Chinese-Australian community by offering community services like aged home care, dementia services, special-interest classes, Chinese cultural classes, antiracism classes and a number of others. It is a very large organisation which helps literally thousands of people in Sydney. The celebration dinner held in Chinatown a couple of weeks ago was a very large and successful evening, with more than 400 people in attendance. Mr Allen Lee, the president of ACCA, and Mr Ted Seng, the general manager, are certainly worthy of great praise for that terrific night and for all of the activities of ACCA.
Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula
Ms KING (Ballarat) (09:54): I rise today to speak on a decision that the government has made which probably has not made a lot of press but it is one, I think, that is very important to highlight here. It is the government's decision early on in its term to abolish the Advisory Panel on the Marketing in Australia of Infant Formula.
In 1981 Australia endorsed the WHO International Code of Marketing of Breast-Milk Substitutes. For more than 20 years governments have relied on an advisory panel to advise on the marketing of infant formula and monitor compliance with the WHO code and the industry agreement. MAIF was the agreement reached with industry as part of Australia's implementation of the code. In fact, it was the only section of the WHO code that we implemented. The advisory panel comprised of public health experts, industry representatives, legal experts, consumer representatives, nutrition experts and others. Quite importantly, it also had an independent chair.
The government decided to sack them all by press release. There was no prior notification. Since then, neither the Minister for Health nor the Assistant Minister for Health have been willing to explain their position or to justify this decision. That should not be too surprising, though; we know the government is not that interested in listening to the advice of experts or entertaining anyone that might be critical of it. The government thinks that the role of the advisory panel can somehow be undertaken by the Department of Health, despite the fact that it is determined to abolish huge swathes of the Department of Health and the department does not actually employ the expert advisors that were engaged on the advisory panel. That is why it was required in the first place.
I am given to understand that the department has now gone to the infant formula industry to see whether they will pay for such a panel—something that I think the Australian Breastfeeding Association, who I met with this week, has, quite rightly, some significant concerns about.
It is very important that Australians have access to clear and accurate information, especially when it comes to looking after children's health. Given the government's decision in this space, I am extremely concerned about what that means in terms of Australia's commitment to the WHO code, what that means in relation to having a place where people can complain about the inappropriate marketing of infant formula, and what that means for breastfeeding rates.
The Australian Breastfeeding Association have called for the reinstatement of the advisory panel. I, alongside many others, strongly support their claim. The ABA have been able to collect more than 3,300 signatures over the past week to support that campaign. I commend them on doing so, and I seek leave to table as a document the petition of 3,000 signatures to the Minister for Health to reinstate this panel.
Leave granted.
Surf Life Saving Central Coast
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (09:58): As we draw towards the end of another Australian summer, I commend the efforts of Surf Life Saving Central Coast. Surf Life Saving Central Coast and its volunteers have been working tirelessly over the recent months to ensure that locals and tourists alike have a safe and enjoyable time on Central Coast beaches. You would be hard-pressed to find a more iconic representation of the Australian summer than our volunteer surf-lifesaving movement. Since its establishment in the 1870s, surf-lifesaving has grown across Australia to now include over 100,000 members from 256 clubs. Surf-lifesaving is etched into our national fabric.
Founded in 1938, Surf Life Saving Central Coast covers the coast from Catherine Hill Bay in the north to the Hawkesbury River in the south. It was not until after World War II when the clubs on the Central Coast saw significant growth, expanding from the five foundation clubs to today's total of 15. My electorate of Dobell is home to six of these surf-lifesaving clubs: Wamberal; Shelly Beach; Toowoon Bay; The Entrance, a foundation club; North Entrance; and Soldiers Beach. Each conducts a magnificent job on our local beaches. During the current season there were an estimated 1.3 million individual visits to Central Coast beaches. In the 2012-13 patrol season, Surf Life Saving Central Coast conducted 555 rescues, 25,259 preventative actions and 2,822 first aids and provided 95,843 volunteer hours.
This summer has been particularly significant for the organisation as they celebrate their 75th anniversary. I was honoured to attend the 75th anniversary gala dinner last October, where I presented a letter of congratulations on behalf of the Prime Minister. The evening offered a unique opportunity to reflect on the many achievements of Surf Life Saving Central Coast. Since recordkeeping formally commenced in 1977, some 33,889 lives have been saved by Surf Life Saving Central Coast. Over the years Surf Life Saving Central Coast has pioneered many initiatives implemented Australia wide, including the formation of the first rescue helicopter services. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s The Entrance, Terrigal and Broken Bay were home to the leading power surf rescue divisions in Australia. Surf Life Saving Central Coast was instrumental in establishing the nippers movement along with the community education program. In 1988 Surf Life Saving Central Coast had the honour of hosting Prince Charles and Princess Diana at the Royal Carnival.
Special mention must be made of the outstanding commitment made by President Mr Stuart Harvey and CEO Mr Chris Parker, who with their staff and directors ensure beachgoers receive an extremely high standard of care. May I conclude by again thanking and acknowledging Surf Life Saving Central Coast, all surf-lifesaving clubs and the thousands of volunteers for their ongoing commitment and outstanding effort over this current summer.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
MOTIONS
Closing the Gap: Prime Minister’s Report 2014
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:01): I start by acknowledging the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, the traditional custodians of the land upon which we meet, and pay my respects to their elders. As shadow minister, I am pleased to stand in this place and speak on the achievements we have made together in a bipartisan way and the challenges that are before us as we continue to close the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country and non-Indigenous peoples.
Six years ago all governments, Labor and Liberal, made commitments to closing the gap in Indigenous disadvantage. It has been a challenging journey, there being roads of red lights and green, tracks leading to both troughs and peaks—but a journey nonetheless embarked on together that has progressed us towards reconciliation. I mention reconciliation as we mark the sixth anniversary of the apology to the stolen generations—a watershed moment.
The Prime Minister's annual Closing the Gap report indicates positive outcomes in access to early childhood education, improvement in literacy rates for young people completing year 12 or an equivalent qualification and improvements in child mortality rates. Sadly, the report reminds us that there are other areas such as education outcomes, employment participation and the like which need further attention. Closing the gap is a journey no single government can make; it is a future that cannot be built alone. It must be a process that respects and includes the voice of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a genuine partnership. Change will not come from Canberra or from government department. It comes from participation, consultation and genuine partnerships with Indigenous people, for they are the drivers of change and innovation within their communities. As Les Malezer, the co-chair of the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, recently said to me: 'Nothing about us without us.' Closing the gap is and must remain a partnership of mutual respect, trust and acknowledgement. We cannot achieve our goals without good policy, program design and delivery and having Indigenous people own the policy program design and delivery.
The Closing the Gap strategy has provided a clear and properly funded framework for governments of all persuasions since 2008. We are on track with the first target—the early childhood target. That means every four-year-old in remote communities having access to the foundation of opportunity in later life through early education. We know that children enjoy the experience of reading and that those who read prosper and do better at school. We know that more needs to be done and can be done. That is why the former federal Labor government built on this achievement with a new Closing the Gap target in June 2013—a new target to ensure that 90 per cent of enrolled children across the country attend a quality early childhood program in the year before they start school—building on previous sustained efforts. We backed that up with a $655.6 million contribution over 18 months to the new National Partnership Agreement on Universal Access to Early Childhood Education, to support progress on the new target. We are on track in relation to that, but more needs to be done. We are on the way to halving mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018.
We have seen improvements in the proportion of Indigenous young people achieving year 12 or an equivalent qualification. We have even seen significant improvements in the reading results for years 3 and 5, but there is more work that needs to be done and now is not the time to cut back our commitment by cutting funding. We cannot cut our way to closing the gap. The report into closing the gap demonstrates the important interrelationships between health, education and employment outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We cannot address one outcome without working to improve the others. For many Indigenous people, a quality education is the passport out of poverty, but we cannot ignore that improving health outcomes have had a positive impact on education and employment outcomes.
We cannot close the gap on employment, education and health while so many Indigenous people are incarcerated. Employment, education and health outcomes are adversely affected by the interaction of Indigenous people with the criminal justice system and incarceration. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are vastly overrepresented in Australia's juvenile and criminal justice systems. Our first people are among the most imprisoned people in the world. An Indigenous person is 15 times as likely as a non-Indigenous Australian to experience incarceration. While making up just three per cent of our population, Indigenous people account for about a quarter of the adult population in prison in this country. These statistics are horrifying, but they are worse for juvenile incarceration rates: a juvenile Indigenous Australian is up to 25 times as likely to be incarcerated as a juvenile non-Indigenous Australian.
Many wonderful people around the country are dedicated to addressing these statistics through implementing justice programs and mentoring, education and employment programs. The Gold Coast Titans rugby league club in Queensland has a program called Titans 4 Tomorrow, which addresses school retention, career aspiration, mentoring and case management for disengaged youth and youth who are experiencing the criminal justice system. Joshua Creamer, the chair of the Gold Coast Titans board and himself an inspirational Indigenous barrister, has made an incredible commitment to closing the gap. Likewise, the Brisbane Broncos have a mentoring program that involves Indigenous young people in year 12 and participating in schools—and I have seen examples of this as a local federal MP as well. The Gold Coast is not the only place where this work is being done; it is being done in Brisbane, Ipswich and elsewhere. The Broncos CEO, Paul White, is a great supporter of the Commonwealth-funded Learn Earn Legend program. In the last parliament I acted as chair of the House of Representatives' ATSIA committee. The committee recommended the extension of the Learn Earn Legend program to the lower years of high school and also into primary school. That committee's report, Doing Time—time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system, found that sport and recreational activities were a way to deflect youth from antisocial behaviour and self-harm. I have personally seen that in my electorate in the work done by the Ipswich Jets Rugby League Club towards a reconciliation action plan and a commitment to strategic partnerships through the community. I have seen Jonnine Ford, a prisoner throughcare officer, working with the Jets, with programs through the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal service and with the Southern Queensland Correctional Centre to develop strategic partnerships for Indigenous youth. The Labor party remains committed to the justice targets which we need in order to close the gap. I urge the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs to solidly commit to those justice targets and develop those with us.
Ipswich, my home city, proudly hosts the hard-fought Murri Rugby League carnival for men and women every year. A State of Origin carnival takes place between the Murri and Koori peoples—between Queensland and New South Wales. I find it striking that both males and females who participate have to undertake mandatory health checks before taking the field. These health checks are undertaken by Selwyn Button and his team at QAIHC. This is an innovative and effective strategy for engaging Indigenous people about their health and social wellbeing. I commend the program and I urge the government to continue it into the future. We are making investments in the future which need to address eye difficulties across the country. We have seen Third World disease, in terms of eye afflictions, rob Indigenous people of their sight. Trachoma is a terrible disease which has affected a large number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Islander people. We need a commitment to eliminate this scourge in Australia by 2020.
I cannot speak of closing the gap without mentioning alcohol management. There has been a lot of media attention in relation to this, and alcohol abuse devastates the lives of many Indigenous families in this country. It is the centre of dysfunction and disadvantage for many Indigenous people. When we were in government we put in place a comprehensive approach to tackling alcohol abuse—one that addressed harm from alcohol, reduced alcohol supply and supported communities to drive local solutions. Our efforts resulted in a six-year decline in alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory. Tragically, the rivers of grog are flowing again. In the last year, alcohol-related violence in the Northern Territory increased by 15 per cent and domestic violence by 21 per cent. Currently there are 23 alcohol management plans ready and waiting for the government's approval, and I call on the minister and the Prime Minister to take action and approve these plans.
Integral to closing the gap is a recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as our first people in our Constitution. Labor is committed to pursuing meaningful change in the Constitution—change that unites and reflects the hopes, dreams and aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The change must recognise the unique history, language and culture of these peoples. The change must reflect our nation's fundamental belief in equality and nondiscrimination. I want to acknowledge the work of Recognise, a people's movement to bring all Australians along on this journey towards reconciliation. As an Aboriginal man recently told me, Australia loses nothing but gains 40,000 years of history and culture by recognising the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution. I applaud the government's commitment to continuing the work of Recognise in the Closing the gap report.
Closing the gap needs to be undertaken. It seems a long way off, but there are just 17 reports to come. We cannot take our foot off the pedal now; we must redouble our efforts. Labor remains committed to a new Closing the Gap target for higher education, justice and access to disability services. I urge the government to continue that journey with us. (Time expired)
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (10:12): At the outset I commend both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on their addresses to the parliament yesterday and their quite clearly genuine commitment to this process. I would like to also reiterate, make very clear and put on the public record in this place my strong and unequivocal support for appropriate recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in our Constitution. My hope and wish is that the Australian public come together as one and celebrate the 40,000 years of Indigenous heritage on this land.
I also want to acknowledge, I guess, a journey that I have been on. I have always been one who very much believes in practical steps to overcome practical problems, and I will delve into those a little more in a moment. I felt—and I think that perhaps I was correct in this—that the weight was too much on symbolism. Whilst important measures such as walking across the Harbour Bridge were powerful measures of symbolism, they certainly did not help a child hurt in a town camp in Alice Springs tonight or at any other time. But I have come to realise that they are important. They are not a solution—and those Australians who perhaps have thought they were enough are wrong—but they should not be derided or belittled. Hence I think that the contribution that both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister made yesterday, in committing both sides of the parliament to ensuring that there is appropriate recognition, is a major step forward. It allows us to get on with the business of helping our fellow Australians, regardless of the colour of their skin, to prosper in this wealthy nation of ours.
An enormous amount of time and effort has been expended in the last little while on education, and that is appropriate. I had the privilege of running a national charity called Bluearth in my absence from this place. We worked with black and white right across this country, from the most remote parts of Australia to the capital cities. It was a human movements program that built resilience and respect and taught people how to have confidence in themselves and accept challenges. It helped kids to go to school, to stay at school, to be connected and to enjoy their school experience. We have heard the Prime Minister and others—including, for argument's sake, the member for Blair, the shadow minister, just now—using words and phrases such as 'hopes', 'dreams' and 'aspirations'. We heard the member for Blair say how the Labor Party in their last term instigated a program of early childhood learning. All of these things are positive. But they are missing a crucial element that no-one is talking about.
I would like everyone in this place and anyone who listens to this today to consider this circumstance. I am a father and now a grandfather. You say to your children: 'An education is important. It equips you for life. It gives you a great array of opportunities that may not be there if you do not study, if you do not get decent grades, if you don't get a tertiary education or a vocational education.' But why do we do that? We want to get those things so that we can have personal self-esteem; so that we can contribute to our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of our family; so that we can aspire to own our own home, or at least to live in a rented place that we choose to have; or perhaps so that we can own our own business, small or large.
Now let me put you into the circumstances of the people at Billiluna or Wadeye—or at Aurukun, as was spoken about yesterday. You can go and do your early years education. You can learn a passion for reading, and that is wonderful. You can go into primary school and high school. But, if you actually aspire to remain in the community that you love, were brought up in and have a connection with through your Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage, you cannot have anything but a limited public-sector job. There are no private sector jobs. I think this is something that is so foreign to most Australians that they do not understand that it comes down to land tenure issues.
Unless we are going to grapple with those issues that allow microbusinesses to commence and with what makes Australia great—which is for people to be able to become educated, to fight for themselves, to become independent, to start their own business or to work as an apprentice and get a job, and then to make their own way in the world—those opportunities will not exist, as they do not exist now in hundreds and hundreds of communities throughout Australia. For instance, Wadeye is a community of 3,000 people. There are no commercial bakers. There is no commercial real estate agent. There are no commercial restaurants. There are no commercial businesses, full stop. So where are the microbusiness opportunities? Where are the apprenticeship opportunities? Yes, there are opportunities for Landcare, for government jobs, or for working in government-funded aged care or child care. But, if we relied upon those opportunities in mainstream society, most young Australians would never get a chance.
So I am very much confronting the parliament with the reality that what we have done is to lock over 150,000 Australians out of our economy. We tell them to love their land, to respect their people, to want to be part of their community, to grow their community and to get an education, but we then deny them the rights that the rest of us have: to aspire to own a home in their own community, to invest through their own hard work and the sweat of their brow in their own community, and to have a job or, better still, to start their own business. They simply cannot do it. So, until we confront the reality that the hopes and the aspirations cannot be realised in these communities, we are actually setting people up for failure, or we are saying to them: 'Leave the place that you are connected with.' These are the hard realities. These are the harsh realities. But these are the missing elements that we are not confronting.
There are a myriad of things which all good members in this place will touch on in this debate: heartfelt, needed, committed—it is all there. But we need to actually grapple with decisions that were taken in good faith. I take you to the APY lands and the celebration that that community had when they won the right to have inalienable freehold on a piece of land bigger than the Northern Territory. They thought that was going to help them reach their hopes and aspirations, but it has not, because no-one can own the land—it is owned collectively, so there can be no value for an individual that comes out of the land, and therefore banks will not invest in them. So we trap people. We trap people in a false dream, and then we wonder why, at 13, 14 and 15, young people leave the education system—because, if they have seen someone that has aspired to and gone through to year 12, they do not see them getting anywhere; they cannot see the connection, unless they have moved away.
So I ask parliamentarians collectively to open their eyes, their ears and their minds to the need for us to have an honest dialogue with these communities. When you go there, which I have done as much if not more than any person in this place, as a parliamentarian and in post-parliamentary life, what you will hear is: 'We want to work. We want a job. We want our own home.' But the understanding that that is simply not a reality in their communities is lacking.
I put the challenge out there: recognise that free enterprise is essential—that the people of Aurukun, Willunga, Wadeye, Mimili, Balgo and myriads of other communities will not have the chances enjoyed by other young Australians who get a preschool education and can aspire to live in their own communities. Let us start that dialogue and let us be honest with people now. The challenge is long, but we should never put it off to the next generation. More can be done and should be done today to make sure that justice reigns supreme in this nation for all of us.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (10:21): I am proud to be the member for Indi and to represent the traditional owners and custodians of Indi's valleys, hills and plains. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister on his powerful speech yesterday and acknowledge his commitment to closing the gap.
Prior to my election, following meetings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents, I made the following commitment, which I will read to you and ask that it be recorded in Hansard:
I respect the traditions and culture of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I acknowledge their past mistreatment, and commit to involve and consult on the big issues that unite Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across Indi.
1. I commit to form an advisory group comprised of Aboriginal people from Indi's communities to assist in providing advice to me on issues such as health, education, and employment.
2. I commit to make a public statement to recognize and acknowledge past mistreatments to the stolen generations, their families and communities as a result of the laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted sorrow on our First Australians, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
3. I commit to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which I meet and pay my respect to elders both past and present.
When the Commonwealth Mental Health Policy is reviewed in 2014, I will work to include recognition of the unique needs and opportunities for improved service delivery for rural and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Closing the Gap initiative is active in Indi. Our health services have been particularly active in working towards the ambitious targets that have been set. Many people are doing fine work, including the Central Hume Primary Care Partnership, Ovens and King Community Health Services, Northeast Health and Women's Health Goulburn North East.
Workers tell me that the greatest need is for recognition and acceptance. One example I would share with you is a sign at the entrance to the hospital in Benalla, which has a population around 8,000 and is two hours north of Melbourne on the Hume Highway. As is highlighted by the Closing the Gap initiative, many barriers exist for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in accessing health care. The simple act of welcoming—placing a sign at the front door that acknowledges and welcomes Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to the hospital—is an important first step towards improving health outcomes in their community.
Another hospital, Northeast Health in Wangaratta, has also erected welcoming plaques, commissioned a local Aboriginal artist to create an artwork that now hangs in their emergency department, and held a smoking ceremony in the emergency department. Northeast Health has appointed an Aboriginal liaison officer whose job it is to make contact with any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander patients presenting to the ED or to other services and to follow up with them to check if assistance can be provided in accessing any further services. Collecting data is essential. There were 82 occasions of service for patients identifying as Aboriginal presenting to the hospital's emergency department during the period November 2012 until April 2013.
Women's Health Goulburn North East is working towards the target of halving mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by providing reproductive health, wellbeing and pregnancy support for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women living in the Hume region. I am very proud of the work of hospitals and healthcare providers in my region in making hospitals more accessible to everybody.
In Mansfield, the members of the Mansfield district Indigenous Network are doing great work. Today the network has organised the commemoration of National Sorry Day. They will release a community plan, to be presented to the Mansfield District Council, which will outline their strategies to achieve their key goals: to have a place to come together, to promote acceptance and recognition, to support Indigenous families and youth, and to have a successful network for our community. Community groups such as Mansfield district Indigenous Network provide the local and community leadership that is essential for achieving the Closing the Gap targets in our communities.
There is a great preschool in Wodonga, run by the Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation, which connects local Indigenous families to the education system. It takes up to 30 young children at the three- and four-year-old level and is able to respond to movements in community as Aboriginal families come and go from Wodonga. It provides transport for the children to and from the preschool and provides morning and afternoon tea. I am proud to report that recently it has been assessed by the Department of Education as exceeding in all areas. Mungabareena Aboriginal Corporation are also empowering their community and planning for the future of the preschool by encouraging local members of the Indigenous community to train as childcare workers and supporting their learning by providing traineeships for them within the preschool.
The Prime Minister rightly highlighted that around the country communities are struggling to achieve the targets of halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy. Aboriginal people in my electorate have told me that education is a key priority for them. The reality is that if we close the literacy and numeracy gap we will have a much better chance of closing other gaps too; education is key.
Of course, we still have much to do in achieving the Closing the Gap priorities, but I am pleased to report that in my electorate the will is there and people are working actively and creatively to close the gap in our communities. In Indi we have committed to take action to close the gap. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution is something we must achieve. The Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, chaired by Mr Ken Wyatt MP, has met twice in order to achieve this recognition. I have spoken to the honourable member and have invited him to come to Indi to hold a meeting in the coming months.
I want to acknowledge and thank the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Indi for their patience, their tolerance and their commitment to reconciliation. Thank you.
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (10:28): I rise to echo the sentiments of the Prime Minister yesterday when he presented the Closing the Gap address to the parliament. I would particularly like to acknowledge the commitment to Indigenous affairs and emphasise the importance the federal coalition has placed on this issue. I am also pleased to note that the Prime Minister has delivered on his election commitment to move the responsibility of Indigenous programs to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Together, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs are making significant inroads in delivering for Aboriginal people right across Australia. On 10 August 2013 the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said:
What that requires is a new engagement between black and white people so that we can walk forward arm in arm as brothers and sisters.
This reminds me of a welcome to country of one of my local Darug men, Uncle Gary. He said: 'Australia is like a piano: you have white keys, you have black keys, but you only get truly beautiful music when you use all the keys together.' I believe the Prime Minister and Uncle Gary make excellent points as to what we as a community can achieve if we all work together.
I was pleased to see Warren Mundine, chair of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council, attend the prime ministerial address. I am so proud to be part of the Abbott government, which seeks a truly bipartisan approach to this issue and is not just a government dictating to Aboriginal people but asking Aboriginal people to help us lead the way. By working together, we hope to find a pathway to truly solve our collective national challenges.
Dreamtime theology often speaks in terms of yesterday, today and tomorrow. By acknowledging our past and working in our present, we can unite for a better tomorrow. I am confident the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council will ensure that the Indigenous programs will achieve real, positive change in the lives of Aboriginal people everywhere and move Australia one step closer to its Closing the Gap targets. It is because of all of these elements that the Closing the Gap initiative is so vitally important.
I would like to recognise the efforts of the previous parliament in beginning the step to close the gap. The target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met. As a nation, we are close to meeting the target of five per cent of remote children enrolled in preschool and we should soon know what percentage are actually attending as well as just enrolled. The target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is also on track to be met. These really are wonderful achievements, but there is still so much more work to be done.
I am concerned by other details of the 2014 Closing the Gap report. Particularly, there has been little improvement towards halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy. As an extension of this, Indigenous employment has unfortunately slipped backwards. Furthermore, there has been almost no progress in the improvement of lowering the life expectancy gap that exists for the Aboriginal community. I say 'as an extension' because, as members of this parliament, we would all be too aware that it is hard for anyone to find work, particularly without a basic education. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, it is also hard to live well without a job.
It does not take much to realise that each of the targets we have not improved on are interconnected and can be advanced over the long term by looking at ways to engage Indigenous children in education. That is why I was pleased that the Prime Minister moved to add a seventh target to end the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years. I believe all Australian children, disadvantaged Indigenous children in particular, deserve access to a robust curriculum providing the best possible education to enable young Australian people to have the best start to their best possible life and to forge their best possible future. But, by doing so, they will also enrich our nation in return.
Finally, I would like to add that slogans like 'Close the Gap' are meaningless if they do not actually deliver real outcomes in closing the gap. They must address the key challenges faced by these communities in our cities, in our towns and in our rural and remote regions. As the Prime Minister stated, it is important to turn good intentions into better outcomes. The fact that this parliament is committed to delivering real solutions and engaging Indigenous leaders and communities in meaningful discussion fills me with confidence that this government, and this parliament, can deliver policy and initiatives that will make significant inroads in achieving the final three and new targets to in fact close the gap.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:34): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, and congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I would like to commence by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land and their elders past, present and future. In addition, I would like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and every member who has spoken in this debate on the contributions they have made to this really important issue, an issue and a journey that started six years ago to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
It has been a very long journey to get to where we are today. It has been a journey that over the decades has been strewn with many hiccups along the way. But I think that there is a real resolve within this parliament—on both sides of this parliament—to see that the gap is closed. It is not good enough just to have that resolve within the parliament; there needs to be a resolve in the partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians to see that this gap is closed and that we do it together. The important thing about it is that it is a partnership between non-Indigenous Australians and Indigenous Australians. If we honour and work towards that partnership I think we will have fantastic outcomes.
I would also like to associate myself with the constitutional changes that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday and the additional target that the Prime Minister has also identified. In doing so, I acknowledge that these things are important for moving towards closing the gap.
In looking at the Closing the Gap statement that we have for 2014, it is interesting to note that it is a much smaller document. To a degree, I think that reflects the distance we have come and the fact that the challenges are still there. We are reporting on what has been achieved and we are also looking at what still needs to be achieved. I also think there is another issue, and that is that the gaps that exist for Indigenous Australians are different in relation to remoteness and non-remoteness. But—and I think this is a really important point to make—no matter whether an Indigenous person lives in a remote area or in a metropolitan area, there is still a difference. There is still a difference in health and mortality, there is still a difference in educational outcomes and there is still a difference in employment—and that has to change.
With remoteness there are very special issues. There are issues in the Northern Territory that surround access to services. It is much harder to deliver a health package in a remote community than it is to deliver a health package to an Indigenous Australian who lives in my community. There are still issues around the types of packages and access to those packages in a metropolitan area—like the one that I am in—and in a remote area. While there is a still a difference in health outcomes for Indigenous Australians, we have a lot of work to do. This report particularly identified that we have not made any inroads in that area since the last report. So we have that challenge to get out there and do that.
One of the first inquiries I was involved in in this parliament was looking at Indigenous health. That really graphically demonstrated to me the differences and the challenges facing Indigenous Australians in the area of health: they were sicker, they died earlier and they had many other challenges. Those challenges are still there but, because of the resolve and the will of this parliament to work with Indigenous Australians in that strong partnership, there has been a change take place.
But I think the greatest key to change is education. Education is the key to everything. As long as there is such a big difference between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in terms of educational outcomes and access to education, that will be reflected in poorer health and employment outcomes. In my electorate, the schools that have a higher number of Indigenous students are the schools that achieve the poorest results in the NAPLAN tests. A number of programs have been put in place to address those differences, including National Partnerships programs, and I think those have gone a long way towards addressing some of those inequalities. I encourage the government to continue with those National Partnerships programs. I think that the investments there, as well as simply the word 'partnerships', help to address the inequalities.
In terms of access to education by Indigenous Australians, there has been an improvement in preschool education and in the number of students that receive their HSC. But it is still not good enough. I read a moment ago about the percentage of students that attain their HSC. In remote areas it is 31 per cent, and in non-remote areas it is 54 per cent. That is not acceptable. Those percentages are reflected in the levels of employment that Indigenous and non-Indigenous people enjoy. I listened with great interest to the member for Fisher's contribution to the debate, which highlighted the lack of choice in employment, and the lack of employment, in remote areas. Twiggy Forrest has done a lot in that space, offering people employment in remote areas. But there is still a significant difference between remote areas and metropolitan areas in terms of Indigenous employment, and there is still discrimination against Indigenous Australians when it comes to employment. It is not good enough. We still have a lot of work to do.
Issues around closing the gap are issues of human rights—issues that I know every member of this parliament commits themselves to. One of the most important things that we can achieve is constitutional recognition. We must get that right. We need to recognise the history and the culture of Aboriginal people. We need to work towards reconciliation. Constitutional recognition could be a starting point. It could pull Indigenous and non-Indigenous people together to form a stronger partnership that recognises the contributions of Indigenous Australians while, at the same time, giving us a point to work from to undertake the practical changes that we need to make. I commend the report to the House and commit to working towards closing the gap.
WYATT ROY (Longman) (10:44): It is great to follow the member for Shortland. While we do not often agree, I think that we can agree that there is genuine resolve in this parliament to close the gap. While we in this place are often criticised for the adversarial nature of proceedings, a common sense of purpose surrounds the remedying of myriad inequities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
The task is enormous and demands strong leadership. The 44th Parliament is indeed fortunate to have a Prime Minister who has demonstrated in both word and deed that closing the gap is personal. His update to the House, which marks the sixth anniversary of the Closing the Gap plan, was largely not a pretty report. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister dispensed the raw facts with honesty, with humility and with insight. He spoke from the heart with a clarity and conviction sprung from putting one's shoulder to the wheel.
In his former role as shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, he resolved to not be just another 'seagull'—the pejorative Aboriginal term for a meddlesome interloper. He filled three weeks in 2008 as a teachers aide in Coen, 10 days the following year as a truancy helper in Aurukun, four days in 2011 on bush carpentry detail near Hope Vale and another four days in 2012 assisting the renovation of the Aurukun school library. Later this year the Prime Minister will spend a week in east Arnhem Land, focusing our nation's eyes in a way that will quite rightly ask questions of all of us in respect of a truly reconciled Australia. The Prime Minister's hands-on approach is complemented by an intimate investment in Indigenous policy. That is why he moved Indigenous Affairs to within the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. That is why he has enunciated his desire to become a Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs. As part of this concentrated effort his parliamentary secretary, the Hon. Alan Tudge, is working closely with the Indigenous affairs minister, Senator the Hon. Nigel Scullion.
I now turn to my electorate of Longman. I would like to place on the record a recent visit by the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary for a day of briefings with local Indigenous leaders and social and justice workers. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is another exemplar of lived experience on Indigenous affairs. Between 2006 and 2009, Alan was deputy director of Noel Pearson's Cape York Institute for policy and leadership and became intricately involved in designing the Cape York Welfare Reform trial. In Longman the highlight of his busy round of engagements with my region's proud Indigenous community was a tour of a not-for-profit Aboriginal owned and run bulk-billing medical centre called Murri Medical—a pioneer clinic run by and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people without government funding.
Located in the hub of the electorate at Caboolture, Murri Medical was established two years ago by directors Jennie Anderson and Anita Kemp. Specialising in Indigenous health and chronic disease, it has accumulated more than 5,800 patients. The business model sees Indigenous community groups and corporate and personal donors providing funds, while Medicare rebates supply the much-needed cash flow. Murri Medical is renowned for its friendliness, its high standards of service and thoroughness and outreach capacity, with clinical visits to schools and outlying communities. The personal touch even extends to transporting patients to and from appointments in Caboolture where they would otherwise not be able to attend.
I can report that the parliamentary secretary was more than impressed. In fact, it is his hope that Murri Medical's achievements can inspire the establishment of more privately owned Indigenous healthcare centres with an ability to make strong, trusting and lasting connections, and relationships that result in patients attending to their health requirements in a timely and supported manner. Alan said:
Murri Medical has been started by two entrepreneurs off their own bat. They haven't had government funding and are delivering terrific results … we'd like to learn in terms of what they're doing right—
he added—
so it can potentially be replicated elsewhere in the country.
The parliamentary secretary had more to say about the nexus between health, education and employment. He told local media that Murri Medical's self-sustaining business model and its emphasis on preventative health was in perfect step with the government's plan to improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. He said:
They've developed a huge number of clients within a small amount of time and this will hopefully encourage other indigenous entrepreneurs. But most importantly, the service is working. And if people are healthy, they’re more likely to have success in school and more likely to succeed in work.
The Prime Minister articulated that nothing short of dramatic improvement was required in the school attendance and workforce participation of Indigenous Australians. While visiting Longman, his parliamentary secretary agreed that lifting employment rates was a cornerstone of the coalition's path towards closing the opportunity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
Around half of all working-age Indigenous Australians receive welfare payments as their main source of income. We must change that because, if you have a job, it does much to ameliorate other lifestyle issues. A review into Indigenous training and employment programs, headed by Fortescue Metals chairman, Andrew Forrest, is due to report to the Prime Minister in April. Meantime, the government has already made some progress, including investing in new training centres for Indigenous jobseekers where there is a guaranteed job at the end. The parliamentary secretary put it this way:
Many Aboriginal people have five or 10 certificates to their name, but can’t get a job—through training that—
eventually—
leads to nowhere. We want to end this training for training’s sake.
I invited the parliamentary secretary to see firsthand the great local success of Murri Medical, because I am part of the coalition team committed to a better Australia for all Australians.
I would like to take this opportunity to particularly congratulate the wonderful founders of Murri Medical, Jennie and Anita. They are two of the most amazing human beings I have ever met. For them, showcasing to our Canberra decision makers such an outstanding community facility helps inform a government that is serious about tackling Indigenous disadvantage. I am proud, as part of this parliament, to be part of that positive change for our entire nation.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) (10:52): I commend the member for Longman for his wonderful speech. I know that he, like all of us, not just on the coalition side but on the opposition and crossbenches as well, share the view that we need to do more to close the gap. I also commend the member for Shortland. Like the member for Longman, it is not too often that I agree with the member for Shortland, but I think she made a very pertinent point when she said that it is not just about remote Aboriginal Australians; it is also about regional Aboriginal Australians, as well as—and this is an important point she made—urban Aboriginal Australians. I am sure she was making very clear the fact that many Aboriginal Australians live in urban areas. Like those in regional areas—the ones I represent—and certainly like those in remote areas, there is a great disparity in health, education and certainly life expectancy. We need to do more. As a government we need to do more; as a parliament we need to do more; as a nation we need to certainly bridge the great divide. I am glad to say that we are making improvements. We are getting on with the job as a government, as a parliament and as a nation to do just that.
This today is an important and historic occasion. It is an important and historic day. It has been six years since the federal parliament's apology to the stolen generation—our First Australians. I stand here today as the representative—and the proud one too—of the Riverina in the federal parliament. It is the home of those wonderful Wiradjuri people, whose names, traditions and cultures run throughout my electorate. On this day six years ago, the parliament and the nation stopped. It stopped to listen to the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, acknowledge that the policies of successive governments, which resulted in the stolen generations, must never happen again. It stopped to listen to the Prime Minister apologise and say sorry. The word 'sorry' meant so much. It was a word for which Aboriginal people had waited generations to hear, ever since European colonisation of Australia. The word 'sorry' is a very powerful word.
The apology to Australia's stolen generations was an important step forward in our nation's history. As I said to the House upon the retirement of the former Prime Minister who delivered that historic apology, it is that apology which meant so much to Aboriginal people and, certainly, the Wiradjuri people. We must always remember this.
The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, paid tribute to former prime ministers Rudd and Gillard for the legacy which is before this place today: an annual report from the Prime Minister of the nation about closing the gap in disadvantage between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. I also commend the words and the bipartisanship of the opposition leader when he responded to the Prime Minister's statement. I certainly join the Prime Minister in commending the former member for Griffith for this initiative—for the annual Closing the Gap statement—and note that this issue is one on which there is no disagreement, none whatsoever. It is incumbent upon all of us to work towards closing the gap in disadvantage and ensuring that all Australians, wherever they live and from whatever background, can reach their full potential in this country—whether they are in remote, regional or urban Australia.
The Prime Minister's speech yesterday was an honest assessment of the government's target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade, as well as the targets to increase enrolment in preschools and year 12 attainment within Aboriginal communities. I share the Prime Minister's sentiments in acknowledging that we are on track to meet our targets of 95 per cent of remote children enrolled in preschool and to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020.
As well as praising the areas in which the Commonwealth is on track to keep its 2020 targets, the Prime Minister's speech this week was also a poignant reminder that there is still much work to be done. The little progress in closing the gap in life expectancy, as well as the levels of literacy and numeracy, is something that we all must focus on as we head towards 2020. So, too, the statistics on employment demonstrate that, whilst we are achieving some positive results in some areas, the work is far from finished.
In the other place yesterday, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Nigel Scullion, also highlighted that the challenge before us is great. The Council of Australian Governments report showed that school attendance is in fact getting worse over time in some areas. In fact, the minister said that it is a disgrace—and he is right. The government has three policy priorities in closing the gap, towards which we must all work. They are: getting children to school, getting adults into work and providing safe communities.
Following the election, the Prime Minister, for whom the area of Indigenous affairs is very close to his heart, declared that he would be 'a Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs', with a cabinet minister in Senator Scullion from the Northern Territory, who understands exactly the challenges our nation faces in many Aboriginal communities, and for whom the knowledge of these challenges is not new. The minister is a man with pragmatism, bipartisanship and determination to listen to and to understand the needs of Aboriginal people, regardless of their backgrounds and location. He is a good man, Senator Scullion, and he is getting on with the job. I know that he has visited the Riverina many times since I have been the member, and has spoken to the Wiradjuri people in a way that they feel is really heartfelt and genuine. Senator Scullion, in all his endeavours in the portfolio area, is very genuine and very heartfelt. He certainly has that capacity to do some very good things in helping to close the gap.
This is an area in which we must all work diligently, because this is a challenge for all of us. I commend the work of the previous government, particularly the member the Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, for her work in this area. We are all on the same page in working towards closing the gap in disadvantage between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. It is an area in which we must work in every town, every bush community, every regional town and city—in every community and in every Aboriginal nation.
We are very fortunate in the Riverina electorate, within the Wiradjuri nation, to have many proud and proactive Aboriginal elders and leaders, including Aunty Isabel Reid of Wagga Wagga, whom I have spoken about in this place before. She is a leader and someone who readily acknowledges that closing the gap requires work from all of us. She is such a proud and diligent worker that she was aptly named Wagga Wagga's citizen of the year at this year's Australia Day awards. At 81 years of age nothing can temper Aunty Isabel's enthusiasm or determination. She is a remarkable woman. She is a passionate advocate in favour of constitutional recognition of our first Australians—something which I also firmly agree with. Upon accepting the 2014 Citizen of the Year award, Aunty Isabel told the reception at the Civic Theatre in Wagga Wagga, 'We are moving forward but we still have a long road in the country.' That is what she said, and she also added that she was pleased an Indigenous elder was being acknowledged through this year's Australia Day awards. I must admit that she received a rousing acclamation.
It was not the only award she won on that night. With each and every additional award, she almost needed a small truck to take home the placards and platitudes she deservedly received, but, certainly, each and every accolade that she received was warmly applauded by the large audience in attendance. I know that the Mayor of Wagga Wagga, Rod Kendall, and his council were very pleased to confer on Auntie Isabel and the Australia Day committee those very prestigious awards. Aunty Isabel said that night:
Looking at the statistics in the Northern Territory and several other parts of the country illustrates that we need to move forward in a more cohesive fashion, which includes being recognised in the Constitution.
It is people such as Aunty Isabel who personify the potential for reconciliation between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians and the hope for a harmonious future.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (11:00): I rise this morning to speak to the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap report and to put on record my commitment and that of the broader Solomon community to improving conditions for Indigenous people across the Territory and Australia more broadly. I grew up in Alice Springs in the seventies and eighties, have lived in Darwin since the mid-1980s and have seen firsthand some of the social issues that are raised in the Closing the Gap report. I want to say, though, that while there is enormous disadvantage in Aboriginal communities in the Territory, and more specifically in Solomon, a number of Indigenous people live fulfilling, contented lives in and around Darwin and Palmerston—and this is one of the models which the Closing the Gap targets are based on.
The 2012 census identified that 9,905 Indigenous people live in Solomon. It is not clear, though, how many of those were visitors to the electorate on the night of the census or how many permanently reside in Darwin and Palmerston. What is known, though, is that at any time a large number of people from all corners of the Territory come to Solomon to access services, predominantly medical treatments, provided primarily by the Royal Darwin Hospital. In addition, there are a number of town camps across the electorate where Aboriginal people live on special purpose leases. The underlying tenure is Crown land. These camps are occupied pretty much exclusively by Indigenous residents and in at least one of those, Bagot community in the Darwin suburb of Ludmilla, significant debate is being had about whether to open the community up to non-Indigenous residency.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! A quorum not being present, the sitting will be resumed at 11.30 am.
Proceedings suspended from 11:03 to 11:27
The Federation Chamber having been counted and a quorum being present—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Whiteley ): The Federation Chamber will be in continuance. It was interrupted by the Prime Minister's address in relation to the awarding of the 100th Victoria Cross to Corporal Cameron Baird, who, for the record, was born in the city of Burnie, my home town. I give the call to the member for Solomon in continuation.
Mrs GRIGGS: As I was saying before the suspension, these camps are occupied pretty much exclusively by Indigenous residents and in at least one of those, the Bagot community, in the Darwin suburb of Ludmilla, significant debate is being held about whether or not to open up the community to non-Indigenous residency. I certainly see merit in this process being debated given my in-principle objection to residential enclaves based on ethnic backgrounds, which is effectively what currently exists. By the same token, though, Bagot has a number of outstanding support programs for community residents.
A few weeks ago, I shared lunch with residents at the senior centre at Bagot and met with staff and users of this excellent service. I spent an enjoyable few hours talking with the residents, visitors and staff who prepare the lunches at the centre. While there, I also heard firsthand the impact of the Labor Party's scaremongering about the age pension. Every single one of you on that side should hang your heads in shame for being blatantly obnoxious with the furphies that you are putting around. I have taken great pleasure in telling these people that the Labor Party are so embittered about losing government that they are prepared to spread so much mendacious misinformation to Australians about something as fundamental as the age pension.
I expressed the following sentiments yesterday during my partial address-in-reply speech, which was continually interrupted and shut down by those opposite, particularly the member for Lingiari.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call both members to order.
Mrs GRIGGS: The member for Lingiari should check the Hansard. If he checks the Hansard, he will actually see that I was not in the chamber and I did not vote to stop him from speaking about Gove. He needs to get his facts right. He is the only one who stopped a Territorian from speaking yesterday. I will repeat what I said yesterday: I want to emphasise my desire and the desire of this government to improve health outcomes and create employment opportunities for Indigenous people.
It is of great concern that, at any one time, there are a large number of people in Solomon who harm themselves through the combined effects of alcohol, poor diet and living rough. The impacts of this spill over into the suburbs of Darwin and Palmerston and seriously strain the resources of police, ambulance services and hospital and community service agencies and, more importantly, manifest themselves in appalling health outcomes for the people concerned. The Closing the Gap report provides a great deal of scrutiny of these health outcomes, but a visit to the waiting room at Royal Darwin Hospital shines a light on many of the issues that the Closing the Gap policy is seeking to address. Indigenous Territorians are overrepresented at the Royal Darwin Hospital and at any given time the main waiting area is host to a significant number of Aboriginal people seeking treatment for a range of injuries and ailments.
Along with the issue of alcohol, Indigenous people have substantially higher smoking rates than non-Indigenous Australians. The impact of this on their health is of course substantial and in many cases irreversible. In conjunction with targeting alcohol, smoking rates among Aboriginal people must also be substantially reduced. Clearly more work needs to be done in lowering the rates of Indigenous smoking, which run at around 52 per cent in the Territory and 48 per cent nationally, as opposed to the non-Indigenous rate of about 18 per cent. Smoking, like alcohol, is intergenerational and the government understands the importance of reducing smoking rates going forward. The Prime Minister's Closing the Gap report says:
Ensuring Indigenous adults are working is critical if Indigenous adults and their families are to enjoy better economic opportunities.
While the primary focus of Closing the Gap is on improving quality-of-life outcomes for Indigenous Australians, the achievement of these targets will have significant flow-on benefits to the national and Territory economies. Figures released recently by Deloitte Access Economics show that, if Indigenous disadvantage were overcome, the Northern Territory economy could grow by as much as 10 per cent and that, nationally, the economy would be $24 billion better off over the course of two decades. Tapping into this latent cohort of society in Solomon will have significant benefits all around.
I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement to report on school attendance in future Closing the Gap reports. As it has been said many times before, if children do not go to school, how can they learn? I am pleased that there will be more emphasis and transparency around school attendance, especially in regional and remote areas. Finally, I want to reiterate my commitment, and that of my community, to closing the gap.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:33): Yesterday we heard two fine speeches, one by the Prime Minister and one by the Leader of the Opposition, at the Closing the Gap breakfast. I have been attending these Closing the Gap breakfasts since the Closing the Gap campaign started—of course, I was the Minister for Indigenous Health for a number of years until the last election. I am cognisant of the targets that have been set and our obligations to try and meet them.
I want to go briefly, if I may, to the target to close the life expectancy gap within a generation—by 2031. We learn from the current report that in 2010-12 Indigenous life expectancy was estimated to be 69.1 years for males and 73.7 years for females. The life expectancy gap has been reduced between non-Aboriginals and Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the community, but the reduction is only small and we need to understand why this challenge is so significant. As you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the context of our own population—that is, the non-Aboriginal and non-Torres Strait Islander population—we are all living longer. In fact, we are not all living longer—obviously some people have their lives shortened for various reasons—but the bottom line is that, as a generalisation, life expectancy for non-Aboriginal and non-Torres Strait Islander people is increasing, just as it is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So the relevant gap is what is important.
Whilst we may be making significant advances in addressing chronic disease in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, we may not be addressing them fast enough to get that relative gap closed. So it is very important that we understand the magnitude of this challenge, and why it is so important that governments, led by the federal government in partnership with the state and territory governments, renew their commitment to the national partnership agreements on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.
Let us just remind ourselves of what that commitment has been. In 2008, COAG agreed to a historic $1.6 billion reform package. Last year, under Labor, there was a commitment for a further $777 million for the three years from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2016 as its share of the renewed national partnership agreement. When the estimates for the MBS and PBS are included, the Commonwealth contribution over those three years would be about $992 million—a significant amount of money.
What we say is that if we are actually going to continue this work of improving the outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in health then we need to renew that investment commitment. Unfortunately and sadly, it appears that the Commonwealth government has taken this national partnership agreement off the table. If that is the case, and if the present Commonwealth government is not prepared to live up to the commitment made by the previous government by renewing their commitment to the states and territories, then it is very unlikely that we will ever have the capacity to meet the close the gap target of life expectancy. It is very important to appreciate that under Labor there was a continuing proposal to implement the Indigenous Chronic Disease Package. It is also important to appreciate what the outcomes of that proposal have been. If we can understand why these outcomes are important then it does make a difference.
As of 30 June 2013, 795 full-time equivalent positions were funded under the Indigenous Chronic Disease Package. More than 204,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients have been helped by PBS copayment measures as at 30 April last year. If we do not continue this work, and if we do not continue in an ongoing fashion the $100 million investment made by Labor on tobacco action, then we will not see a continuing reduction in tobacco consumption rates amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. So if we are deadly serious about this—and I take the Prime Minister at his word that he sees this as an absolute top priority of the government—then I say to the government: 'Stop pussyfooting around. I understand you've got this commission of audit, but this has got to be above that.' We need the government to recommit its resources—the resources committed by Labor—over the next period for the national partnership agreements. We need the Commonwealth government to get up and sign the agreements and Minister Dutton to go out there and work with the state and territory governments to get agreement on the national partnership arrangements, so that we have got these agreements signed and the money committed and the work ongoing. If we do not provide ongoing resources, we will not get the outcomes.
Unfortunately and sadly, it appears that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health may be confused and mixed up with the desire by the government to cut expenditure in all areas of the government. If that is the case then these targets are going to be harder to meet.
I want now to make an observation on the aim of halving the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade. We are on target to achieve this aim not just because of commitments made by government but also because of commitments made by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities right across this country, including their commitment to work with government to make sure that they have got the best primary health care services available for their communities. This has ongoing impacts. If we address and meet the target of halving the gap—as we will—then, in the longer term, it means we will have healthy kids growing into healthy adolescents and then healthy adults with, we expect, longer life expectancy. That is a very, very good thing. But it will not happen in a vacuum. It will only happen by working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities right across this country and by governments understanding that they have to stump up the resources, as I said before when I talked about the life expectancy gap.
Last year I had the privilege of launching the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan along with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This is a framework for improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health outcomes for the next decade.
What is required now is for this government to work on an implementation plan working with the state and territory governments and the community control sector—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities right across this country—to implement this plan. If we do implement this plan—the first of its kind—then it will change dramatically not only the way in which we deliver health services but our understanding of how health services impact upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
It is important to appreciate that this plan actually thinks about and talks about issues to do with racism—understanding how racism is an inhibitor to people accessing and having a long and happy life, and the cultural dimensions of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. These are very important things: looking at the social determinants of health, being culturally respectful, and making sure we have a non-discriminatory health system, making sure that the health system is effective and that there is clinically appropriate care, making sure there is evidence based practice, making sure mental health and social and emotional wellbeing are addressed, and making sure there is human community capability.
We need to do these things together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. And a reminder: this plan did not come out of the top of my head or anywhere else in my body; this actually came from a long period of consultations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right around this country, in partnership with the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples and also NACCHO, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation. We went around Australia talking to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to establish their priorities and to work with state and territory governments to come up with this document. It is a very, very important document.
I say to the government—and, again, I applaud the Prime Minister's words yesterday—that if we are going to make it a reality to improve life expectancy and address these issues with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, then it is absolutely imperative that the government work with the state and territory governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people right around this country to develop an implementation plan and put that plan into practice.
There are a whole range of other matters I would love to talk about, including education; unfortunately, time will not permit. But it is important to appreciate that whilst the Prime Minister has said he wants to make a new target of five years for getting school attendance up, he will not do it just by having truancy officers. He has to make sure state and territory governments stump up to the mark and make sure there are teachers and other support workers in schools—unlike the Northern Territory government, which has reduced expenditure on education and taken teachers and support staff out of schools.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:43): I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of this place, the Ngambri and Ngunnawal people, and pay my respects to elders past and present and their future leaders. I also want to acknowledge the traditional owners of my own home town of Newcastle and the wider electorate, the Awabakal, Worimi and Wanaruah peoples.
I was very privileged to spend almost a decade of my life living and working in remote Aboriginal communities, primarily in the Kimberley region of WA. And it was there, immersed in community life and Indigenous culture, that I gained some very valuable lived experience of a very different way of life and a very different cultural world. Despite sharing this same continent for the entirety of my life, I learned of the profound differences in the life that I had enjoyed and the life that is so often lived by those in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The gap in overall health and access to health care is one example, as well as the inequity in life expectancy, the infant mortality rate, the lack of employment opportunities, and the poor access to education for both young and old. It was during this time that I made a very personal commitment not only to try to re-educate myself about some of those issues but to play a very active role in doing what I could to remove inequality and injustice among my fellow Australians wherever I see it.
In 2008, as a nation, we took our first formal step to address this inequality. The national apology, delivered by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was long overdue. But it was no less significant than if delivered decades earlier. We needed to say sorry. It was unfinished business that needed to be addressed, and I am glad we did that. The signing of the Close the Gap statement of intent by the then Labor government and the Liberal opposition on the same day was a watershed moment of commitment from our nation to formally address the wrongs of inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. A pledge was made to remove the inequality in health status and life expectancy and to improve access to mainstream services. We have built on that commitment, with further targets set on access to education and employment. Regardless of the new targets set—extensions made to the commitment—the essence remains: closing the gap is first and foremost about justice and inclusion, opportunity and equity.
Last year the first Closing the Gap target was met. Every preschooler living in a remote community now has access to early childhood education. That is a great achievement and certainly one worth celebrating. But meeting a target is one thing; maintaining the level of access is just as important. Ongoing Commonwealth funding is needed to ensure that successful, evidence based programs that have already been established may continue to operate and indeed be improved upon. Yesterday I met with members of SNAICC, the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, who are concerned about the ongoing viability of some 38 child and family centres across Australia and indeed many other early childhood services in our nation. The funding basis for these centres is currently under review and due to end on 30 June this year. These centres play a vital role in the communities in which they exist, allowing integrated and flexible service delivery of early childhood education and health initiatives. Their role extends far beyond child care for preschoolers and indeed extends to the broader ecology of the community.
This morning I got to meet again with some of those women I met with yesterday at the breakfast. Naomi, who was working from one of my old home towns of Fitzroy Crossing, reminded me of the crucial work she is doing with many of the young mothers who accompany the children who come to these services. So we definitely should not be thinking that these services are some kind of drop-off place for childcare provision; the entire family becomes involved. And the people working in these centres are amongst the most academically as well as culturally aware and adept people available to be working in the communities.
So the delivery of the early intervention initiatives like the work Naomi was doing with the young mums, as well as going out into communities and doing that, is assisting greatly in transition-to-school programs and is directly linked to improved outcomes at schools—we have evidence suggesting that now—and helping to build the relationships between the community and the formal school setting. The centres also play a key role in employment and training for adults, and they are real opportunities that also heighten access to higher education and training and certification.
Those centres are not just in remote areas, of course; they are also in communities like my own, in Newcastle, where I am really fortunate to have two centres that are run under that banner. One is the DALE young mothers program in Waratah. And there is also the Awabakal MACS children's service at Wickham. Both of these are really in danger without this assurance of some continuity and security of funding. Since 30 June is not too far away, if we are serious about meeting these targets and closing the gaps in these areas then we need ongoing security for services like this.
So I am calling on the government today to give assurances to those communities that house these centres by committing to their ongoing funding through dedicated pathways to give them the flexibility they need to deliver these vital services. I urge the government to commit to the SNAICC's proposal for a 10-year sustainable funding model for an integrated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and family services.
The Gonski report also identified the link between low levels of achievement and educational disadvantage, particularly amongst students from low socioeconomic and Indigenous backgrounds. It is of great concern that that framework for a fairer funding model, which had specific loadings for disadvantage—such as the number of Indigenous students at a school, levels of English proficiency, literacy and numeracy—is now deeply under question. The government went to the election last year with a commitment to the Gonski report and these recommendations, but now we know—after the election—that it is a very different story.
In 2013, Labor proposed three new measures that should be added to the Closing the Gap agenda. I would urge the government to adopt those alongside their own additional proposal that the Prime Minister announced yesterday in relation to school attendance rates. One of the additions is an increase in Indigenous participation in higher and further education. I am very proud that in my own electorate of Newcastle we have the University of Newcastle, which is known as Australia's leader in tertiary education for Indigenous education. The Wollotuka Institute at that university now has more than 1,130 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who have graduated and more than 800 students currently enrolled today. We have trained more than 50 per cent of the Indigenous doctors for the whole of Australia—a very proud record.
I would like to note another fantastic program that is operating in Newcastle that is looking to close the gap: the Deadly Choices campaign, which was launched by the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health and funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing. Deadly Choices aims to empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make healthy choices for themselves and their families: to stop smoking, to eat good food, and exercise daily. Last week, the Deadly Choices commemorative rugby league jersey was launched in Newcastle as part of the Festival of Indigenous Rugby League. That festival is a wonderful exhibition of how sport, physical activity and positive role modelling can make a difference to the lives of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. These sorts of choices will help close the gap.
Finally, I endorse the words of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday in reaffirming our commitment to take that next long overdue step to reduce inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and that of course is constitutional recognition. Certainly, Labor believes the proposed constitutional change should be guided by the recommendations of the expert panel, and all of those sections that were listed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition are extremely worthwhile. In addition, the lack of funding now for community legal centres and the removal of funding from Aboriginal legal services is of great concern.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:53): I rise to commend the Closing the Gap report, to commend the work of our government and to commend the work of the previous government. Today, I want to focus on the positives and what we are doing together, on both sides of politics, to close the gap. Yes, there is some disagreement, but what we need to focus on—and what I am going to focus on—is that we as a nation are embracing the very hard work that lies ahead in closing the gap.
Yesterday, we heard two very fine speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. For the Prime Minister, this is personal. The Prime Minister has brought Indigenous affairs into his department. He has a deep commitment; he has passion. He has appointed a parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, responsible for Indigenous affairs, working alongside Minister Scullion. For the Prime Minister and for our government there is a deep and very strong commitment to closing the gap.
For me, this is also personal. I think each of us has had their own journey in embracing the many challenges in the way in which Indigenous Australia has been disenfranchised and damaged in the past. I guess my journey began in the early 1990s when I was studying law and I was given an assignment to do about terra nullius at a time when I did not know what terra nullius was. It was before Mabo was handed down. It was an extraordinary eye-opener to me as to what our First Australians had endured, how they had lost their lands—the gross injustice.
I remember that in the mid-1990s I was a radio host working for 3AW in Melbourne, and I was quite passionate about Indigenous affairs and about reconciliation. One of the managers called me in and said: 'Sarah, we're not sure that you're connecting with our audience. We want you to talk more about the cost of broccoli and other matters that connect with the people listening to your show.' I said, 'This is so important.' This is so incredibly important, and I think that in the last 20 or so years, as a nation, we have been on a positive journey, and more and more people have joined that journey.
I was very proud in the mid-1990s when my mother was appointed the Victorian minister for Aboriginal affairs. During her term she led the apology on behalf of the people of Victoria to the stolen generation.
I worked for an organisation called National Indigenous TV. That was an incredible time for me. It gave me such an important education on the significance of opportunity. NITV was all about giving young Indigenous men and women the opportunity to do great things, to work and to tell their stories. During that time, there was a particular day that I will never forget. It was the day of the national apology. It was a magnificent day, and it was a magnificent credit to former Prime Minister Rudd. There were tears flowing in the offices of National Indigenous TV. For me, it was overwhelming watching those faces. I was very proud to call myself an Australian on that day.
At the same time, when I travelled to Alice Springs as part of my work, it was distressing beyond belief to see two- and three-year-old children walking down the main street in the mall in Alice Springs, following their mothers and fathers who could barely walk because of the amount of alcohol that they had consumed. There was a profound issue with neglect of the children, and I found it very, very difficult to look at and to watch.
I think as a nation we have made some very hard decisions about alcohol in Indigenous communities. I know that the intervention has been very difficult for some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but I strongly support the work of the previous government and this government in addressing what is a critically important issue for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
I am particularly proud of our commitment—and it is a bipartisan commitment—to recognise the First Australians in our Constitution. There is very significant work going on at the moment to progress that. Again, I remind the House about how significant it is that the Prime Minister is leading the charge in the recognition of First Australians in our Constitution.
I want to remind the House also that we have some very strong commitments to Indigenous affairs. We are honouring our key election commitments, and they include moving the administration of more than 150 Indigenous programs and services from eight different government departments into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; establishing the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council; implementing the $28.4 million Remote School Attendance Strategy; commissioning a review of Indigenous employment and training programs; providing $45 million to fast-track the implementation of a demand-driven vocational training and employment centres training model; providing $5 million to support the design of the Empowered Communities initiative; and working to build support for a successful referendum to recognise the First Australians in our Constitution, as I have mentioned.
We have made good progress in closing the gap—child mortality rates and access to early education. But we have a long way to go, particularly in areas such as in halving the employment gap within a decade, where there so far has been little progress. That is why our decision to end the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance, and to see 90 per cent of attendance, regardless of the percentage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, is so significant.
We recognise that education is fundamental to opportunity—to closing the gap. If young Aboriginal children are not at school, they are not receiving an education. I was very pleased to see again the bipartisan approach on this additional target announced by the Prime Minister yesterday.
A good education for children in Indigenous communities gives them great capacity to seek employment in the future. I have seen firsthand at NITV what a good education and opportunity can lead to. Education is very much the future. I think there is renewed vigour and energy to target truancy, to make parents accountable and to ensure that children of Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander descent have every opportunity to learn, to be inspired to learn, to prosper, to go to university and to be the best they can be.
More work needs to be done. I am very proud to be part of a government that is so focused on closing the gap. I commend this report to the House.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:02): I commence my remarks by acknowledging the traditional owners and I thank them for their continuing stewardship. I do that deliberately because six years ago today we did that for the very first time in this building. Even though this building has been around for 19-odd years, and there had been the opening of Old Parliament House, a welcome to country has never been performed in this building. The very first thing I did in this building as a parliamentarian was to observe the welcome to country given to us by Matilda House and her community. It was quite heart-warming to see. She actually told the story that when Old Parliament House was first opened, one of her ancestors had been in attendance but was not allowed to participate in the ceremony. They were on the fringes of the ceremony, but were not allowed to participate. So, six years ago today—I remember it was a rainy day—she made the point of how it was righting a wrong. Having the welcome to country delivered to us was quite moving.
After that first event and before parliament started, we then moved into the historic event that I have to say, sadly in a way, was my best day and favourite day in parliament. I am referring to the apology delivered by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It was truly one of the most moving events in the history of Australia, I would suggest. It was an event that in hindsight becomes more and more poignant and more and more significant. I recognise the magnificent speeches delivered yesterday by Prime Minister Abbott and Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. Both were magnificent speeches that should be read by everybody.
The apology delivered by Kevin Rudd was written mainly by him. Obviously, Minister Macklin, as she was then, did a lot of the groundwork, along with many other people, but the words were primarily penned by Kevin Rudd, by his own hand. They were magnificent words, words that echoed around the world. His words, in some way, strangely, secured our vote on the Security Council, because countries saw that event. It was an international phenomenon. Those words—mere words, I know—on that day six years ago, spoke of an Australia that was noble and committed to fairness and justice, and perhaps to righting some wrongs.
Words and symbols mean nothing if there is no action. That is why I commend Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Gillard before him, and Prime Minister Rudd, for not just recognising the event, but turning words into actions. Noble thoughts mean nothing if there are not noble deeds connected to it.
In the short time we have, I will touch on some of the other significant events that have occurred. About 50 years ago, in August 1963, a petition was delivered to the Australian Parliament. It was on a pair of bark paintings and was signed by the clan leaders of the Yolngu region, in the Gove peninsula—an area that is having significant challenges at the moment because of the refinery closing down. Obviously there have been lots of petitions sent to Australian parliaments by Aboriginal people, but this was the first one that combined the traditional form of a the bark painting with text typed on paper. It is interesting to see where it is kept. If you come to parliament house, I recommend that you go and see it, because it is right alongside the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution. The Australian Constitution is the actual one signed by Queen Victoria. Australia as a nation was formed by Queen Victoria, in London, signing off on an act passed in Westminster by the United Kingdom parliament.
These bark petitions are now considered founding documents, up there with the Magna Carta and the Australian Constitution in terms of the tradition of recognising what we are as a nation. It is significant. Other petitions were handed on, but they do not have the same status in terms of being founding documents. Petitions were handed up in 1935 and 1937. But do you know what the response of the parliament of the day was? Absolutely nothing, as in: we do not have to respond to that. In fact the way the Aboriginal community was ignored led to Aborigines from all around Australia establishing a national Aboriginal day observance committee, or NADOC, and they later added the Torres Straight Islanders to make it NAIDOC. It is an event that is still celebrated throughout Australia every year. In fact, I make sure I sure I go to the event in Acacia Ridge in my electorate. People from the Murray school in my electorate, and some of the other communities, come along.
So, symbolism is very important. One of the other significant Indigenous symbols—and we have all seen it on television—was the occasion when Gough Whitlam was pouring sand into the hands of the people who had been fighting for land rights.in their communities during the 1966 Gurindji strike for equal pay. The strike went on for a long time. Then we had the 1960 referendum, which was a significant time, when nearly nine out of 10 Australians said we should recognise indigenous Australians and not treat them as fauna, as the Constitution suggested. Even though that strike went on for eight years—and you have heard about it if you have ever heard the song by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody; From Little Things, Big Things Grow—that movement, something symbolic, went on to achieve some change. In fact, some might say you could draw a line from that event through to the recognition, in June 1992, by the High Court of the fact that white settlement in Australia occurred on black land. There had been a long tradition, and that is why the traditional owners have such a significant statement now, and claim, and interaction with people who want to use their land.
I particularly mention that song by Paul Kelly and Kev Carmody because I included another of their songs in the foreword to my book—and I assure members I am not going to quote from my book, but I will quote from their song This Land is Mine:
This land is mine
All the way to the old fence line
Every break of day
I'm working hard just to make it pay
If you have seen the film clip, you will know that the white settler is singing that verse. Then we have the response from the Indigenous voice:
This land is me
Rock, water, animal, tree
They are my song
My being here where I belong
I think this song by Kev Carmody and Paul Kelly, This Land is Mine, captures that dynamic around what we are about as a nation. We have to recognise Indigenous history. It is the oldest continuous culture on the globe, with stories that go back far enough to recognise the ice age in Victoria—there are Indigenous tribes that talk about the ice age and have song-stories recognising the ice age. Then history is combined with white arrivals and the challenges that they bring, and this history is not to be rewritten in terms of history wars. We will never have true reconciliation as a nation until we have a Constitution that recognises that history and tradition—and I commend Prime Minister Abbott for recommitting to that process of consultation, engagement, education and, hopefully in the time of this parliament, recognition through a referendum by the Australian people of our true history. So the document signed by Queen Victoria in July 1900, as it then was, will truly reflect the bright, optimistic Australia of the future. Obviously, I hope that will be a bipartisan process wholeheartedly supported by both sides of the chamber.
Ms PRICE (Durack) (12:12): Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Aboriginal people from this land that we stand on today and also acknowledge different Aboriginal peoples in my electorate of Durack—from the Aboriginal people of the beautiful wilderness of the Kimberley, down to and including the Yamatji people in the mid-west.
I rise today to join members of both sides of the House in thanking the Prime Minister for his commitment to Aboriginal affairs and policy. In my maiden speech, only a few months ago, I made a plea: that history will show that this 44th Parliament had the courage and the foresight to adopt policies that improve the lives of Aboriginals. I believe it is safe to say that yesterday's commitment by the Prime Minister to no longer work for Aboriginal people but rather work with them and to introduce new measures to close the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples has put Australia on track to achieve these outcomes. My electorate of Durack has the nation's third highest proportion of Indigenous residents, so I welcome this government's commitment to achieving all Closing the Gap targets for the betterment of all Aboriginal peoples, but in particular my constituents in Durack.
It is important to note that Australia is already on its way to achieving some of the Closing the Gap targets implemented by the former government. Such targets include halving the gap in child mortality within a decade and halving the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020. I particularly welcome yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister that an additional target would be added: to achieve a 90 per cent plus attendance rate in all schools within five years, regardless of their percentage of Aboriginal students. By closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, particularly in education, it is my belief that other social issues such as high rates of Indigenous youths entering our justice system will also be addressed.
In the electorate of Durack, I am proud to say, we are not short of people with goodwill and good ideas who continue to work towards improving the lives of all Aboriginal peoples. Western Australia's highly successful Indigenous education initiative, Clontarf Foundation, is just one fabulous example of commitment and innovation. Clontarf's vehicle for increasing school attendance and participation is through Australian Rules and/or Rugby League, using these sports to not only attract young aboriginal boys to go to school but also keep them there. The program is not just about sport; this is simply the tool being used to improve education, discipline and self-esteem and to teach life skills, with the aim to better equip these students to participate more meaningfully in society.
The foundation has continued to grow since it opened its first academy for 25 boys on the campus of the Clontarf Aboriginal College in Perth in Western Australia in 2000. It now caters for over 2,800 boys in 54 schools across Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Victoria and New South Wales. In 2012 alone, the foundation opened nine new academies, including one in Fitzroy Crossing, which is in my electorate of Durack. Other Clontarf academies in Durack are based in Derby; Carnarvon; East Kimberley in Kununurra; West Kimberley in Broome; Halls Creek; Karratha; Roebourne; and in the Midwest, in Geraldton.
Speaking of Geraldton, Geraldton's John Willcock College has developed a unique intervention program which, compared to Clontarf, is specifically targeted at improving the attendance and education standards of young women. The SHINE program was founded in 2010 by former hairdresser turned welfare worker, Mandy Jolley, with the support of school principal Julie Campbell. This is a program that turns traditional thinking on its head, with a new approach to increase the attendance of girls aged between 13 and 15 and to spark their interest in learning through a hairdressing salon environment. The program is strategically focused on empowerment and developing life skills such as customer service, responsibility and trust. This is achieved through their community work in aged-care homes, discussing with guest speakers issues such as healthy lifestyles, women's health, drug and alcohol abuse and being responsible for the upkeep and operations of the hairdressing salon.
This not-for-profit organisation relies on sponsorship from various private organisations and government departments, including the state Department of Education. Ms Jolley is currently looking to expand the program to the Geraldton senior high school in order to offer the SHINE program to older girls. Gaining more support from government and private enterprise will be critical in ensuring its ongoing success and expansion, and is something I plan to help this school and this program achieve.
A new concept that is currently being developed by the Shire of Derby, West Kimberley, is yet another measure that I believe will help Australia to successfully meet its Closing the Gap targets if it is implemented. I recently met with Shire President Elsia Archer and council staff to discuss the prevailing issues of Indigenous youth suicide in rural and regional towns. Members on both sides of the House will know that the discussion of mental illness or suicide is a sensitive issue in our society but even more so when related to Aboriginal mental health. My meeting with the shire did however shed some light on the gravity of this issue in the town, while also providing, I believe, a good concept for future prevention. The shire's concept is for the establishment of a safe house in at-risk towns, which would be staffed by qualified people with experience in both Indigenous issues and suicide prevention.
The safe house idea has three key aims: to help reduce the rate of youth suicide in the town, to provide a safe place for at-risk youth to go after school, and to reduce the risk of young Aboriginal youths entering the justice system. The shire has already done a lot of work to develop this concept, which I believe would be an important service for Aboriginal youth, not just in Durack but across Australia. I believe this concept, if established, has the potential to help break the cycle of Indigenous youth suicide, but it must be resourced appropriately. It is a concept that I would seek all members' and senators' support for and one that I will continue to actively promote through all available avenues. I have already raised this concept with Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Alan Tudge, and plan to further encourage its implementation through my role on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs.
I commend the Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's Report 2014 to the House and congratulate the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on their speeches yesterday, which were full of sincerity and understanding but most of all hope: hope for a better future for Australian Indigenous people.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (12:19): I too commence by acknowledging the traditional custodians of this land and I pay my respects to elders past and present. In 2008, the former Labor government approved the National Indigenous Reform Agenda, which set out how to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We identified six areas of critical importance, and they are very much clear priorities: life expectancy; mortality of children under five; access to early childhood education; reading, writing and numeracy; year 12 attainment rates; and employment outcomes. All these targets or priorities are interrelated. School accessibility and attendance rates lead to higher education, which increases the chances of employment, which impacts on life expectancy, which improves the prospects of future generations.
The COAG Reform Council's recent report indicates that we have made significant progress in three areas: child mortality rates, access to early childhood education and year 12 or equivalent attainment. The improvement in reducing Aboriginal infant mortality is particularly significant. Across Australia, the Indigenous child mortality rate has dropped by 32 per cent and, as I understand it, according to this report we are on track for halving the gap in child mortality rates within the decade. I am not going to say that that is something we should be proud of, but it does indicate that it is something we are making progress on. Child mortality is an issue that, in this place, we would often speak about in respect of Third World countries, not a notion that should be considered in a country such as Australia.
Last year, we met our first Closing the Gap target, with every preschooler living in a remote community having access to early childhood education, and we are set to have 95 per cent of children in remote areas enrolled in preschool education within a decade. Again, that is something that many of us in this country would take for granted for our families. I applaud all the efforts that are taking place in regional communities to make this a reality for all children. Early childhood education is a fundamental stepping stone towards a successful future, instilling in young ones a love of learning, discipline and ambition to achieve—something that we all aspire to for our own families.
There is no denying that we have a long way to go in reaching our targets, particularly in life expectancy and employment, but that is no reason to undermine the efforts that have been made or to in any way diminish the things that have been achieved. There are many issues and, certainly, challenges prevalent in our remote communities which are interrelated and directly affect the prospects of reaching the Closing the Gap targets, such as the incarceration rates of young Aboriginal men in particular; and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and other forms of violence, which, quite frankly, must be addressed. Rates of alcohol related violence in Aboriginal communities rose by 15 per cent last year. Domestic violence is something that is the scourge of all communities and we see it at alarming rates. But, in Indigenous communities, reported cases of domestic violence have risen by 21 per cent over the last 12 months. The Aboriginal Women Against Violence program, run by the Joan Harrison Support Services for Women, and the Sisters For Sisters program, which operates in my electorate, have told me on repeated occasions how Aboriginal women are very reluctant to come forward and give information on their partners to the authorities. This is not simply out of fear of their partners but also because there is very much a driving view that going to the authorities on a matter of domestic violence could actually lead to their children being removed. That is not something that occurs only in remote areas; this is a very live and real fear that occurs in south-west Sydney at the moment. In that regard, I applaud the local police, who are working very hard to address those fears and ensure that they can protect women in their home environment.
The Closing the Gap targets aim to ensure future generations best meet adulthood, have access to good education and achieve appropriate employment not only in remote communities but also throughout our economy. This must always be seen as very much a bipartisan issue in this place, but we clearly need to work more with various Aboriginal communities to fulfil the aims and desires that they have—as we all do—for their children. In creating the policies, we must be involved with those who are being directly affected and allow them access to all the appropriate information and material and also allow them to be resourced. There are many underlying issues that need to be truly understood, rather than simply imposed as instructions on people.
Closing the Gap is about justice, inclusion and opportunities for equality for Australians, and it builds upon the very vision that was set forward in 2008 when Kevin Rudd made the apology to the stolen generation. It was a watershed moment in this parliament, not simply because of the speech but also because the apology focused forever on a day in this parliament when our attitude to the first peoples of this nation changed. With the knowledge of the past, respect for people and a commitment to the future, the apology has been the basis for changing many of the attitudes of all Australians and certainly the basis upon which we move forward.
It was a pleasure to be in the parliament to hear the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I genuinely believe that they reflected the views of both sides of this parliament accurately and in a way that reflected our genuine commitment to move towards closing the gap. I will always speak on the Closing the Gap address. It is not only an appropriate time to reflect on the broader issues of achieving our targets as set in 2008 but also an opportunity for all members to address issues of injustice as they apply in our local communities.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HOGAN (Page) (12:28): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Calwell Electorate
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (12:29): I am very pleased to stand here today to speak about some wonderful events and accomplishments that have taken place in my electorate of Calwell—specifically, on Australia Day this year. I would like to begin by congratulating my constituent Nazim Erdem, who lives in Roxburgh Park, who was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in the General Division. The award that Nazim received is an acknowledgement of a very inspiring life of determination and enthusiasm. Nazim was just 20 years old when his life changed forever as a result of diving off a pier into shallow water and breaking his neck. Days after the accident, he was told that he would never walk again. Now, at the age of 43, Nazim has shown that that injury and that prognosis has never defined him and has never prevented him from living his life to the full. He is a former amateur boxer and an Aussie Rules player. Nazim took up wheelchair rugby while in rehabilitation, and since then has gone on to become a gold medallist and a Paralympic champion. Nazim's accomplishments are, of course, too many to mention here today, but it is sufficient to say that he does not let anything stand in his way. I believe that his courage and determination play an important role in contributing to Australia's growth as a strong, cohesive nation based on respect, fairness and inclusion. Nazim is very much an example of human triumph against all odds.
I also had the pleasure of taking part in the annual Australia Day citizenship ceremony, on this occasion at Hume City Council—my electorate also covers the Brimbank City Council. The Australia Day ceremony at Hume City Council saw the welcoming of 122 new Australian citizens to the electorate.
The Hume Citizen of the Year went to Kevin O'Callaghan and Hume Young Citizen of the Year went to Michael Zerafa. Kevin O'Callaghan is a long-time resident of Craigieburn and he is a founding member of the Craigieburn SES unit. It was Kevin who identified an opportunity for volunteers to be trained to help in medical emergencies when an ambulance was not available in the suburb. So, under Kevin's vision and leadership, the community emergency response teams became a reality, with a pilot program commencing in Craigieburn in 1996. The CERT program is now so valued in the broader community that Ambulance Victoria has established 30 teams across the state, saving countless lives. Kevin is also on the Craigieburn Anzac Day organising committee which now runs an annual service that is attended by more than 1,500 people each year.
I also want to congratulate the Hume Young Citizen of the Year, Michael Zerafa. Michael is an aspiring boxer and is known in our local community for dedicating his life to inspiring others to lead healthier and more active lives. Michael represented Australia in boxing at the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi. His professional career has seen him win 13 fights. He is undefeated and currently ranked fourth in Australia. Michael is a fine example for young people in Hume and has a long association with mentoring young people and acting as a community leader.
Turning to the Brimbank City Council, on the other side of the electorate, I would like to congratulate Dr Les Norton, who was named Brimbank City Council Citizen of the Year, and Fostin Nshimirimana, who was the Young Citizen of the Year. Dr Les Norton is a long-term resident of Keilor and was the first local gastroenterologist at the Western Hospital in Victoria. Les has seen the need for more local medical services in his field of medicine and, as such, has lobbied for and created local specialist facilities so that people do not have to travel to the Melbourne CBD for treatment. He has spent over 30 years restoring the historical Overnewton Castle and has made it available for the broader community to enjoy. Les is also an active philanthropist and is a member of the Keilor East Rotary Club, the Keilor Historical Society and the Keilor Life Activities Club. He is highly regarded for his continued support for and commitment to the community. Finally, the Young Citizen of the Year, Mr Fostin Nshimirimana of Kings Park, was born in Burundi. Fostin has overcome many challenges— (Time expired)
LGBTI Australians
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (12:34): I rise here today wearing a very, very different hat—not as the member for Leichhardt but as the chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for LGBTI Australians. On Friday a report was released which, to be frank, sent a pang of great sympathy and sadness through me. Titled Growing up queer, it examines the mental health of young people who are growing up in today's society as gender variant or sexually diverse. What do these terms mean? 'Gender variance' refers to expressions of gender that do not match that predicted by one's sex, including people who identify as transgender, transsexual, gender-queer or intersex. 'Sexually diverse' is a broad term used to include people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer or pan-sexual, who are questioning their sexuality.
More than 1,000 young people aged between 16 and 27 years of age recently participated in a national research study, and I congratulate Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre, with partners the University of Western Sydney and Twenty10, for undertaking this project. The results, not surprisingly, were very sobering. Almost two-thirds of respondents reported homophobic or transphobic harassment or violence across different aspects of their lives, including in schools, families, the workplace, the streets and other public sites, including sporting events. As a result, 16 per cent of the young people had attempted suicide, and 33 per cent had harmed themselves. This harassment, bullying and violence has a serious impact on many young people's educational experiences, with some changing schools multiple times and others dropping out of school altogether. Most disturbingly, while peers were the most frequent source of homophobia and transphobia, it was the harassment by some teachers that had the most profound impact.
Further, sex education in schools does not respond to the needs or experiences of young LGBTIQ people, exposing them to a range of social and health risks. Rejection by families can lead to homelessness, economic instability and destitution for some young people. Participants reported negative experiences in dealing with government services and human welfare agencies. Given that many of them had moved out of their homes before they turned 18, they were reliant on these services for accessing income support and housing, but negative staff attitudes presented yet another challenge. In the workplace, many transgender people said they found it particularly difficult to find work. A big issue was the discrepancy between birth names and chosen names on employment forms, and unsuccessful attempts to find work because of attitudes from employers. I know there are a number of community organisations that provide support and guidance for young people identifying as LGBTIQ. However, I agree with Young and Well CEO, Associate Professor Jane Burns, when she says that much more is needed to be done by way of education and training so that this dire impact on mental health and wellbeing of these young people can be eliminated.
As the chair of the Parliamentary Friendship Group for LGBTI Australians, I can say that we are absolutely committed to helping combat discrimination against our fellow Australians. The friendship group is an all-party group that I proudly chair, with very capable co-chairing by Graham Perrett—the member for Moreton, from the Labor Party—and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the Greens senator from South Australia. At present we have 27 members, and there is a particular focus on how, as a government, we can address legislative, regulatory and institutional discrimination.
I note that the report recommends that the current exemption of private schools from the anti-discrimination legislation relating to sexuality needs to be repealed, so these young people can have the same rights as their peers in government schools. It also clearly demonstrates the need for greater community education and training of educators, doctors and health professionals.
I invite all LGBTI-relevant organisations to register with my office to stay informed about the LGBTI friendship group's activities during the 44th Parliament, and I also invite them to please come along to us with any ways in which we can help to improve these young people's experiences in education and employment and in accessing government services. We cannot allow this persecution to continue impacting on the lives of so many young and vulnerable Australians.
Sydney Airport
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (12:39): I note that a lot has been made of the front page of The Daily Telegraph today when it comes to the vexed issue of Sydney's second airport. A lot of people seem to suggest that the Prime Minister has picked up on the concerns of Western Sydney and will now consult with people about the location of the second airport.
I do not buy this for one minute. The Prime Minister is trying to extract himself and the government from a home-baked mess, which is that the people within the coalition who are spruiking for the creation of a second airport have been leaking and backgrounding for a solid period of time now about the fact that this airport will be constructed, even though last January the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister said, 'We have absolutely no plans for a second airport at Badgerys Creek.' Then, last week, we saw the suggestion splashed across the papers that an airport decision would be made in cabinet this week. So, to get himself out of it, the Prime Minister had to cobble together this grouping of Western Sydney MPs he allegedly was going to consult with about the airport.
It is interesting that when in government Labor, under then Minister Albanese, brought together a cross-party group to discuss the issue of airport needs. It was made up of members of the coalition and of Labor. In this one we have the Prime Minister bringing together just Liberal Party members to consult with. What is interesting is that one of the members who will be most affected by the airport as proposed in previous plans, the member for McMahon, is not involved. However, the member for Mitchell, who is at least three or four electorates away, has been brought in. I note that the member for Reid, potentially, is going to be brought in, and he, too, is three or four electorates away from the site. And I would not be surprised if they put the member for Barton in. But the member for Barton does not even know what side of the chamber he is sitting on, so, if he cannot locate himself on the right side of the chamber, I do not know what he will bring in terms of consultation on the location of an airport.
What gets me going is that if you are going to be fair dinkum about this you are going to broaden the debate out and you are going to involve people in this decision. You are not going to have the decision rammed through on the people of Western Sydney. What I am also interested to hear about is the cajoling and bullying of Western Sydney on the issue of the airport. We are being told that the economic development and growth of Sydney is being affected because Badgerys Creek has not been built. If people are serious about that, why is there no discussion, for instance, on the curfew that exists at Sydney airport and the caps that are put on the number of flights that are allowed every hour at the airport? We have sunk all of this money into the infrastructure there. We have airlines that want to be based there and we have the fact that passengers want to be close to the CBD of Sydney. Yet no thought has been given to increasing the number of flights allowed per hour or the bandwidth in which they are allowed to land at Sydney airport. But we are being told that we can put millions of dollars and potentially billions of dollars into this airport in Western Sydney, and we have to cop that development without looking at the funds to be made.
What is also interesting is that there are rumours around the place that Qantas is going to be cutting out more jobs. Qantas is under all sorts of pressure. We do not have money for SPC Ardmona and we do not have money for Holden, but we have money to help Qantas, potentially, by providing a 24-hour-a-day airport right in the middle of Western Sydney. Coincidentally, there is money to be found to reduce aircraft noise for the member for North Sydney and southern area MPs, but they will force an airport the size of Brisbane's out in Western Sydney. It is simply not good enough.
The people of Western Sydney have been insulted by the lack of consultation about this airport. Their MPs are not being involved, and this group being brought together by the Prime Minister has been brought together simply to ram through in his own party room a decision on this airport and break a promise that Prime Minister Tony Abbott made when he said he had absolutely no plans. The people of Western Sydney, especially those who are represented by the members for Lindsay and Macarthur, and the Labor members in Western Sydney, will be railroaded, and the wishes of Western Sydney will be denied. (Time expired)
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:44): I want to take up the member for Chifley on his kind invitation to speak about the committee the Prime Minister has established to ensure there is proper consultation with government members and with Western Sydney communities. I fully endorse the Prime Minister in this orderly process he has put together to ensure the views of communities, community leaders, businesses and members or parliament are heard.
We really did not hear the audacity of hope from the member for Chifley did we? What we really heard was a continuation of the last 30 years of governments squibbing an important decision about the future of the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our country. This game playing has to end, these politics have to stop, and the government is looking at addressing this critical economic decision in the very near future. It is important that we move on from this era, that the member for Chifley just so adequately represented, where even in his own party, just today, the Manager of Opposition Business said to television cameras that he supports a second airport at Sydney. When back in opposition they are back to opposing the airport, just to get some votes and just to stir up trouble.
What we ought to be discussing are the details of how an airport can best be constructed in Western Sydney that minimises the impact. I absolutely agree that this should not be a 24/7 airport and that it should have the same standards applied to it as Kingsford Smith Airport. These are the kinds of important discussions and feedback that should be had, rather than the cynical political game-playing that has been happening. Yes, there was an all-party working group in the last parliament and I attended one of the meetings with Minister Albanese, and of course no decision ever arose from it. This is the game played between governments over 30 years that has prevented this important decision from being made for our biggest city.
Perhaps we can break out of this. Perhaps you could read The Audacity of Hope, and get a bit of inspiration. It is time for us to make this decision and move on, and the government intends to make this decision after a proper process of consultation. This government has a principled approach to consultation. I agree that there is a diversity of views, there is a range of factors that need to be considered. There are ways of constructing an airport and putting the right infrastructure in place that will ensure many of the concerns of the member for Chifley and his community are addressed. We can do this, we can have the jobs, we can have the economic benefits, and we can also minimise noise and environmental impacts and ensure we have a suite of infrastructure that benefits the biggest city, and the biggest economy, in our nation. This can be done.
I think the member for Chifley is very cynical when reflecting on the Prime Minister's establishment of this committee. Yes, there is a diversity of views in government members, and there is no problem with having a diversity in views. The people impacted also have a diversity of views. They need to have certainty about the type of airport; how it will be conducted; when it will be conducted; what guarantees will be in place; that there will be appropriate insulation arrangements, just as there would be at Kingsford Smith Airport; and that curfews will ensure that any impacts are minimal.
I also think it is especially cynical to raise Qantas on a day we hear there are some issues in relation to employment matters at Qantas. If the member for Chifley wanted to assist Qantas he could consider putting a motion into the House to amend the Qantas Sale Act, to allow Qantas to source the capital it needs to do business. It is not asking for government capital or government underwriting. It can do this with private capital, and it can arrange its own arrangements as the business it needs to be. Simple amendments to the Qantas Sale Act will remove the restrictions that are in place on the business that do not allow it to compete. You can join us on this. There is a solution to the problem you raise.
So if you want to come forward and propose amendments to the Qantas Sale Act, we are here to receive them today, member for Chifley. But if you are here just to play the political ping-pong of the last 30 years—we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it, we are going to squib it, you are going to squib it—that game has to end. This decision has to be taken in the interests of the people of New South Wales, of Sydney and of Western Sydney in particular. It has to be taken so that we can move on with the site of Badgerys Creek. Either we are going to build an airport, or we are going to allow more housing, and do the things that need to be done. I believe this is a government that will make this decision.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): The member for Chifley.
I believe they will do the things they should do—that is, make a decision in the best interests of Western Sydney and our economy and do the things that need to be done and take into account the real concerns of many community groups. We can do both.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley.
We can build this airport, we can take into account their considerations, but we can not do it if we have the politics of cynicism and negativity, if we continue this 30-year game of ping-pong that gets played between governments.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will remove himself from the chamber under standing order 187.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That word is not parliamentary word and you will leave the chamber under standing order 187.
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
This government and this Prime Minister are doing the right thing by consulting with government colleagues, they are doing the right thing by consulting with the western Sydney community, and I fully support the Prime Minister and the government.
Corio Electorate: Ukrainian Community
Mr MARLES (Corio) (12:49): I would like to speak about the value and importance of multicultural communities. Multiculturalism is a fundamental attribute of the Australian community, and Geelong is very much a multicultural city. At the heart of multicultural life in Australia are places where communities can come together and collectively foster cultural identity. In my electorate of Corio a new challenge has emerged for the Ukrainian community. The Association of Ukrainians' Geelong branch is the key organisation of Geelong's Ukrainian community, and is run by dedicated volunteers who have been working tirelessly for the revitalisation of their central community facility in order to enable their important work to continue. Their needs are now being actively ignored by this federal government. These needs are precisely what the previous Labor government recognised by awarding the Association of Ukrainians a $135,000 grant under the Building Multicultural Communities Program for an important upgrade of the Ukrainian Community Centre. But now the Abbott government is refusing to honour this budgeted commitment to Geelong's Ukrainian community, having slashed the funding from this important initiative. And let us be clear: this was not an election promise; this was money that was in last year's budget and passed through this parliament. The decision by the Abbott government to slash this program is a cut to the Ukrainian community.
The work of the Association of Ukrainians sees the delivery of meaningful programs that enable the existence of a thriving Ukrainian community in Geelong—the provision, for example, of accessible training to assist in practical skill development, such as first aid, and the provision of a wonderful range of social activities, from regular senior citizens gatherings to Ukrainian balls. When the Ukrainian Community Centre is not being occupied by their programs, the facility is generously offered to other communities to conduct their own cultural activities.
The upgraded facility, undoubtedly a worthy project, would have been large enough to hold a seating capacity of 300 people. This is a facility which is truly at the heart of Geelong's multicultural activity, and which would have been greatly enhanced by this investment. It is a facility run by a fantastic community that is dedicated to working on behalf of its own members but also Geelong as a whole. The truth is that our city is lucky to have the Association of Ukrainians as a part of it. It is resources such as the Ukrainian Community Centre that make the difference, that enable communities to come together and form a sense of identity, and that ultimately send a critical message about the value we place on promoting an inclusive society that embraces multiculturalism.
So when the Abbott government rips the funding from this project—and projects like it around Australia—it does have a responsibility to consider what it is really pulling the plug on. The harsh reality for the Association of Ukrainians is that they will no longer receive this critical funding, which will have very real consequences not only for the Ukrainian community but also for the broader multicultural community of Geelong. With their first settler migrant numbers dwindling, the association faces a challenge of maintaining strong engagement, which will be made far more difficult by being cut off from this support from the Abbott federal government. Additionally, their ability to support other multicultural communities will be severely compromised by the fact that they have now no choice but to continue to rely on a facility that remains in real need of renovation.
This project has seen considerable effort from the association's dedicated volunteers in striving to bring it to fruition, having successfully secured state and local funding that will likely now be lost as the federal government turns its back on this important community. But, overall, it has caused undue stress, hardship and disappointment to all members of the Association of Ukrainians—a disappointment that I sincerely share, as it is evident that the Abbott government is not committed to supporting this strong and this prosperous multicultural community in Geelong.
Economy
Mr HOGAN (Page) (12:54): We had scheduled for today, or potentially earlier in the week, some discussion on appropriation bills, which will be deferred until the next sitting. What I would like to address today is that when we talk about appropriation bills we are always talking about economic management.
I would like to talk a little bit about my history and what I think I have observed in the history of our country in recent times. I also want to talk about what good economic management is and how, when they do want that, people always turn to a coalition government.
First, let us talk about legacy. Let us talk about the facts of history. The first thing I remember, as far as economic management goes, is the Whitlam government—and we know what a disaster that government was for our finances and our economy: we had the Khemlani loans affair that gave us international disrepute. Then we had the Paul Keating Labor government. With all due respect, Paul Keating did many good things as far as the economy goes but he also gave us the recession that we had to have and 18 per cent interest rates, and left the Howard government with a $90 billion debt to repay. Then what happened? We had a coalition government. John Howard and the team inherited $90 billion worth of debt. What did they do over those 11 years? They paid it all back—the whole $90 billion. Not only did they pay back the whole $90 billion that the Hawke and Keating governments built up; they also put $50 billion into the Future Fund to fund what were basically unfunded superannuation commitments to our public servants—a wonderful thing to do for the workers of the Public Service.
In the final year alone we see that the surplus of the Howard government was over $20 billion. You would think then that maybe Labor had learnt a lesson after we had the Whitlam problem and the $90 billion debt left by the previous government. Then what happened? We had the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco. What happened there? Did they learn from their previous mistakes? Did they learn from the good economic management of the Howard government? No. They ran up the six biggest deficits we have ever had in our country. It has grown into the hundreds of billions and will be projected to go over $500 billion unless we correct that.
Opposition MPs often—and we all do—like to talk about sustainability in lots of things. Sustainability is important. The opposition's type of economic management is unsustainable. We see many countries around the world run by parties similar to the Australian Labor Party who have run into, or are verging on, economic unsustainability. We have a lot of countries in Europe that are now having austerity measures imposed. They are losing control of their own autonomy because of the debt that they have run up. What happens when a country gets to this? 'Debt' is an easy word to say; what is the practical result of debt? This is something that we do not talk about enough. The practical problem of debt is that you not only have to pay the debt back but also to pay interest on that debt. The interest payments alone of many countries is huge. In Australia, the Australian Labor Party in 2007 were left a surplus. They were left money in the bank. They racked up hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, and now—we like to talk about infrastructure; we like to talk about services we would like to provide—we have billions of dollars every year that we are paying just in interest on debt. That is not paying the debt back and that is not building any schools or hospitals, or the roads or infrastructure we need; it is simply the interest that we are paying on the debt that the previous government, the Labor government, built up.
We talk about the education of our young. We talk about giving our young people the services they need: good education, good health—good everything, as we should. But the one thing we should not be doing to our young, which I think the other side of politics often forget, is burdening them with the legacy of huge debt, where our economy has a noose around its neck.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:59