The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum
The SPEAKER (09:01): For the information of members, I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 22nd annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico from 12 to 16 January 2014 and in Mexico City from 16 to 19 January 2014. As leader of the delegation I am pleased to present this report. The delegation members comprised the member for Throsby, Mr Stephen Jones MP, as deputy leader, the Hon. Philip Ruddock MP and Mr Mark Coulton MP and Senator Deborah O'Neill. A delegation from the Australian parliament has participated at every annual meeting of the APPF, as well as the meetings that prepared for the establishment of the forum.
The APPF is an organisation that is relevant to Australia. The countries that participate are significant to our strategic and economic interests and the APPF meeting agenda addresses important issues. All delegates have an opportunity to develop their understanding of these issues and the perspectives of neighbouring parliaments and to reach agreement on the resolutions of the meeting. The 22nd annual meeting was successful: 151 delegates from 21 member countries and one observer country attended. The management of the forum and the organisation arrangements were of a high standard and outcomes were positive and substantive. At the conclusion of each meeting, the leaders of all participating nations signed a joint communique which includes a list of all resolutions adopted by the meeting.
I turn now more specifically to the subject matter of the meeting. There were three broad subject areas on the agenda: politics and security, economic and trade matters and regional cooperation, as well as future work for the APPF. In December 2013 in advance of the annual meeting the Australian delegation proposed resolutions on the following subjects, on which they spoke: strengthening peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region; combating terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime; trade and economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region; cooperation to face climate change outcomes from COP 19; and promoting cooperation in education, culture, science and technology in the Asia-Pacific region. Our delegation members spoke in the plenary on all these topics and negotiated related resolutions through working groups and drafting committees. Mr Ruddock also spoke on the topic of the Middle East peace process. The delegation also participated in all meetings of the drafting committee, where a draft resolutions from the working groups were finalised before they were returned to the plenary and adopted at the final session. Mr Jones and I were the delegation's principal representatives at drafting committee meetings. In the event, the final joint communique of the forum included 22 resolutions, six of which were on the subjects sponsored by Australia. Next year's APPF annual meeting will be held in Ecuador and it will be important that Australia is once again represented strongly at that meeting.
Following the APPF 22 meeting the delegation visited Mexico City for a short bilateral program. During its visit the delegation had the opportunity to develop an understanding of Mexico's economic and security priorities and reform agenda and also learn a little more of Mexico's culture and history. The delegation also visited the headquarters of the Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and learned of its history, role and important work. The delegation considered that the bilateral program was valuable in highlighting elements of existing Australia-Mexico cooperation and opportunities for future collaboration.
I wish to acknowledge the very helpful assistance provided to the delegation in preparation for the meeting. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra assisted us as usual with comprehensive briefing materials, the Parliamentary Library provided helpful briefing material, the International and Community Relations Office provided logistical support, and the delegation appreciates that assistance. In Mexico the ambassador, His Excellency Mr Tim George, deputy head of mission Mr William Bloomfield and other embassy staff provided excellent advice and support both for the APPF meeting and for the bilateral program in Mexico City. I believe the delegation represented the parliament effectively.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (09:06): I would like to place on record my appreciation for the work that we were able to jointly engage in during this important delegation and associate myself with the comments that you have made from the chair, Madam Speaker. Forums such as this are important in enabling members of this place to engage in parliamentary diplomacy, an important factor in ensuring that we make our contribution to peace and stability within our region and economic cooperation between the countries that we represent. You have outlined in your report, Madam Speaker, the six areas that we as delegates from this country contributed to in the debate. I myself spoke on the issue of climate change and the need for Australia to engage with other countries through multilateral fora to ensure that we do everything we can to address this generational challenge. Whilst in this place we have different views on the best means by which we address this important issue, when in international fora we speak with a single voice, and we were able to do that. It was my experience that the Australian delegation acquitted themselves admirably as vigorous participants in all of the debates and in all of the meetings that went on behind the scenes. I say that without exception for all of the members who participated in the delegation.
I want to make special mention, if I may, of the visit to CYMMIT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. If you had told me at the beginning of the delegation that one of the highlights of the trip would be to visit this particular facility I would have been very surprised indeed, but it was, so I want to place on the record my gratitude to the member for Parkes, as I believe it was his suggestion that we visit this facility. I make two important points: oftentimes Australia's foreign aid contribution is a matter of controversy within this place and within the country at large. But when you visit the wheat and maize improvement institute in Mexico you see the work that is being done with a $48 million contribution over the period of 2012-13 to science, research in genetics in particular, ensuring that we can, for example, produce drought resistant wheat and maize, or corn. These important crops are at the very base of most of the protein that is produced throughout the world and they help to ensure starvation eradication and enable us to deal with climate change. From the fact that 98 per cent of the wheat that is grown in Australia has its genetic origin in the work that is performed by the Wheat and Maize Improvement Center, you can see that the aid we provide is put to a very good use that has direct relevance and direct benefit to things we are doing back here in Australia.
Finally, I will place on the record—and I associate myself with your comments, Madam Speaker—my thanks to the Serjeant-at-Arms, Ms Robyn McClelland, for the excellent work she did in providing secretarial support to the delegation, and to our ambassadorial team in Mexico City, who did an absolutely outstanding job in ensuring that all our needs were met while we were in Mexico City and in Puerto Vallarta. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Green Army Programme) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (09:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today is an important milestone in the delivery of the coalition government's Green Army Programme.
The Social Security Legislation (Green Army Programme) Amendment Bill 2014 amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to clarify social security arrangements for participants receiving the Green Army allowance.
The Green Army Programme
The Green Army is a key coalition election commitment and will commence from July 2014.
The Green Army will become Australia's largest ever environmental workforce, building to 15,000 participants by 2018—capable of delivering 1,500 on-ground environmental projects in communities across Australia.
The Green Army will make a real difference to the environment and local communities through projects such as:
propagation and planting of native seedlings;
weed control;
revegetation and regeneration of local parks;
habitat protection and restoration;
improving water quality by cleaning up waterways;
revegetation of sand dunes and mangroves;
creek bank regeneration;
foreshore and beach restoration;
construction of boardwalks and walking tracks to protect local wildlife; and
cultural heritage conservation.
Fostering teamwork, local ownership and community spirit, the Green Army will deliver tangible benefits for the environment and skills development for thousands of young Australians.
The Green Army will have significant benefits for young Australians.
This voluntary initiative will recruit young people aged 17 to 24 who are interested in protecting their local environment while gaining hands-on, practical skills and experience.
The Green Army is both an environment and a training program. It will help young people to increase their skills base, gain practical experience and enhance their job readiness.
The program will be delivered by a national service provider (or multiple providers) that will be responsible for recruiting, establishing and managing Green Army teams across Australia to engage in approved projects, in partnership with and driven by local communities.
Projects will be assessed on a merit basis against their environmental benefits, their contribution to the local community and their potential to enhance skills training for participants.
Project proposals will be submitted to the Australian government by individuals and organisations, such as local community groups, councils and natural resource management bodies for consideration.
The Green Army Programme will commence from July 2014 with the roll-out of 250 projects in round 1 and the participation of 2,500 young people in 2014-15. These numbers will double in the following year.
A priority for investment through initial rounds of the program will be Green Army election commitments.
More than 150 projects were announced by the coalition during the 2013 election. Some of these include:
weed management and revegetation in degraded areas within the Cumberland Conservation Corridor in Sydney, New South Wales;
planting riparian zones for native wildlife in the Kings Bridge to Duck Reach area of the South Esk River in Tasmania;
restoration of a degraded landscape, including coastal rehabilitation and foreshore stabilisation, at Cape Morton on Morton Island, in Queensland;
enhancing the health of Victoria's Barham River system between Apollo Bay and the Marengo Flora Reserve through extensive weed removal, the revegetation of the banks of the river and the installation of pathways, viewing platforms and environmental interpretive signage;
weed removal, replanting of native vegetation, dune restoration and rehabilitation, as well as the recording and chronicling of native and invasive species in the Mettams Pool area in Stirling, Western Australia; and
within the Mount Laura Conservation Park in South Australia protecting the natural environment of the conservation reserve from soil erosion, stormwater damage, and unauthorised access from random off-road vehicles.
Green Army projects will run for between 20 and 26 weeks. During this period Green Army participants will have the opportunity to develop job-ready skills and to undertake training. This is an essential component of the program. The service provider or providers will be responsible for developing training plans for each of the Green Army participants and programs.
The bill
Up to nine eligible participants and at least one team supervisor will constitute a Green Army team.
Participants will receive a Green Army allowance while participating in the program and the service provider will be responsible for the disbursement of the allowance. Team supervisors will be employed and paid a wage by the service provider.
The bill ensures that people receiving a Green Army allowance under the Green Army Programme will not also receive a social security benefit or social security pension simultaneously. In other words, of course, there cannot be double-dipping.
The Green Army Programme will involve six-monthly placements in Green Army teams providing an alternative to income support for many young Australians interested in engaging in work-like experience, activities and training.
Similar to other programs, such as Work for the Dole and previous Green Corps and Green Jobs Corps programs, participants who are receiving a Green Army allowance, or a part-time participant who is not receiving Green Army allowance but meeting their mutual obligations, will not be considered workers or employees for the purposes of various Commonwealth laws.
However, a determination provision within the bill will ensure that Green Army team supervisors will be considered workers or employees for the purposes of various Commonwealth laws.
The bill also specifies income test arrangements for a person's social security pension if the Green Army allowance is payable to the person's partner.
At the broader level the Green Army is a central component of the government's cleaner environment plan which is focused on the four pillars of clean air, clean land, clean water and heritage protection.
The coalition believes in encouraging hands-on, practical, grassroots environmental action as a means of fixing environmental problems, as well as tapping into the knowledge of local communities, and encouraging them to identify and fix their own local problems.
Clean land is essential for a cleaner environment. Our plan is focused on cleaning up and revegetating urban and regional environments and other complementary reforms to strengthen natural resource management and Landcare delivery across Australia.
The Green Army itself complements the government's Direct Action approach to climate change.
Direct Action provides Australians with the opportunity for individuals, communities, organisations and companies to help address our environmental challenges and reduce our emissions on the lowest possible cost basis.
In putting this forward I particularly wish to thank those members of the department who have built this program on the basis of the government's pre-election commitment. In particular I would like to acknowledge Sean Sullivan, who along the way had the great sadness of losing his mother and took time out, but I do not believe enough time because he was so committed to this program. I especially want to acknowledge Sean as well as his loss, also Peter Lane, Kate Bayliss and the whole team who have put together what I think is an outstanding package both legislatively and in structural form, and Sarah Meredith from my office amongst many others, as well as all of those from the public who have provided comments, guidance and suggestions.
I should note that this program was specifically brought into being with the conception and ideas and drive of the current Prime Minister. It was his baby; it was his idea. It has been my honour and my role to help in some small way to deliver this program, but all credit goes to the Prime Minister for having conceived of and driven this as a long-term national legacy, which I hope can duly win bipartisan support and the agreement of all members of this House.
Ultimately, the Green Army builds on the Howard government's successful Green Corps program that was established in 1996 to employ young people on environmental projects to preserve and restore our natural and cultural environment. Our Green Army will deliver real and tangible benefits for the environment, it will deliver skills for thousands of young Australians and it will strengthen local community involvement. For those reasons I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:21): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces legislation for a number of measures that were announced but unenacted at the time of the change in government in September last year.
Schedule 1 to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to introduce civil and criminal penalties for promoters of schemes that have resulted, or are likely to result, in the illegal early release of superannuation benefits.
Promoters of these schemes typically take a substantial commission from the superannuation benefit that is transferred.
Currently the Commissioner of Taxation can only seek penalties for scheme promoters who are also trustees of a regulated superannuation fund. These amendments will extend sanctions to the promoters of such schemes.
Promoters of illegal early release schemes will face civil and criminal penalties including a monetary penalty of up to $340,000 (2,000 penalty units) or imprisonment of up to five years.
These penalties will deter people from promoting such schemes and will help to ensure Australians' superannuation savings are protected for their retirement.
Schedule 2 to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to introduce administrative directions and penalties for contraventions relating to self-managed superannuation funds.
The current powers available to the Commissioner of Taxation, the regulator of self-managed superannuation funds, to address breaches by trustees of self-managed superannuation funds are limited and are generally only appropriate in cases of significant noncompliance. For example, the commissioner may make a self-managed superannuation fund noncomplying for taxation purposes or disqualify a fund trustee.
To address instances of noncompliance effectively, the commissioner needs to be able to impose sanctions that reflect the seriousness of the breach. The amendments made by this schedule will provide the commissioner with the power to give rectification directions, such as a direction that a trustee ensure that the fund begin complying with the relevant legislation, and education directions to ensure that a trustee's knowledge of the relevant legislation comes up to the requisite standard. The amendments will also permit the regulator to impose administrative penalties on self-managed superannuation fund trustees for certain contraventions of the superannuation law.
These additional tools will provide the regulator with more flexible and cost-effective mechanisms for dealing with noncompliance with the law and will support the ongoing integrity of the SMSF sector.
Schedule 3 gives effect to a measure originally announced in the 2013-14 budget. The government announced it would proceed with the measure as part of the process of dealing with matters announced but unenacted at the time of the change in government last year. This schedule will phase out the net medical expenses tax offset. The net medical expenses tax offset is not refundable. It is not well targeted as people who have no tax liability receive no benefit from this offset even if they have high medical expenses.
The government is phasing out the net medical expenses tax offset with transitional arrangements for those currently claiming the offset, to give people time to adjust. From 1 July 2013, those taxpayers who claimed the offset for the 2012-13 income year will continue to be eligible for it for the 2013-14 income year if they have eligible out-of-pocket medical expenses above the relevant thresholds.
Similarly, those who claim the offset in 2013-14 will continue to be eligible to claim it in 2014-15.
In addition, the net medical expenses tax offset will be available for taxpayers whose out-of-pocket medical expenses relate to disability aids, attendant care or aged care. For these taxpayers, the offset will remain available for these expenses until 1 July 2019.
An out-of-pocket medical expense is the cost of the medical expense incurred, minus available reimbursements. Such reimbursements can include those that are available through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, government aged care subsidies and private health insurance refunds.
These changes refocus health expenditure on Australia's universal Medicare arrangements including generous safety nets for people with high out-of-pocket costs. They will help improve the long-term sustainability of health related expenditure so we can continue to provide a world class health system for all Australians—not just those with a tax liability. The focus of the Commonwealth will be on getting the primary care response right—on continuing substantial support through the existing arrangements.
The government realises that the financial impact of chronic conditions, including cancer, on those affected by the disease, their families and carers remains a significant challenge. The government is committed to fighting cancer, through continuing to invest in prevention, early detection and treatment and care. This includes by continuing to provide substantial support for health expenses, including through the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and related safety nets.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is expected to cover all related expenses previously covered by the net medical expenses tax offset for those eligible for a funded plan from the NDIS. The government is committed to delivering a sustainable NDIS across Australia to support people with significant and permanent disability.
The government recognises the importance of the aged care system and is also committed to reform in this sector to ensure that older Australians have the care they need, when they need it and wherever they need it. The government is developing a five-year agreement with the aged care sector, known as the Aged Care Sector Statement of Principles.
Schedule 4 amends the list of deductible gift recipients (DGRs) identified by name in Division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997(the Act). Donations made to organisations with DGR status are income tax deductible to the donor and therefore DGR status will assist the listed organisations in attracting public financial support for their activities.
Three organisations are being added to the act, namely the National Arboretum Canberra Fund, Bali Peace Park Association Inc., and the Prince's Charities Australia Limited. One organisation, the Sir William Tyree Foundation, has changed its name and needs to be relisted in the act.
Full details of the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:29): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Smoking is a major cause of disease and premature death.
The measures in this bill will increase the cost of consuming tobacco products with consequential impact on demand for tobacco products.
The bill increases the rates of duty on tobacco and tobacco products through both a change to indexation and by staged increases to rates of duty. These measures will lift the price of a packet of cigarettes significantly.
These two tobacco measures are contained in the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014, which amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 (Excise Tariff Act).
The tobacco measures in the bill were previously tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer as Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013 on 10 December 2013. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the excise tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Excise Tariff Act.
The bill increases the rates of excise on tobacco and tobacco products through a series of four staged increases of 12.5 per cent, commencing on 1 December 2013 with subsequent increases on 1 September each year until the last of the staged increases on 1 September 2016.
The bill also changes the basis of indexation of excise duty on tobacco and tobacco products from the consumer price index (CPI) to average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE). The last CPI indexation occurred on 1 August 2013 and the first AWOTE indexation occurs on 1 March 2014.
The measures in the bill are in line with the National Tobacco Strategy (NTS) 2012-2018, which draws together a number of tobacco control initiatives and policies of both the Commonwealth and the states.
The NTS 2012-2018 sets out nine priority areas for action on tobacco control in Australia, including priority area 6 'Continue to reduce the affordability of tobacco', under which priority action 6.3.2 is to 'Continue to implement regular staged increases in tobacco excise as appropriate, to reduce the demand for tobacco'.
The bill increases the rates of tax on tobacco products as well as indexing tobacco excise to a broad measure of wages rather than the CPI, consistent with recommendations of Australia's future tax system review. Indexing to such a measure would maintain policy effectiveness by preventing excise falling as a proportion of income.
In 2003, Australia became a party to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). This convention supports the use of price and tax measures to discourage tobacco consumption.
An increase in tobacco excise is consistent with Australia's obligations under this convention, and represents a move towards international best practice in the pricing of tobacco products.
In short, the tobacco measures in this bill are consistent with a broad range of Australian policies, strategies and obligations. The bills implement changes to duty on tobacco products that were announced by the previous government but had not been enacted.
Greater detail is given in the explanatory memorandum for the bill.
Changes to behaviour by smokers may be difficult but it will occur. Change will provide real health benefits and will be enhanced by the comprehensive set of tobacco control initiatives in place, including public education programs, the provision of assistance and advice through quit programs, and the increased availability of smoking cessation therapies and aids. The explanatory memorandum also details the evidence underlying the tobacco control strategies and policies.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Ciobo.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (09:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to enact two tobacco excise equivalent customs duty measures that should help to reduce disease and premature death due to smoking by increasing the cost of consuming tobacco products.
This bill imposes the same measures on imported goods, also known as excise equivalent goods, as the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014 imposes on local goods. This ensures imported tobacco products are treated the same as local tobacco products.
Firstly, this bill increases the rates of excise equivalent customs duty on tobacco and tobacco products through a series of four staged increases of 12.5 per cent, commencing on 1 December 2013 with subsequent increases on 1 September each year until the last staged increase on 1 September 2016.
Secondly, this bill also changes the basis of indexation of excise equivalent customs duty on tobacco and tobacco products from the consumer price index (CPI) to average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE). The last CPI indexation occurred on 1 August 2013 and the first AWOTE indexation occurs on 1 March 2014.
The tobacco measures in this bill were previously tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer—that is, me; I missed it the first time, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell!—as Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2013 on 10 December 2013. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the customs tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes the:
(1) failure of the Government to act urgently in response to the effect of the drought on the dairy and other agricultural sectors; and
(2) omission of 'resource sustainability' in the terms of reference for the Government's agriculture white paper."
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (09:36): I rise to support the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014, which restructures the maximum rate cap for dairy levies in this country. It is also an opportunity to speak about the importance of the dairy industry in Australia. I was lucky enough to spend a week working on a dairy property near Maryborough a number of years ago, and I must say it was probably the hardest week of work I have ever done. It is a tough business, dairy. It has been through significant ructions. It competes in tough international markets against competitors who often receive significant protection and support. With our small population, a significant amount of our dairy production is exported of course; and, thanks to the deregulation decisions that were made a number of years ago, I am proud that Australia is a very, very effective dairy producer and able to survive in the open export market.
Much of that is due to the tremendous work of our dairy farmers, who have increased their herd sizes and used a number of scientific techniques, including artificial insemination, to maximise the productivity of their herds—more about that later. It is great that the sector can work together to collect a levy that effectively ensures that Animal Health Australia is properly funded and is able to do its great work in protecting the livestock in the industry that underpins it. It is a $17-billion industry, and it is tremendous that this sort of levy that is collected through the industry is so broadly supported.
Dairy is potentially Australia's oldest industry. Dairy cows arrived on the First Fleet. I am not sure how long they lasted—how long until they wandered off, were lost overnight or were slaughtered in a famine—but dairy goes right back to the first days at Sydney Cove. There were significant advances possible, really, only in the 1880s as refrigeration improved, given the short shelf-life of dairy products. But it was obvious that Australia's natural endowments placed us in a position, particularly in the south-east of this great continent, to maximise the higher levels of rainfall around there and produce dairy products—the highest-quality dairy products in the world—not only for our own consumption but also for our near neighbours, the Pacific islands and Asia.
There is a cautionary note, though. New Zealand has made extremely insightful decisions and tough decisions early, and have really streaked ahead, I dare say, with their free trade agreement with China. Now New Zealand interests are purchasing significant parts of Australia's dairy industry. It is a massive part of their economy—50 per cent of the entire GDP of New Zealand comes from agricultural exports—and New Zealand's actions are a lesson to us across the Tasman that grasping the challenge in agriculture is vital and that informed debate about improving our agriculture, particularly our dairying, is really important. We never want to allow the fact that two-thirds of the members of this chamber live in urban Australia to abrogate our connection to the debate on agriculture. The debate must be informed, insightful and inclusive.
Most importantly of all, if there are tough decisions to be made, we have to look into the future. I regret that we have not always done so here in Australia. Too often we have been conservative in our decisions—too often we have not taken the tough decisions—and this fact has been to our disadvantage. A large number of dairy farmers have gone to the wall and left the industry. Even today there are $300 million worth of dairy properties for sale in this country which after 12 months have not yet been sold. The GFC, because of its impact on our international markets, was a massive blow to all of our agriculture—particularly in the states, such as Victoria, where dairy products are produced for export.
Of course, there is also an upside. For example, there is the recent free trade agreement with Korea, which is our 10th largest dairy partner. China is No.1—as you would expect—Japan is No. 2 and then there are Indonesia, Malaysia and countries as far afield as the Middle East. We are even sending significant amounts of cheese to Morocco. The great initial concern of farmers, once we had deregulated the industry and taken away the floor price, was somewhat eased when the international price started to rise. It was impressive that, five to 10 years after the removal of the floor price, international prices were equalling those which were being paid domestically—and artificially—just 10 years earlier.
I once worked in Dirranbandi, and, fortuitously for me, in my first couple of weeks out there, when I was looking for a home-cooked meal, a farming family invited me over for dinner. Invitations such as this were among the great highlights for an urban professional living in the bush. The conversation quickly turned to the wool floor price, and the head of the household turned to me and said, 'How would you feel about the government cutting your wage by two-thirds?' It was really hard at that time, as a barely decent doctor, to try to work out the implications of a floor price. To me it was completely intuitive that the free market reigned supreme. Still, I could not see how farmers could survive if they lost a floor price and ended up getting just a third of what they had been receiving in the previous year. But that is life in rural Australia; that is life as a small-business person. One moment you are poring over spreadsheets; the next day you are out thinking about the quality of your pasture and making decisions about fertiliser and—Australia's great scourge—wondering when the next rain will come. Rural people, these great Australians, live with such things every day of their lives. Everyone here enjoys the security of regular income, but we must never forget what a gamble it is to live and work on the land in Australia.
Uncertainty about water must be a pre-eminent concern in water-intensive industries such as dairying. But political challenges have overlaid this concern. The carbon tax, for example, continues to pose great challenges, and further levels of unnecessary regulation have combined with it to make life on the land really tough. On the upside, there has been a 30 per cent increase in China's demand for our dairy produce. I see the situation of the dairy industry as somewhat balanced, but never could it be said that it is not precarious.
The price of fertilisers, which make up about 10 per cent of dairy input costs, have increased significantly. The big cost in dairying, of course, is feeding your cattle. Ultimately, dairying is turning pasture into milk—it is as simple as that. The dairy industry is utterly reliant on high-quality pasture and the maximisation of the ability of herds to turn pasture into milk. An enormous amount of science underpins these things. We need to fund such science and make sure that we lead the world in it. We also need, as this bill points out, to support Animal Health Australia and to look at areas where there is underinvestment, risk and opportunities. In these areas there is a significant role for the research and development corporations of the dairy industry. Such corporations do great work in identifying how we can better produce milk and all the other dairy products—cheese and yoghurt and cream—for domestic consumption and the important role that whey proteins and casein now play in a range of food substitutes.
So dairy has that opportunity to maximise those fluctuations in price and demand. But, importantly, if we ever choose to not take a long-term view, if we ever chose to nobble our industry by not identifying the risks inherent in the fluctuations, then people can simply move to milk based substitutes. One of the great challenges is that, once consumers move to substitutes, it is a real challenge for the dairy sector to move people back on to fresh dairy.
We are now utterly reliant on international markets. As I said earlier, I think we have missed a number of opportunities that New Zealand managed to grab. Our herd sizes have increased from what I recall two decades ago—85 beasts—to now around 220 and heading increasingly toward herds of 1,000. The US has already moved significantly towards these large herds, and the same trend is evident in Australia, albeit slow; producing, I think, 1.6 million dairy cattle in the country. There are 6,500 dairy farms where there used to be 22,000 of them. That difference, that delta, tells a real story about absolutely dedicated, committed Australian families who have been moved off the land by the changes in the dairy industry. We should never forget that extraordinarily painful transition that has occurred over the last two decades.
So where are we? We have a thriving dairy sector; I think we can say that. We have a dairy sector that is prepared to voluntarily pay a levy on the milk protein and the fat content of their milk. Obviously, the rest of it is water—it is a little difficult to tax that, although I am sure a Labor government might find a way to do that. We have that money being invested sensibly and productively in protecting our herds, developing the best possible resilience for them. By genetically improving the herds we know we can get around 1,000 litres more milk per beast per year, and that is an impressive achievement. Obviously what they are looking for is structure and longevity in beasts and just genetic potential. If you cease doing that, and if you cease investing, then ultimately you will fall behind, with very few options.
So dairy farmers do struggle because it is a water-intensive industry. They really are reliant on those fluctuations. We are lucky enough to be producing dairy products all around the country. Though, as you move out of Victoria, increasingly it is for domestic consumption. We are very lucky in my part of the world to have great, world-standard dairy products available to us. In my mostly urban electorate, I confess, there are just one or two cows that I see when I drive around the city. I do not really know who owns them; I do not know if people eat them or milk them. It is unfortunate that I have not taken a greater interest in working out exactly what kind of cattle industry there is in my own electorate. If there is, I have to admit that it is terribly small, but I am glad that it still exists. In my electorate of Bowman those cattle remain, although there were many more in the past. They cohabit with our koala population.
At every level, while we may not produce any milk in our electorate—we barely grow grass in Bowman; we have a little bit of poultry—but we strongly support every member on this side of the chamber in supporting the great work of Australia's dairy industry.
Dr STONE (Murray) (09:48): The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 is a response to a request from Australian Dairy Farmers Ltd the national representative body for the dairy industry. It is, therefore, something we strongly support. I believe it should have bipartisan support, but I do note there is a fairly silly amendment that has been put up as a distraction to the real focus and intent of this dairy produce bill, and of course the coalition will simply ignore that.
The levies are payable by the producer and collected by the Commonwealth for redistribution to Animal Health Australia, which will help to respond to animal health and welfare matters. As Australian Dairy Farmers Ltd is a party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, it will also assist in a quick and nationally cost-sharing response to a sudden and serious outbreak of disease—for example, blue tongue or anthrax or, heaven forbid, some other problem that at the moment we have managed to avoid.
These amendments do not change the levy rates; rather they increase the cap on the rate of the animal health council levy which may be payable by the dairy producer. Before there is any change in the levy rates, there would need to be comprehensive industry consultation and a vote of levy payers, leading to forwarding a proposal to the government for action on those recommendations. These would have come out of consultation and a vote. So this is very much a bill which serves the needs of the dairy industry as it has requested.
Australia can be proud of its dairy industry, which has evolved to be one of the most efficient in the world as well as being one of the most sustainable and natural. In particular our industry has avoided adopting whole-scale factory style farming where thousands of animals are corralled in feed lots or shedded, which brings with it lots of additional disease burden.
The Murray electorate, located in northern Victoria, is the home of one of the biggest dairy production regions in Australia. The dairy farms are interspersed with a range of manufacturers, both Australian owned and multinational, including companies like Bega-Tatura Milk, which makes and exports infant formula as well as its famous cheeses; Murray Goulburn, which makes cheeses and powders; Fonterra, which produces cheese powders and ghee; and Nestle, which makes the world's best condensed milk at its Tongala plant. There is also a new $40-million UHT plant in Shepparton established by ACM and Pactum Australia with the aim of exporting product to Asian markets. The milk processing adds some $2 billion to the Victorian economy annually. Milk powders continue to be one of the biggest export commodities out of Geelong and that is including during the 10 years of drought.
The recent Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement contained some good news but also some real disappointments for the Australian dairy industry. This FTA has once again shone a spotlight on the huge inequities that exist in international food trade, which is one of the most corrupted, subsidised and protected sectors of any trade in produce or services in the world. When the quotas, tariffs, duties and non-phytosanitary barriers are added to the high Australian dollar, it is no wonder that some of our exporters of food have seen their export market penetration disappear altogether in the last several years. Their years of investment, of new product development and of export market development have simply gone out the window through no fault of their own.
Australia exports $80 million worth of dairy product annually to Korea despite punitive tariff levels. Cheese is our major dairy export and has had to contend with a 36 per cent tariff. Cheeses will immediately enjoy a duty free quota of over 4,500 tonnes, which can grow at three per cent annum, and this tonnage represents some 80 per cent of our cheese exports to Korea in 2013. However, for the remaining 20 per cent of exported cheeses—many of them coming from my electorate of Murray—there will be a progressive elimination of the 36 per cent tariff. But it will take 13 years for our cheddar to become tariff free, 18 years for cream cheese to be duty free, and for all other cheeses it will be 20 years before they have duty free status. So if you are a cheese maker do not hold your breath unless you can squeeze into that first 80 per cent proportion that will be tariff free. For our butter and dairy spread manufacturers, the Korea-Australia FTA will have an immediate duty free quota of 113 tonnes growing at two per cent per annum, but the duties of up to 89 per cent will not be gone until the 15th year.
Infant formula receives similar treatment, with an immediate quota of 470 tonnes to be duty free and the rest of the duties to come off some 15 years later. This is despite the huge demand for Australia's safe and nutritious infant formulas. The contaminated formulas sold in China are still leaving hundreds of parents grieving for the death and disabling of their babies. Australia's strict hygiene protocols mean our dairy products are amongst the safest in the world; however, it will still be 15 years before we have a free flow of trade into Korea of our clean and safe infant formula powders. We will presumably continue to see tourists from Korea as well as from China and other Asian countries take home as many boxes of our canned infant formula as the weight restrictions allow them to haul onto planes. The duties on milk, cream, ice-cream, yoghurt and whey will be eliminated, but that will take up to 20 years.
It is a great frustration that our milk powders and our great Nestle Tatura condensed milk, the choice of quality confectioners and chefs the world over, because it is made from whole milk not reconstituted milk, have been excluded from the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement all together. This is a great disappointment, given Australia long ago opened its doors to importers with zero or near zero tariffs on a whole range of products, but we have struggled for decades to see our generosity reciprocated.
This Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a move in the right direction for the Australian dairy exporter. We thank the coalition government for moving it along after the six years of inaction from Labor. But the length of time before all tariffs are removed on those products and the exclusion of some key dairy products are a handbrake on the development of the Australian dairy exports industry.
The Australian dairy industry, like all Australian agribusiness, is one of the least government subsidised primary production sectors in the world. Only three per cent of the income of Australian farmers can be attributed to government support. The announcement of drought support for some today—and I commend and applaud that announcement—is tiny in comparison to the government assistance offered to the rest of the developed world's farmers when faced with any natural disaster. One of the major components of government support in Australia is a dollar-for-dollar offer for agribusiness research—and these funds are raised through industry levies. Even dealing with animal health and welfare, as you can see from this bill, is largely to be in the hands of Australian primary producers themselves. Norwegian farmers enjoy government support that makes up some 60 per cent of their total farm income. The average government support for farmers across the OECD is 20 per cent—and is not likely to come down anytime soon. To drive these comparisons home, a USA farmer is paid US$30,170 per annum and an EU farmer about four times that amount in government support.
In most countries there is an appreciation of the importance of a nation's capacity to feed itself, to contribute to its own food security. There is also the contribution of agribusiness to environmental services production—keeping soils, waterways, biodiversity and air quality in a good state for the rest of the nation. Most nations also understand the high risks faced by any industry of national significance, such as farming, which depends on weather or seasonal conditions—the boom-and-bust cycles that we see in Australia in particular. So it will come as a surprise that the small town of Tatura, a town of only 4,500 people, hosts one of Australia's premier dairy events—an event which is, in fact, second only in international importance to an event in Chicago, as it recognises dairy excellence and good genetic development.
The International Dairy Week of Tatura was established in 1990. Despite droughts and floods, each year it has continued to offer its prestigious awards to the best of the over 1,000 first-class dairy cattle shown there. Over 100 dairy companies and businesses annually display the latest products and technologies in this tiny town. It is an extraordinary achievement for, as I say, a very small population. The whole of the community comes out and makes this event possible each year, including the service clubs like Rotary and Lions. The City of Greater Shepparton is of course also a major contributor to the success of this international dairy show.
A decade of drought in northern Victoria took a very heavy toll on dairy farms. They were forced to buy in fodder and to sell their water to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which cruelly held out the offer of $2,400 per megalitre without really explaining the fact that that water would disappear out of food production forever. This took water out of northern Victoria to the extent that we lost half our dairy farms. To survive, many dairy farmers not only sold their water but sold their heifers to China. Others were forced to put their whole herds through the abattoirs, reflecting the fact that their capacity to borrow had run out. Where have all the dairies gone?, a report published in July 2010 by the Victorian Department of Primary Industries and the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project, said:
In 2010 at the end of the drought, an inspection by the Victorian Dept of Primary Industries and others found that over 45% of the once rich dairying country, or nearly 800,000 hectares across the GMID, was idle rural land.
I want to report the very good news that only 3½ years later, since July 2010, we have fought back. Despite half of the water being taken to the Environmental Water Holder and the fact that that water now sits in our storages at such volumes that irrigators cannot have their remaining allocation put down the system for their farms. We have had a major renewal of the dairy industry in our part of the world. Despite the terrible impact of the drought on the dairy industry where the century-old irrigation system failed for the first time, we are seeing a significant rebuilding of the herds with herd size and production approaching pre-drought levels. While sales of live dairy cattle to China continue with some 55,000 pedigree animals exported by the end of June last year and 36,450 dairy cattle exported in the first eight months of 2010, the industry is continuing to add to its herd size.
We are also seeing new dairy manufacturers like the UHT plant in Shepparton being established. This is despite the escalation in costs if you are trying to dairy. Feed costs have significantly increased. Many still carry significant debt from the years of drought. And the carbon tax, which we cannot get rid of until Labor cooperates, has significantly added to the cost of the power used to run a dairy, and the refrigerant gas tax has pushed up the cost of the cooling milk vats to unsustainable levels.
On top of that, when Labor insisted on three hours of minimum pay for casual milkers in dairies which had been modernised to take less than two hours to complete the milking, we saw real inefficiencies in the cost of labour. Of course, the price of irrigation water has gone through the roof. Unfortunately, the irrigation system in Victoria is owned by the state government. There are no other state governments still in charge of irrigation systems. In Victoria, they employ over 800 people and the state system is hugely in debt. They are trying to get out of that debt and their own inefficiencies by upping the fees and charges to their irrigators. We are just teetering at the point where the cost of water is beyond the productive capacity of farmers to make ends meet.
Data from Dairy Australia's regional forecast of milk production outcomes paint an interesting picture of the intentions of the Murray Dairy regional producers. I have already described the difficulties they face with the irrigation water costs, the loss of half of their irrigation entitlement when they were forced through drought circumstances to sell that water to the Commonwealth for the environment, which still has not seen the benefit of that environmental water held.
The Murray Dairy region's figures show that herd sizes have grown from 253 on average in 2012 to 282 on average in 2013. More interestingly, 48 per cent of Murray Dairy farmers felt positive about the future, second highest only to Tasmania where 50 per cent had a positive outlook for the future of the national dairy industry. The worrying thing is that, for an industry that is as important as dairying, this data shows us that in areas like western Victoria only 19 per cent had a plan to invest next year and only 46 per cent had a positive view about the dairy industry into the future. Gippslanders had even lower expectations for a positive future. The dairy industry needs a great deal of understanding and support in Australia. It is not an industry that needs a handout but it does need real Australian support.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (10:03): I rise to speak in support of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014, which has been brought forward at the request of Australian Dairy Farmers to make provision for future biosecurity capability. The electorate of Lyne on the mid-North Coast includes some of Australia's oldest and most naturally blessed dairying country. It is blessed with extensive alluvial plains running back into the hinterlands, in the Manning, Hastings and Macleay valleys, and the Gloucester Valley with its many rivers. Normally, it has reliable, moderate to high rainfall, but currently it has had to cope with below average rainfall and drought conditions, particularly in the south-west.
The historical context of dairying in the region is important. It started off with timber-getters arriving in the region in the 1800s and then in the 1900s they quickly recognised the natural attributes of soil fertility and a temperate climate, and the governments of the day supported their endeavours to get dairying running in the region. It was the highest returning enterprise of the time. Farming ventures sprang up along the rivers and the creek systems; communities grew on the back of it along with butter factories, which seemed to be on every river.
While it was hard, unending and most often low-paying work, the pay-off was that it was incredibly satisfying to have your own land and be able to raise a family on a farm, and pass it on to the next generation. This historical context is important, as I mentioned, because this is where the dairy industry's ongoing and acknowledged perseverance and resilience comes from—to keep getting the cows in twice daily for milking, day in, day out, all year, every year, and dealing with all the pressures such as mother nature, distorted markets, dubious marketing campaigns, land prices and government land-use policies, as well water policies, droughts and the vagaries of being a very poor applicant in price negotiations due to the power of the processing and retail end.
During the 1960s to the present, the situation is that a lot of farmers have left the industry because they have not been able to keep up as viable dairying units, despite trying as they did in the face of all those pressures. There has been a massive rationalisation of the industry, from the farm level to the dairy-processing level since those early days and that is well documented. Many properties in our region are still being turned over to lower-yielding beef production. The ones that are still operating have been able to do so through a combination of very good planning, very hard work, a lot of will and purpose, and a readiness to assess and invest in new techniques. They have also recognised the strategic importance of supporting the dairy industry because it is the source of essential food supply and a source of income for the regional population. Governments of all persuasions and jurisdictions over many, many years have allocated funds to research, development and extension.
The Australian dairy industry has always embraced new ways of doing things, be it with pastures, animal health and welfare, breeding and reproduction, nutrition, farm management, dairy factory operations or, most importantly, the area of biosecurity. The industry has been a world leader in adapting innovation and working collaboratively in all those areas for mutual benefit. It must continue to do so, and that is why the government is introducing this bill, the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014.
The purpose of the bill is to amend schedule 6 of the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 to increase the maximum rate of the Australian Animal Health Council levy on dairy products for vital biosecurity capacity. Animal Health Australia is a not-for-profit company that manages more than 50 national projects improving animal and associated human health, biosecurity, market access, livestock welfare, productivity, food safety and food quality. Animal Health Australia is a public company whose members include the Australian government and state and territory governments, the peak national councils of Australia's livestock industries and various key research, veterinary and educational organisations. Part of its mission is to 'build capacity to enhance emergency animal disease preparedness'. Funding of the AHA is provided from a number of sources including the Australian Animal Health Council levy. Dairy producers, amongst others, are required to pay the Australian Health Council levy.
In the explanatory memorandum, Australian dairy farmers are documented as having asked the government to legislate for an increase to the maximum rate of the levy. But the industry has a cost-sharing deed in place to assist with emergency animal disease responses. The deed facilitates rapid responses to and control and eradication of certain animal diseases by, amongst other things, defining funding responsibilities up to certain limits for each emergency animal disease. This cost-sharing deed provides that where an emergency animal disease response plan is implemented, each party must initially meet its costs in accord with agreed principles. However, where the industry is not able to do so, the Commonwealth will initially meet those obligations. In that case, the amount paid by the Commonwealth must be repaid within a reasonable time—generally expected to be no longer than 10 years. Repayment may be made through industry statutory levy arrangements. Animal Health Australia is also a signatory to the cost-sharing deed and is entitled to recover those of its costs which are additional to its ordinary operating costs.
Relevant to this bill, schedule 6 of the act provides for the imposition of the Australian Animal Health Council levy on relevant dairy produce and provides that the levy is paid by the producer of the relevant dairy produce. It sets the maximum milk-fat rate for the purposes of the levy. Item 2 of the bill sets the maximum protein rate for the purposes of the Australian Animal Health Council levy, so that the potential rate, should there be a need for it to be increased, can rise from 13c per kilogram to 35c per kilogram. However, the proposed amendments do not change the levy rates. Instead the bill increases the cap on the rate of the Australian Animal Health Council levy which may be payable in the future.
Before this can occur, industry consultation will be required, including the requirement for a vote of levy-payers to be conducted and the preparation of a proposal to the government containing a recommendation on the preferred levy rate. It is important to recognise that this bill is not raising the levy, but putting in a framework for the Australian Animal Health Council levies to be raised to assist with emergency animal disease responses, should the need arise. This will make it much easier for industry and government to get to work straight away and respond to any biosecurity issue that may arise in the future. There needs to be eternal vigilance against the ever-present threat of exotic pests and diseases.
There are many diseases in the world from which Australia, through both good fortune and good management, has been able to safeguard its producers and consumers. Some of these have been mentioned and they include foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, swine fever, screw-worm fly, scrapie, anthrax—and the list goes on. There are literally hundreds of pests and diseases in the world that we do not have—and we do not want. Animal Health Australia has played a pivotal role in ensuring our livestock industries have world-class plans in place to prevent these diseases from entering our country, and ensuring our industries have plans and funding mechanisms in place in case they do enter the country, and control or eradication programs are required for the greater good.
It is pertinent to make some observations on the current state of the dairy industry to see that it is not an inappropriate time to be introducing this bill. International market fundamentals were weighted towards higher commodity prices for most of 2013. Our producers have had to cope with the vagaries of the environment. We have just gone through an extended very dry period during which feed and fodder had to be purchased. A lot of these costs cannot be factored in, even for future purchasing agreements. Milk supply from most producers is yet to fully recover from the setbacks of the low milk prices and higher debt loadings of last year, but demand continues to expand.
With high international commodity prices now being hopefully reflected in farm-gate returns, 2014 will see global milk production grow. I hope that will translate into higher milk production volumes in the electorate of Lyne. The recently signed free-trade agreement with the Republic of Korea will also offer Australian exporters a more competitive position in the growing dairy market, but it will take time for this to have its full effect. It will not happen as quickly as some would like, but there will be an improvement.
Ongoing dairy demand is now translating to improved returns to farmers, with farm-gate prices overseas up to 25 per cent higher in the EU, the USA and for some Australian contractors, and over 40 per cent in export-focused New Zealand. Producers in our electorate have traditionally focused more on the domestic fresh milk market and we have not seen the same jump in milk price as that experienced by dairy producers in export-focused regions, but they are still facing similar cost pressures as a result of unfavourable weather and tight regional feed supplies. The most important thing that the dairy industry in my electorate needs is increasing farm-gate prices, which will boost confidence and provide further latitude to capture profitable production opportunities as the season progresses.
Significant change has occurred as a result of supermarket transitions to more direct relationships with farmers, such as Coles's decision to enter into a long-term contractual arrangement with Norco and others for the supply of fresh milk. In the Manning Valley Woolworths has increased its direct supply arrangement with farmers to supply Farmers' Own milk brand and recent increases into that retail outlet have been announced. I fully support that.
The dairy industry will continue to evolve in accord with market and policy changes, but one thing is sure: a good, workable biosecurity framework is essential now and into the future. This bill enables that and I commend it to the House.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (10:16): I rise to speak in relation to the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014, but with the brief indulgence of the House I would also like to take the opportunity to update members on the fire situation in Gippsland. I recognise that you, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, as the member for McEwen, are very familiar with the impact of fires in your own community and I wish you well in your endeavours to support your community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Thank you.
Mr CHESTER: On Tuesday I spoke about the four major outbreaks across Gippsland and reflected on the concern within the Morwell community more generally relating to the mine fire which is a short distance from the Hazelwood power station. I can report that overnight crews contained some grass fires between the Hazelwood mine and the Hazelwood power station and those fires are no longer threatening infrastructure in that immediate vicinity. The main focus of the firefighters now is preventing the spread of the fire into the coal batters and continuing to monitor all the critical infrastructure which is in place. We have firefighters using vehicles with compressed-air foam systems to help suppress the fire. This foam contains less water than other foams and is used to smother the fire and reduce the smoke and hopefully reduce the impact on the surrounding residents. The firefighters have been doing a terrific job in very difficult conditions. The amount of smoke, ash and carbon monoxide in the Latrobe Valley varies significantly on a day-to-day basis depending on the weather conditions. But every effort is being made to ensure the firefighters remain safe as they combat this outbreak and also that the nearby residents remain safe.
When there are light south-westerly winds or no winds, that is when the township of Morwell experiences the worst conditions. It has been extraordinarily difficult for residents in the Morwell community to deal with the smoke and the ash which is impacting on their town. The air quality is being monitored by the EPA, and emergency services and HAZMAT technicians are in the region. Both fine particles and carbon monoxide are being measured as indicators of the impacts of smoke on local air quality. The emergency services and the EPA will continue to monitor over the coming weeks to minimise any risk to communities or the firefighters, but we can expect to have continued smoke haze for some time in the valley as our firefighters deal with this outbreak. Of course, firefighter safety is absolutely critical in this effort. Some firefighters are required to wear breathing apparatus and carbon monoxide levels are regularly checked as they undertake their work.
More broadly, in terms of the local community, the air quality in the Latrobe Valley is being affected by the smoke and ash from the burning of the brown coal. I urge people to stay aware of the changing conditions via the EPA website—their 1,300 numbers are available and there is a lot of support on the ground. I encourage people, if they have any existing respiratory concerns—the elderly, pregnant women or children are likely to be more sensitive to the effects of the fine particles in the smoke—to seek medical attention if required. We are reassured by health authorities that it is not expected that exposure as a result of this fire will have long-term health effects on the community.
Can I simply acknowledge the concerns in my community that not enough has been done to assist them in this extremely difficult situation. I can understand why residents have been angry and disappointed that they have had to battle this prolonged fire and the conditions which have deteriorated in their community over the past two weeks. I would like to reassure local residents that, along with relevant agencies and my state colleague Russell Northe and my federal neighbour and friend Russell Broadbent, we are making every effort to ensure the community—indeed, the nation—is aware of the fire situation they are facing. I have personally advised the Prime Minister about the challenges we are facing in the Latrobe Valley and I know that Russell Northe has been in regular contact with the Premier and the Deputy Premier's offices in regard to the fire itself and also in regard to the conditions the residents are enduring. A great deal has been done but I accept that we can always do more. We can always respond more quickly to concerns or ensure that information is provided in a more timely manner. I believe that is happening now better than perhaps it was happening a week ago.
May I stress that help is available throughout the Morwell district and the community is not being ignored. May I thank the volunteers and the professional staff for their efforts during this emergency situation. On those thankyous, can I also thank the local media for their efforts, in particular, with the emergency broadcasts on local radio and reports on TV and in the newspapers. I would also encourage the metropolitan media, which has discovered Morwell in the last few days. To the metropolitan media which has discovered Morwell: they are welcome in the Latrobe Valley, but I would just ask them to be sensitive to local community, which is feeling somewhat bruised and battered at this time.
Can I acknowledge also that there is anger in our community that this fire appears to have been deliberately lit and there is disgust within our community about that. You can only urge people who have any information to contact local police if they have seen any suspicious activity. To think that this fire was deliberately lit in such appalling conditions on 9 February is something that any right-thinking Australian would be absolutely appalled about. There was no regard whatsoever for life or the property of people in our community in lighting these fires. I would encourage anyone who does have any information to make sure that they report that information to the local police and I wish the police well in their investigations. I thank the House for that indulgence and I will turn my attention to the bill itself.
The bill provides for the collection of levies that are used to fund initiatives that will increase productivity and sustainability of the dairy industry. The dairy industry is obviously a major contributor to the economy of Gippsland. The families in that industry are major contributors to the social wellbeing of my community and to the advanced land-management practices which are important to the environmental health of the Gippsland Lakes. I make that point because sometimes the agricultural sector is unfairly vilified for the impact that it has on the environment. I make that point because in Gippsland the landholders, the custodians of the land, understand they need to look after the environment if they are going to remain productive into the future. They are working very closely with the relevant environmental authorities to reduce the amount of nutrients from their properties, to maximise the value from the water that they have available to them and to ensure that their farms remain productive. I have been very impressed over the past five or six years as the member for Gippsland how engaged the landholders throughout the Gippsland region are on environmental issues—whether it be the practical application of projects through Landcare or through involvement in various studies and strategies to help develop new systems to maximise the productivity of their land without having an undue impact on the environment.
The dairy industry in Gippsland is centred around the highly productive Macalister Irrigation District, and its future development is critical to the future prosperity of the Gippsland region. The MID is one of the most productive agricultural areas in the nation, but it is reasonable to say that the irrigation system is in desperate need of upgrade—it is ageing and there is a real demand for further investment in the system. To that end, there has been some positive news in recent times and I do commend the efforts of Southern Rural Water and the Victorian coalition government, which last year announced its support for the first stage of what we call the MID 2030 plan.
Under the plan there is $16 million going from the coalition government and $16 million from the industry as a co-contribution, which will be recovered from the irrigators themselves, to support the first stage of the modernisation plan. It will help increase the amount of food that the region can produce; and it will certainly boost the local and state economy with the initial phase of the project expected to return more than 12,000 megalitres of water a year for productive use. The works, which will take in the order of three years, will involve some channel automation projects, some additional work on the Southern-Cowwarr Balancing Storage area, further outlet rationalisation and modernisation, and design of a future pipeline for the Southern Tinamba supply zone.
The Victorian agriculture minister, at the time, remarked that now the first phase of the project has been secured he would negotiate with the Commonwealth to help build the Southern Tinamba pipeline. I know Peter Walsh, the agriculture minister, well; I know that he is passionate about the future of the MID in Gippsland, and it is a passion I share with him. I think there is a role for the federal government to work in partnership with the Victorian government and the dairy industry to secure future growth opportunities through the modernisation and expansion of the Macalister Irrigation District. It is an issue I have been working on for many years now. I had the former parliamentary secretary, the former member for Braddon Sid Sidebottom, in my electorate and showed him around the MID; and there is no question he was impressed by it and was keen to pursue it during his time as the parliamentary secretary. I have also had the current agriculture minister in Gippsland to give him the opportunity of getting a better appreciation of exactly what is available to the nation out of investment in the dairy industry in the Gippsland region.
With access to secure water, almost anything is possible in the agricultural sector in Gippsland. As the government is in the process of developing its agricultural white paper, there are forward-thinking producers in my electorate who are looking at opportunities for future growth by meeting the demand for products in Asia. We hear a lot about the growth in demand in Asia, particularly for dairy products, as the Asian middle class expands and develops a taste for the products that can be produced here in Australia. Our reputation as a supplier of clean and green agricultural goods will be critical to future growth in our regional communities. I note the member for Forrest, another keen regional member, is in the chamber and will speak to the impact on and the opportunities for the dairy industry in her own electorate. I have heard other speakers who represent dairying communities across the nation speak today. There are huge opportunities for our dairy industry in this nation, but there is definitely a role for government in helping our dairy farmers achieve those opportunities.
I believe the government has a role to help reduce the cost structure, particularly by removing some burdensome red and green tape from the shoulders of our farmers. There are opportunities for the government to remove discriminatory taxes, like the carbon tax. I ask the opposition: how could you possibly justify imposing a tax in the order $5,000 plus per dairy shed every year under the carbon tax? It is not just the big industries that pay for the carbon tax implemented by the previous Labor government; it is also a direct cost on our dairying industry. I urge those opposite: if you are serious about supporting agriculture in this nation and serious about supporting our dairy farmers, then support the abolition of the carbon tax and release them from that burden. There are also opportunities for the federal government, in particular, to help secure new markets for our dairy industry and in that regard I congratulate the new trade minister for his success in securing deals which, I acknowledge, were negotiated in part by the previous government and progressed over many years. But I do congratulate the current trade minister for bringing those trade deals to fruition. We need to open up new markets to allow our dairy farmers, in particular, to compete with growers overseas. It is a tough and competitive industry and they need everything going their way if they are going to compete and access these new markets into the future.
We are fortunate in this country to have world-class farmers. We have highly productive farmers on quality land who are doing an extraordinary job every day of the week not only to feed our nation but also to feed the world. We should never underestimate the contribution that our farming sector makes to the greater good when we talk about global issues. Two-thirds of Australian agricultural products—food and fibre products—are exported. We are helping people emerge from poverty; we are helping people in other nations emerge from food crises. I congratulate our farming community for the work they do in that regard. We have highly productive farmers who are keen to secure their own farming futures and also the farming futures of their families. I would encourage the government and I would encourage the current agricultural minister to keep working with the agricultural sector in Gippsland and I am looking forward to working with him, as my community continues to try to achieve that goal.
The dairy industry is big business in Gippsland and throughout Victoria. I understand that the dairy industry is the largest export product out of the Port of Melbourne, and a lot of that product comes from the Gippsland region. The Wellington Shire itself has more than 400 dairy farms and the majority of them, as I said, are located in the Macalister Irrigation District. The region has its own major collection and processing facility at Maffra, which, with the Murray-Goulburn Coop, produces a range of products destined for export markets. Much of the water debate in the past decade has been on the Murray-Darling Basin, but I see opportunities for future investment in new infrastructure in Gippsland through the MID 2030 plan. We need to invest in the efficiency of the existing systems in Gippsland but also to explore new opportunities to increase productive capacity of good farmland. I encourage the current agricultural minister and I encourage the government through the trade minister delta and others to continue to explore new opportunities to expand our agriculture sector and I look forward to working with both those ministers on securing better outcomes for farmers in Gippsland.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (10:30): As we have just heard, Australia has a well-earned international reputation for producing clean and green food. This is our competitive advantage and one we need to protect and guard. It is a competitive advantage that should never be taken for granted just as our biosecurity should never be taken for granted. The measures contained in this Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 will assist the industry to maintain that advantage, and the bill itself is supported by industry.
Like the previous speaker, the member for Gippsland, I have repeatedly said that in my opinion many Australians take our locally grown amazing quality food for granted. Western Australia's dairy industry is a prime example of this. It is an efficient producer of high-quality milk sold to both the local and South-East Asian markets. The dairy industry is very important industry in Western Australia particularly in the south-west of my state and in my electorate. Farmers in my part of the world milk all year round, every day of the year. We have internationally competitive production costs. Western Australian processors—our manufacturers—are at the leading edge of technology in the transport of our fresh and extended shelf-life milk products. We see this in the activities of Harvey Fresh and Brownes, for example, Harvey Cheese and Bannister Downs Dairy, just to name a few. They are modern processing facilities owned by local and international companies. The state's fast and efficient transport links are really a key. It is an advantage we have in delivering high-quality fresh products in the shortest amount of time to both our domestic and international customers. I see this as a real advantage in Asia particularly.
Western Australian milk has been identified as some of the cleanest and highest quality in Australasia. How many people out there know that? Well, I am telling them that it is and it is produced by farmers every day. The quality attributes include low bacterial counts and good flavour and colour, things that are very important in the market, and there are several farms producing milks with specific added health benefits. WA has a very high herd health status, free of any disease like foot and mouth or bovine spongiform encephalopathy. WA has good access to markets in Asia and in the Middle East, which are large and rapidly growing consumers of dairy products. This is our opportunity. WA's dairy industry is relatively small in size but it is highly reputed for its innovation and high-quality products.
I am a dairy farmer so you could say that I have got a vested interest in the debate. My son and my husband right now, as I speak, are working on the farm. I have a history here, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, and I hope you will indulge me. My father was the very first milk carter for Brownes' factory in Brunswick Junction in 1942. The factory has grown and developed over the years, changing ownership several times, but it is still processing locally produced milk. So many communities in the south-west have historic links to the dairy industry, and what is also often underestimated and undervalued is the fact that dairy industries in so many communities right around Australia actually underpinned local economies and local communities.
The other thing that is important is that these are the people who go along and support the communities. They are the volunteers. They are the people whose tractors, whose machinery, whose labour and whose knowledge actually get things done in communities. They are doers, not talkers, and that is so important in regional communities.
The family of one of my neighbours, Graeme Manning—and I am talking about history here—was the second dairy farmer in Western Australia. The Mannings milked their cows around the edge of Mounts Bay Road—Kings Park is above that—just a few cows, and they used to supply milk on a yoke to the households in St Georges Terrace at the time. When Kings Park became a reserve, they left South Perth in 1895 and moved to Myalup close to where we are and then some of their descendants moved into the area where I live now and where they farm. John Daniel Manning was that first farmer in 1852. Then we had Ernest John and Ernest David and now we have Graeme Manning, and you look at how they have evolved as a family and as a dairy business, going from just a back-out dairy to a walkthrough dairy to a swing-over dairy and now a double-up dairy. This is a typical example of an industry that has evolved and been on the front foot.
Graeme Manning is now the fifth generation of Mannings to actually dairyfarm in Western Australia—and it his birthday today, and I think that is a great thing! He has a sixth-generation Manning family member working with him. I said to him, 'You have experience and knowledge in the industry. Yours is a very well-respected family. What are the issues that you see as the critical issues for the dairy industry in Western Australia?' Of course he said the current price of milk, the cost of production and keeping young farmers in the industry, the farmers of the future. That is a real concern. Across all sectors there are young farmers who are going to be the farmers of the future—and what is their access to finance? They have great potential, an enormous amount—five generations of farming knowledge sit behind Graeme Manning. It is really difficult. My own son carries a couple of generations of knowledge nurtured on the farm, the knowledge of how to farm your particular area. This is something that is very difficult to teach. Graeme also said that farm debt levels are also an issue.
These are matters for the industry ongoing, and they are also matters for us. In Western Australia it is an industry that has had huge challenges and it still faces significant challenges. We have seen hundreds of farmers exit the industry, and in my view that is a massive loss. One of the greatest losses is the intellectual property that went, perhaps, not only with the senior farmer but the young farmer who has had to go on to do other things. We have lost the experience and the investment and, often, that critical next generation to learn and hone their craft—because it is a craft—as part of a family business.
There are approximately 160 or so dairy farmers producing this highest-quality milk in Australia, mostly in my electorate. As you can tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have enormous respect for my fellow dairy farmers. Yes they farm by choice, but they take great pride in what they do in the full knowledge that it is one of the toughest forms of farming. When I used to promote dairy products at the royal show and I had a sign that said, 'G'day, I'm a WA dairy farmer,' I cannot tell you the number of people who said, 'No, you're not.' The answer is, 'Yes, I am.' But how many simply could not take on the job? They are not prepared for the intense nature of the industry, or the investment required or they simply do not have the diversity of skills.
A dairy farmer has to be a jack-of-all-trades. To manage the dairy herd alone, you need skills in feeding and nutrition, herd management and reproduction, genetics and livestock health and diseases. Wrapped up in this is needing to calve cows at any hour of the day or night and dealing with all forms of herd health. You have to have the skills to manage your pasture to produce fat and protein in milk—that is what you are paid on. You need to know the correct fertiliser regime for your particular property, the necessary cattle management skills, and how to manage irrigation systems. There is the machinery; you have to understand your machinery and to have an ear for when you are working the gear too hard. You have to be able to build your own equipment; you have to cut your costs, so you need to be able to weld. As well you need to have really good mechanical skills, staff management, business management and be across finance and taxation issues—all of the same things that affect small business.
That is not all; that is just some of what you need. There are the early mornings, the working in all weather and the routine of having to milk the cows twice a day every single day of the year. There are the challenges of management, and this is something that is forgotten in the whole dairy debate. We have to manage one of the most perishable products in any form, and that also exposes us in the market. Of course, having a perishable product also exposes us to the constant vagaries of challenging and changing weather, water shortages, dry winters and an increasing cost base. As I said, we have had the challenges of the two major supermarkets. In Western Australia what that has done to the industry is that the majority of milk is sold on the domestic market.
We have heard about the carbon tax price and we have talked about costs of production being an issue. Let me tell you that the carbon tax had a significant impact on the dairy industry, and this is where the members opposite actually need to get on board and reduce costs so that farmers like Graeme Manning and like those in the industry right around Australia can get on and do what they want to do, and do best, which is to produce this fantastic quality product that so many take for granted.
There is the tax on refrigerants. I tell you, I was absolutely appalled at the proposal to put a seven-cents-a-litre additional tax on transport fuel. Every single thing that is delivered, pretty well, that we use on our farm, and on most farms around Australia, comes on the back of a truck. And there was going to be a seven cents increase on transporting milk, refrigerants—you name it. This tax has to go. We actually have to reduce the red and green tape burden as well.
As if this were not enough, our competitors in the market did not have this tax. But, hey, we did. This comes on the back of tough years in the WA dairy industry. We have had dry winters, we have had increased feed costs and rising costs of production that included the carbon tax and red and green tape. So really, what all small businesses want is what the dairy industry and the dairy farmers want: they want government to get out of the way. They are there to do a job and they do it very, very well, but they do not need additional cost and they do not need additional red tape burdens.
We should be in the business here, in this place, of assisting business to do their business and to do it well. That way the whole country benefits. One of the things that has concerned me very much in Western Australia is actually the fall in milk supply. This is another reason for us to get rid of the carbon tax—the cost, okay? That is impacting on farmers. We have seen another decrease in milk production volumes this year; we are down 6.1 million litres on last year so far and down 18.7 million litres compared with the last half of 2010.
Why does that concern me? Because I think the next six months will be very interesting. If this trend continues, the annual WA milk supply could be quite low—perhaps in figures that we have not seen since the 1990s. This is another good reason to lower the cost of production so that farmers can produce milk efficiently and effectively, as they have. That is why getting rid of the carbon tax is so important.
This industry is one that constantly works on improvement. You have heard a simple one, the Manning's story. There are many others in my part of the world and around Australia. The issue of biosecurity is critical not just to the dairy industry but to all primary producers. The focus on biosecurity by the previous government was not what it should be, and I have spoken previously on that issue. Of course, we do need to continue to foster good industry and efficient producers like my dairy farmers and to continue, as a government, to offer them increased access to markets. That is where government can help and that is where government should help.
As we have heard previously, it is a very tough and competitive industry. This is not an industry for the fainthearted; even with your investment—when you put your hand up and actually invest—it is a significant investment and it is one where your cost of production is the issue for you and your business. Like all small business, you look at your costs and the things that you can control. But you cannot control it when the government comes and whacks a carbon tax on you and then says, 'On top of that we are going to add another seven cents for transport to this industry and right across Australia!'
If the previous Labor government were still here, then come about June or July the industry would have been looking down the barrel of an increase in the carbon tax on transport. Just for dairy farmers it is a huge issue; for all of regional Australia it is a huge issue that was underestimated by those opposite.
Mr BUCHHOLZ (Wright—Government Whip) (10:45): It is an honour to follow the member for Forrest from Western Australia, who we heard is possibly the only dairy farmer in the parliament. She brings to this place enormous insight into the industry. I have had the privilege of going to Western Australia and visiting the member's office. Not only is she an asset to this place but, because of the advocacy she does in the industry, she is well respected by her peers.
I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014. In summary it is a request by the industry to take the cap off a levy to increase it. I will speak on that later at length. I believe the bill as it sits in the House at the moment has support from both sides of the House. Before I go on to speak at length about the bill and the intricacies of it it would be remiss of me not to highlight the plight of Queensland dairy farmers, particularly in the south-east corner.
My electorate of Wright takes in just on 8,000 square kilometres. We have seen our fair share of dairy farmers exit the industry over the last couple of years. It is a travesty. Are they leaving the industry because of market conditions or are they leaving it through natural attrition? The latest numbers highlight that Queensland used to have in excess of 2,500 dairy farms and today we have fewer than 500. The dominance of the retail market is having a negative effect on our producers. Since the introduction of $1 a litre milk we have seen an additional 100 dairy farmers exit the industry and the largest producer in our area and in Queensland seeking expressions of interest to buy his farm because he is no longer viable.
I commend the work of the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation and in particular its President, Brian Tessmann, for the terrier-like approach he has taken in taking the charge up to the retailers for the way they are bastardising this sector. I also acknowledge the outstanding work done by his Vice-President, Ross McInnes. Ross is probably a third generation farmer in my electorate and a true gentleman. He gives his time more than freely to help fight for the cause and to give me the tools to go into battle for their sector. Adrian Peake, the Executive Officer of the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation, has also been a wealth of knowledge.
To give you an idea of the stress that these guys are under I will quote from a media release and some recent surveys that the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation did under the auspices of the gentlemen I have just alluded to. Recently the Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation conducted a survey of the extent of the Queensland crisis. They sent the survey to no fewer than 496 dairy farmers and they received a response rate of 46 per cent. The data that came out of that was shocking and chilling. Almost nine out of every 10 Queensland dairy farmers lack confidence in the future of their industry. If that lack of confidence to continue to make long-term investments were translated to any other industry, it would make front-page headlines.
The majority have a negative cash flow. It is estimated by the QDO that the farm gate milk price will need to rise by no less than 12c per litre before confidence can be renewed and fresh milk supplies restored for the Queensland consumer. That was one of the key findings of that survey. QDO President, Brian Tessmann, said that the survey was confirmation of the ongoing impacts and confidence crisis hitting Queensland's industry, which has been rocked in recent years by floods, cyclones, the milk price war and now severe drought. Of those surveyed, an alarming 87 per cent said that they were uncertain or not confident in the future of the northern industry and 79 per cent were either uncertain or not confident in their own dairying business.
When you go beyond that survey to try to understand why these guys are not confident about the future, you need not look any further than their cost of production and what they get paid. The Queensland government's Queensland Dairy Accounting Scheme report for the 2012-13 financial year reports that the cash cost of production in our area is 55.2c per litre, compared with the farm milk gate price of 51.3c a litre, leaving dairy farmers in the red. It is implausible that we would have an industry whose weekly milk cheque is unable to meet their weekly operations. When the money comes in there is not enough to pay the outgoings on a weekly basis, so farmers are drawing down on the equity of the assets on their property to maintain viability.
There is desperation among dairy farmers. I will use the example of some excellent dairy farmers in my electorate: Alan and Dolores Stock from the Lockyer Valley. It is painful to witness the uncertainty on these people's faces when they ask you, 'As a government, what can you do to help us?'
They do not ask or advocate for a handout; that is not what they ask. They just ask why it is that they cannot go ahead when they see world prices for milk exports at record highs. Why is it that we see processor bidding wars into the tens of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars—to buy profitable processing plants, and are these profits of retailers and processors coming at the expense of our farm gate?
The economic purists will say that it is rationalisation of the market. I challenge that theory with the fact that it is not a free market. The principles of demand and supply would mean that, with less supply, there would be more demand and so the price would go up. That process is capped because of the $1 a litre milk. It becomes a regulated market as such, a regulated market where the true effects of demand and supply are unable to roll out in their entirety. So it is of great concern for the likes of Alan and Dolores Stock, and I do not know if they are prepared to go on, with the pain they are feeling—unless, as a government and as a parliament, we can bring some pressure to bear to change their confidence levels or, at a minimum, help them with the result that their milk cheque is going to be greater than their outgoings. Their outgoings have virtually doubled over the past couple of years as a result of the drought, cyclones and other weather effects.
If I had a magic wand, I would order 100 millimetres of rain for every dairy farmer, for every primary producer, on the days that they wanted it. If I had a magic wand, I would do that. If I had a magic wand, I would influence downward pressure on their input costs—electricity costs, protein costs, transport costs. If I had a magic wand, I would do that, but I do not. I have limited tools available to me in this place to influence change, and what the industry says would make an enormous difference is a mandatory code of conduct for the retailers to adhere to, for there to be an independent adjudicator. It is unfathomable that, as a society, we are prepared to sit and watch this industry falter—particularly in Queensland where operational costs, I grant, are higher than the state averages. Milk is such a staple: milk is a food; milk is a protein source. We pay more for bottled water than we do for milk; we pay more for Coca-Cola than we do for bottled milk. And yet when you have a look at the health benefits of milk, it is not a product that we can allow to exit our shop aisles.
I have grave concerns that the square metreage of aisles with UHT milk is becoming greater and greater. I do not know if it is an underlying motivation of the retailers to actually exit the fresh milk sector because of the operational cost to keep it there—the freezer cost. The retailers had the carbon tax increase the cost of their refrigerant gas, so their operational costs for milk are so much higher. The labour cost on fresh milk is so much higher because of the rotational cost. But once they put a carton of UHT milk up on the shelf, it can sit there for a number of weeks without the cost of refrigeration—
Mr Nikolic interjecting—
Mr BUCHHOLZ: or for months, yes—or stock rotation. The retailers know quite well the value of milk. They know the value of milk because they strategically place it at the back of their shops so that you have to walk past their other product lines to pick up your staples—your milk and your bread—before you turn back through the shop. They refer to it as using it as a basket filler.
Before my time expires, I also want to bring to the attention of the processors that they have a responsibility. There are many profitable parts of their businesses: in yoghurts, in cheeses, in the by-products that are built from cream. We also use as a staple healthy products that are profitable. The message I send to the processors is this: do not think that the weakest link in this value chain can continue to be the dairy farmer. I call on the premium groups that negotiate with the processors to understand the value of the product. If a processor does not have milk for one week, can you imagine what the retailers' business model would look like? If people are going to shops to buy milk and bread and retailers do not have milk—well, I do not know, but there is a value component in your negotiations.
Do not continue, dairy farmers of Queensland, to accept prices on behalf of farmers that are less than the price of the cost of production. You must rally. I will do everything in my power, through this place with my colleagues and with this House, to bring about the changes that you need legislatively to compete on an equal playing field. I give you that commitment; I will continue to fight. I had discussions yesterday with our small business minister, of which I will report back to QDO this afternoon. But there is not one silver bullet that is going to fix this industry. It is a battle that has to be fought on many fronts. The retailers must allow a fair price for a great product in their outlets. Our processors must become far more reasonable in the way that they negotiate with our dairy farmers.
In Queensland, we have a situation where the number of dairy farmers that have exited our market means we can no longer produce the volumes required for domestic consumption. We are importing milk from New South Wales. It is at a higher rate than the farm gate by the time you put the transport costs on it and it begs the question: how this is sustainable?
My dairy farmers are at a point of desperation, the industry is at a point of desperation; they no longer want lengthy Senate inquiries. They no longer want submissions to be—
Ms McGowan: They want action!
Mr BUCHHOLZ: They want action, and they want it so that they can continue to survive. At the moment, their enterprise—their world—is frightfully bleak, unless we in this place stand and rally. It is an industry that employs more than 43,000 people in this nation. It is not an industry that we can afford to see disappear overnight. I give them my word: I will continue to fight for their cause.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (11:00): I rise to speak on the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014. My speech is in three parts: I would like to introduce my interest in the dairy industry; I would like to talk about a case study from Indi; and I would like to make a call to action to our colleagues on the other side of the House.
The dairy industry is an essential part of both the economy and the culture of my electorate. A prosperous and vibrant agriculture and food sector, encompassing production, processing, distribution and consumption, is essential to the future of Indi and of Australia. Agriculture and food production is central to the past, the present and the future of Indi, and dairy is an essential part of our food-manufacturing future. My region of Victoria is one of Australia's most productive dairy regions. Farms are smaller, but they carry more cows and produce more milk than the national average. The high level of productivity is due to our wonderful climate, our reliable water, and our proximity to fodder- and grain-growing regions—plus the enterprise of our farming communities. During the election campaign, I committed to the following: I would lobby for new investment in the innovative food and agriculture sector in Indi, including in the dairy industry; I would fight to increase funding for research and development; and I would support local organisations that help deliver sustainable and adaptive agricultural businesses. I will work with industry to improve the industry and agriculture and food sectors, and I will lobby for ongoing skill development and training for agriculture. I will work specifically with the dairy industry to identify and remove restrictions on their businesses—and it is on this topic that I address my comments today.
The aim of this amendment is very specific. It is to increase the maximum level of the Australian Animal Health Council levy on dairy produce from 0.058 to 0.145 cents per kilogram of milk fat, and from 0.13850 to 0.34625 cents per kilogram of protein. These levies are collected by the Commonwealth for payment to Animal Health Australia. As the minister said in his second reading speech, while this is a significant increase in the cap, it is a non-controversial decision and it is being done at the request of the peak representative body, Australian Dairy Farmers Limited. This levy will enable the dairy industry to achieve in all the areas I believe are essential for the ongoing growth and success of the dairy industry in my electorate. The dairy produce levy enables the dairy industries to strengthen the industry and to respond quickly to issues around animal health.
As many members of parliament—and those that have spoken on this bill—know, Australia exports 50 per cent of its dairy produce overseas to a variety of markets, including those that are emerging and those that are attempting to grow their dairy industries. This levy will strengthen the industry to make it more competitive in this highly competitive overseas market. The export potential in our region is incredible, with Asia's demand for dairy products increasing. This amendment will enable the dairy industry to supply sufficient product to meet this demand. With this brief background, I would like to talk about a case study and an example of a dairy success story in my electorate.
I will begin with the Mitta Valley and the community-based project Our Valley, Our Future. I will talk then to the industry development arm, the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project. The Mitta Valley is located in Towong Shire and includes the beautiful towns of Mitta Mitta, Eskdale and Dartmouth, and the Tallandoon community. The significant rural land which surrounds these townships and the unique balance of farming land, natural assets and wonderful community are strong parts of the Mitta Valley identity. As the name suggests, the area is based around the Mitta Mitta river, which makes its journey from the Dartmouth Dam through the valley to the Murray River. The valley is also close to Albury-Wodonga and to the large township of Tallangatta. While many people travel into the larger centres, we are fortunate that a variety of businesses and services operate locally, including primary schools in Mitta Mitta and Eskdale, hotels, general stores, churches, post offices and a small supermarket. It is a thriving community. While the population has been growing smaller—in 2009 there were 591 people living in the valley; in 2011 this had decreased to 568—there is an enormous strength of vitality. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery are the largest industries and employ something like 34 per cent of the workforce. Most of the farms within the Mitta Valley are dairy farms, although beef farming is still a significant contributor. The latest figures show that milk production in the valley is recovering strongly post-drought, but that it has not yet recovered to the record levels of 2001 and 2002. Over the last 10 years, the number of dairy farms has actually reduced by 35 per cent, but the production by suppliers has increased significantly. Annual average milk production per dairy farmer in the valley is now upwards of 1.3 million litres per year.
The valley has been working hard to strengthen its community and its key industries. The Our Valley, Our Future: Mitta Valley Community Strengthening Project is a collaboration between the Gardiner Dairy Foundation, Towong Shire Council, the Mitta Valley Advancement Forum and the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways Project. It is a community-driven project that will have significant positive impacts on the future growth and wellbeing of the Mitta Valley communities. The project commenced in July 2012 and will end in December 2015. Its objectives are many, but perhaps some of the most important, from my perspective, are: to achieve a shared vision of the Mitta Valley as a prosperous and vibrant community; to empower and equip community members to execute current and future strategic plans that build upon our natural assets and economic potential; to identify and provide the means for the community to achieve economic sustainability and future growth; and, to enhance the collective strength and experience of community members, to build greater teamwork and to promote cross-functional relationships that will increase capacity for long-term sustainability. This project has led by a steering committee made up of representatives from key stakeholders, and it is doing very good work.
The initial community consultation process led to the development of the Our Valley, Our Future plan, which was launched in November 2013. The plan identifies the community's future aspirations and vision, identifies specific issues that are inhibiting growth and identifies potential solutions to achieve future economic growth and strong social cohesion. I offer my warm congratulations to the full team on a great job: well done.
The Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways project is a sister to this community based project. I regard it as the production arm. Its aim is to both increase the number of dairy farmers and double milk production in the next 10 to 15 years. The aim of the Alpine Valleys Dairy Pathways project is to make a significant contribution to local jobs and wealth creation in the Alpine Valleys. It is working with farmers and communities in the valleys to create a future for dairy that young people and their families will want to be part of.
It has specific aims. It aims to increase economic value for Alpine Valleys by growing milk production. It aims to move away from farm based farming. It aims—and my colleagues from the government side might be interested in this comment—to move away from family based farming to a new model that can be the showcase for a sustainable dairy industry in Australia. It aims to lift average farm performance to the level of the current top 25 per cent of performers—to move performance from the average to the top. It aims to improve pathways in and out of the industry for famers and the next generation. It aims to implement a workforce strategy to ensure the industry attracts and retains the people it needs. And it intends to develop a strong culture in the Alpine Valleys that really values and supports the dairy industry.
Why is this so important to me? If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give a few key reasons. At a personal level, I am the daughter of dairy farmers. I grew up in the valleys of north-east Victoria, and in the 1950s all of my community and my friends were in dairy farming. I have fond memories of working with my dad in the dairy, getting the generator going, moving the dairy cans so that the factory truck could pick them up—all before refrigeration—and, along with our neighbours, ensuring that our cream went on the railway line to Wangaratta.
One of the wonderful aspects of growing up in a diary community in the 1950s was the introduction to the concept of a farmers cooperative. I am very proud to still be associated with the thriving cooperative movement in north-east Victoria, one of the stars being the Murray Goulburn Co-operative. Growing up I had a great interest in women in agriculture. I was part of the initial Women in Dairy Project. At this stage, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague in this House Nola Merino as a leader in this area. The MILC group in Western Australia led Australia in bringing women together to take a leadership role. She was a key leader then, and what a leader she has been in this place. Thank you, Nola, for the wonderful contribution you have made to us.
At the end of the 1990s in Australia, we experienced an upheaval in the dairy industry with the impact of deregulation, in particular on the states of Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. I worked with families and communities to bring together women and communities to manage this transition. I am very proud to say that I still keep in touch with most of those dairy industry women and their families and with those organisations. The Women in Dairy Project, which we established, was instrumental in helping families make the transition between a regulated and a deregulated industry. It has led the way in Australia for many other women in agriculture groups: women in horticulture, women in sugar, Women in Wool and Partners in Grains. All, with the support of Australian Women in Agriculture, continue to make a big impact on Australian agricultural communities.
In summary, I am pleased to support this amendment but, like many of my colleagues in this place, particularly on the government side, I also put on the record a strong call for action. As a government, we have an obligation to set in place a policy operating environment that supports, enables and encourages the future of agricultural production and food manufacturing in Australia. As a government, as a parliament and as representatives of our people, we need to support, encourage and grow agricultural research, development and extension in Australia.
RD&E is vitally important for our future. I say to my colleagues—to those opposite in particular—that it is not enough to complain, to blame and to describe the problem. It is time to use the combined knowledge, skills, experience and commitment that we have heard demonstrated over the last two days in talking about this bill. My call to the government benches is: put your words into practice. We need a strategic approach. We need clear budgets and time lines. We need a vision for the future of agricultural production, agricultural manufacturing and agricultural communities in Australia, and I look forward to working with you to implement that.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:13): I rise to move an amendment to the second reading amendment. My amendment will be seconded by a representative from Tasmania—arguably the biggest dairying state in Australia, outside of Victoria. The area that I represent is the biggest dairying area in Queensland. I move:
That all the words after "House" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"notes that the deregulation of the dairy industry in the mid-2000's had catastrophic economic and social impacts on Australian dairy farmers; in 2000, there was 1,545 dairy farms in Queensland and in 2013 there was 500 and that the Government should establish a national single desk to set a minimum price to dairy farmers for milk."
Australia wide, there were 12,896; there are now only 6,398 dairy farmers.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment to the amendment seconded?
Mr Wilkie: I second the amendment to the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr KATTER: I sat here and enjoyed my $200,000 per year after they took all the rifles and firearms off the people that I represent, as well as off all the people of Australia. I stayed loyal. I sat in this place and took my $200,000 when my own party, the Liberal National Party in Queensland, completely destroyed the fishing industry of North Queensland. Two thousand jobs vanished in North Queensland. I sat in this place and was loyal. The ALP wiped out the timber industry, but I was not in the ALP, so I could savagely and fearlessly attack them. I did not savagely and fiercely attack the LNP, as I should have. I sat in this place when some 2,000 jobs vanished in the tobacco industry—and I think that affected the electorate of the member who spoke prior to me in this place, the member for Indi. That was after deregulation of the tobacco industry—nothing to do with people not smoking. I stayed loyal. They deregulated the sugar industry and we lost 1,500 jobs. Two of the six—arguably seven—sugar mills in Kennedy closed. I still stayed loyal. But, when it came to the dairy industry, that was the bridge too far.
Everyone knew what would happen to the dairymen if they were deregulated. The LNP government in this place and the ALP government of Queensland signed an agreement to deregulate the dairy industry, so they deregulated it. I would estimate that we lost about 1,500 jobs on the Atherton Tableland. We had about 240 dairymen. Last time I looked, I think 42 were all that we had left. One of our little towns up there had the highest suicide rate in Australia. Within three years of dairy deregulation—and I hate using this statistic because it seems to me that I am lessening the impact every time I say it—we had a farmer committing suicide every four days in Australia. The people in this place knew that, because they knew the suicide figures after the deregulation of the wool industry and the deregulation of the sugar industry. It was one suicide every two months in the wool industry, which is a much smaller industry than the sugar industry. It was one suicide every two weeks in the sugar industry. But, after the collapse of the dairy industry, we had one suicide every four days—not dairy farmers but one farmer every four days.
Has this resulted in a single change of attitude? Is there a single scintilla of change in attitude or policy? No. Has there been any change in the agricultural outlook? I loved the previous speaker and her optimism. The simple facts of the matter are that the dairy herd is down 31 per cent. Are the prices so attractive that people are going to go back into it? I will give you the prices. Under a regulated system, with a fairness tribunal, the price for fresh milk was 59c a litre in Queensland. That was the figure for my area, but I think it is a fair figure for Queensland. In New South Wales, I would say 58c was the price. Victoria had rolling deregulation, so it is very hard to pick an exact time at which you could say the prices changed, but their figures would have been worse than ours. We went from 59c down to 42c overnight. The day before regulation, we were on 59c. The day after regulation, we went to 42c.
So much for your free market. There cannot, by definition, be a free market when you move from a regulated market to a deregulated market and the price drops 20c, or 30 per cent, in one day. The figure in June 2000, as I said, was 59c a litre for fresh milk. The current price offered for fresh milk on the Atherton Tableland is 48½c, and we are getting a pretty good deal. I suspect our deal is probably better than anyone else's in the rest of Australia, so I am not complaining about the deal we are getting. But a government fairness tribunal decided that a fair price in June 2000 was 59c, and now the market has decided that a fair price in the year of our Lord 2014 is 48c. How can anyone possibly survive in this industry?
These are lovely people, dairymen. They are not people that would understand how much money is coming in here and how much money is going out there, although some of them do. I have the great honour of having probably one of the biggest dairymen in Queensland—with about 850 head—Ray Graham, in my electorate, and Ray can tell you specifically the cost of every single cost input in his operations. But most of them are not able to do that. They just know that the banks start ringing them up and saying: 'Look, we're not happy with the way your account's going. Can you come in and see us?' And from then on it gets grimmer and grimmer and grimmer.
They are trying to get by now on 48c a litre, whereas in June 2000 they were on 59c a litre. If you CPI that 59c then they should be on 84c. So a fairness tribunal today would decide that 84c a litre was a fair call. They are being paid 48c, not 84c. Maybe they got the numbers mixed up and put the wrong number in the front—I do not know. I do know and that is not true.
Was this good for Australia? Did the consumer get a cheaper price for milk? No. Within two years, the price for milk went up 25 per cent and stayed up for the next 11 years. Now Coles have pulled a bit of a stunt, with a margin on their competitor, Woolworths, so the price has gone down for the farmer. I do not know that Coles suffered any losses but farmers most certainly did—their price went down. But for 11 years the price was up 25 per cent. So here are our free marketeers who come in here and tell us that, if we move to a free market, this is going to benefit Australia. Well, your export market is down 30 per cent I think—it is around that sort of figure. Exports are down, production is down 31 per cent and a number of farmers are gone, never to come back if they have any brains.
So where was it good? Was it good for the consumers? No. They paid an average price increase of 20 per cent. They did not get any benefit from the price going down 30 per cent to the farmer, no benefit at all. It is an insult to the intelligence of every person in this country for us to come in here and talk about a free market when nearly 90 per cent of the food market in Australia is held by two companies, and that is not my call. I will give you the actual figures. When the AC Nielsen series was discontinued in 2002, they had 76.7 per cent of the market. The Australian Bureau of Statistics official government figures use a different basket and they had them at 68 per cent. Whether you want to say they are on 68 per cent or on 76.7 per cent, that is up to you, but this parliament sat here and watched them grow from 50.5 per cent in 1999 up to the 70 per cent range when we had the big inquiry on Woolworths and Coles—Fair market or market failure? So everyone knew that they were moving up towards 90 per cent over the next 10 years and nobody did anything.
The people who were on that committee will go down in history condemned by every single thinking Australian. The decision taken by that committee is already in the history books. All you people who served in this parliament should know and understand that there will be a history book written and your names will go down in it. That is the reason I resigned from the party. The history books will say that when they did this to the people I represent, I went out and sacrificed. At that stage, no independent member had ever been re-elected to this parliament. So for me, I was cold-bloodedly walking to my own open grave.
I do not come in here to gloat myself up because I started this speech by saying that I stood and watched the sugar industry and the fishing industry hacked to pieces by my party, the tobacco industry hacked to pieces by my party, and I did nothing. I continued on here enjoying my $200,000 a year salary package and jeez it was good. I got up and thundered about how terrible things were for the people in the bush and how wrong the decision was, but I still sat here and took my $200,000.
The dairy industry was just a bridge too far away for me. It was far preferable for me to walk into my open grave than it was to continue to sit in this place and betray the people I represent. I supported a party that was a free-market party and is a free-market party today. A free market means that you remove all constraints, any involvement by the public, any interference in the relationship between buyer and seller. So you can see a situation where there are two buyers in the market and 13,000 sellers and you are going to tell me that we will have a free market!
Unlike most people in this House, I did an economics course at the university. I did not complete the final year but I have done a course in economics. When I went to university, I was told that when there are two buyers and 13,000 sellers that is called an oligopoly and the price will not be determined by the market place; it will be determined by those two people. I conclude on the words of Henry Bournes Higgins, that very great Australian and founder of the Arbitration Commission: 'a contract made by one person is by definition not a contract'. I venture to suggest to this parliament that a contract made by two people is not a contract.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hunter moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Kennedy to the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (11:29): In summing up, I will deal with the two amendments to the bill and some of the issues raised by the member for Kennedy. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 amends the Primary Industries Excise (Levies) Act 1999 to facilitate the dairy industry's continued commitment to maintaining the health of the Australian dairy herd. Australian Dairy Farmers Ltd, the industry's national representative body, has requested the preparation and introduction of this bill and, as such, it should not be seen as the government proposing these changes but something being driven by industry. The responsible industry is keen to ensure that they can maintain the Australian Animal Health Council and maintain the animal health and welfare issues of the dairy herd.
This bill will also allow the dairy industry to meet the requirements of being a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Plan. The bill amends the act by increasing the maximum permitted rate the Australian Animal Health Council levies on dairy produce. The maximum rate will increase from 0.058c to 0.145c per kilogram of milk fat and 0.1385c to 0.34625c per kilogram of milk protein. There is no financial impact on the dairy producer. This bill does not increase the actual levy paid by the dairy levy payers. The current operative rates were set in 1999 and are at the maximum levels allowable under the act. This merely gives them the right, if they so wish in the future, after discussions and a proper vote by the industry, to raise the levy if they choose. The increase will enable the industry to apply for future increases to the operative rates provided under the regulation if required. This bill is important to the industry and it is important that the parliament supports the industry in its endeavour to maintain the health of the herd.
I will now discuss the two amendments. The first amendment has been moved by the shadow minister for agriculture, the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon. It is hardly even tangential to the bill; it is completely unrelated. But on the part that the government is not acting on drought, I might remind the House that one of my first actions as the Minister for Agriculture was to get a bill through to deal with drought, which involves the reallocation of tens of millions of dollars to drought affected areas and to find $10 million for water infrastructure. Today, the Prime Minister and I have announced the second iteration to deal with the effects of the drought which will provide access to a further $280 million at four per cent and bring forward the farm household allowance. People on farms will have access to a different assessment criteria, so they can maintain the dignity of their house by getting access to the social security net that should be available to any person in this nation. The assessment criteria for their on-farm net assets will increase from $1.5 million to $2.55 million, and will allow exclusion of the primary domicile, which was not in the first iteration. It will also allow them around $270,000 of off-farm assets. This shows an absolute commitment to dealing with the issues of the drought. Therefore, we will not be supporting the amendment moved by the Hon. Joel Fitzgibbon.
On the amendment moved by the Hon. Bob Katter, he did mention something that is correct, that the states deregulated not the federal government. This is once more an issue about regulation which, if properly processed, would be taken up by every state. Therefore, the government will not be supporting the amendment. To some of the other issues raised by the member for Kennedy. I believe that the dairy industry has a great future and that has been no better expressed in recent times than by the heated approach to the purchase of Warrnambool Cheese and Butter by Saputo from Murray Goulburn. They see a great future in dairying and we have seen an increase in our exports, predominantly into Asia, which in 2012-13 were worth $2.76 billion. The dairy industry does have a great future and, as Asia develops its middle-class exports of dairy products, will continue to grow.
I take some exception to the statements by the member for Kennedy regarding the approach to politics—that apparently the only way you can have an effect is to remove yourself from a political party and stand as an Independent. If he was collecting a salary before, he is still collecting it. He is collecting the same salary. I remind you that sometimes the hottest battles you can have are in the room with the people who actually make the decisions. In fact, that is the only way you can make a difference.
Dr Leigh: You've crossed the floor a few times.
Mr JOYCE: I certainly have, but I have never resigned from my party. You have never crossed the floor. You are not allowed to. In the Labor Party you are not allowed to cross the floor. They take away the right to do that. They do not believe in your freedom to actually express your views. They always believe they are the agent provocateurs, the rebels, but you always have to do exactly what you are told.
We continue to fight on behalf of the issues of people in regional areas and people in the agricultural sector. I choose to do it from where the battle can be won or lost, which is in the room with the people who actually make the decisions. I do not think it is an act of bravery to remove yourself from the field of engagement and stand on the sidelines as an Independent.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The original question was that the bill be now read a second time, to which the member for Hunter moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The member for Kennedy has moved an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'House' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Kennedy be agreed to.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question negatived, Mr Katter, Mr Palmer and Mr Wilkie voting yes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Hunter be agreed to.
Question negatived.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Third Reading
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (11:43): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:44): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014. In these bills the government is requesting that parliament approve additional expenditure of around $14.8 billion, which largely reflects the government's decisions outlined in the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Let me say from the outset that the opposition do not oppose the passage of the three appropriations bills we are debating in the parliament today. Without denying this bill being read a second time, I move:
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading the House notes that:
(1) the Government repeatedly stated before the election 'that if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer';
(2) the 2013-14 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook showed a $17 billion blow-out in the 2013-14 budget deficit, which at the time represented a $167 million budget blow-out per day since the Government took office;
(3) 60 per cent of the predicted budget blow-out in 2013-14 was due to the decisions of the Government alone;
(4) the Government has sought to pave the way for deep cuts to the federal budget by deliberately blowing out the budget and establishing its Commission of Audit; and
(5) these cuts would be another example of this Government saying one thing before the election, and doing the complete opposite after it."
What we have continually seen from this government is that they do one thing after the election having said the complete opposite before the election. We have a litany of examples: the Renewable Energy Target, jobs, taxation, cuts to health and education, and this particular case—the budget.
We had a lot of slogans from the coalition prior to the election and we still hear them today. There is one that I would like to bring up—the slogan: 'If debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer'. If more debt was not the answer, why did the government do a deal with the Greens to legislate for unlimited debt? And what about the issue of this budget emergency? We heard, saw and read an awful lot about that from the coalition prior to the election, but when we actually saw the Abbott government's MYEFO last year, the first budget document to be published under the new government, we saw a nearly $17-billion budget blow-out for 2013-14, more than a 50 per cent increase in the budget deficit, 60 per cent of which was due to decisions of this government. And that blow-out, with a deficit of $30 billion to $47 billion, represented a huge amount every day—$160 million per day.
The component of the budget deficit that did not represent increased expenditure was as a result, largely, of changes in assumptions. We learned yesterday morning from the Secretary of the Department of Finance, David Tune, when he spoke to Senate estimates, that the estimates in MYEFO had dropped the former Labor government's fiscal rules which limited real spending growth. Mr Tune confirmed to Senate estimates that this change in assumptions increased MYEFO's projections for the size of the budget debt over the decade to 2023-24.
So what MYEFO did was to deceitfully change the rules and then claim, lo and behold, to uncover a $667-billion debt figure. These politically biased assumptions had the effect of pumping up the debt and deficit projections—pumping them up markedly. The independent Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook clearly shows that, on the former government's policy settings, the medium-term projection had the underlying cash surplus growing after the forward estimates and reaching one per cent of GDP in 2020-21. Net debt was projected to return to zero in 2023-24.
That figure of a surplus of one per cent of GDP in 2020-21 is an important figure because we know that the terms of the National Commission of Audit were a requirement that the commission:
… make recommendations to achieve savings sufficient to deliver a surplus of one per cent of GDP prior to 2023-24.
But if you do not make the $9-billion grant to the Reserve Bank, if you do not give $700 million to multinational firms through tax loopholes, and if you do not relax the fiscal rules, you have got that surplus of one per cent of GDP happening in 2020-21. That surplus is there in the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
There have been a lot of games played with the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook. These are games, ironically, which were played by a party that PEFO into place. After the 1996 election then Treasurer Costello put in place a Charter of Budget Honesty. That charter required the secretaries of Treasury and Finance to prepare a Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, PEFO, that ensured, as Treasurer Costello put it at the time:
That the Australian people know the situation before an election begins and so that elections can be conducted on the basis of facts and not on the basis of deceit, as governments in the past have sought to do.
PEFO was the fiscal equivalent of Mortein for spiders in the closet—it made it impossible for a new government to claim that, lo and behold, the state of the books were not what had been represented, because what PEFO does is ensure that the independent secretaries of Treasury and Finance sit down during the election campaign and set out the state of the books. The spider-free economy that the government took on had an economy with solid growth, unemployment low by historical standards and gross debt projected to peak at $370 billion in 2016-17. That is the spider-free economy that the Treasurer took on. That was underpinned by strong economic growth during Labor's time in office.
When Labor took office, our economy was the 15th largest in the world; when Labor left office our economy was the 12th largest in the world. In terms of income per person, we did better yet: we rose from 17th in the world when Labor took office to eighth in the world when Labor left office. In terms of infrastructure spending we did better still. As the member for Grayndler has articulately pointed out on numerous occasions, when we took office we were ranked worse than 20th in the OECD; in 2012 and 2013 we were ranked first by the OECD for our infrastructure investment. We also continued to benefit Australians in other ways. Lower interest rates for someone with a $300,000 mortgage meant a saving of over $100 a week. We made a series of tough decisions in our budget. In fact, I warrant that Labor's final budget not only will be the only budget in Australian history to have achieved a reduction in nominal spending, but also will keep that record. I find it very hard to imagine that another government will succeed in doing that. That was done in ways that ensured that, if spending had to be addressed, it was done in the fairest possible way and in a way that did not hit jobs.
When we cracked down on multinational profit shifting, we saved taxpayers billions of dollars. When we means tested the private health insurance rebate, we did so in a way that ensured it did not include those with the greatest means in the community. Those opposite foresaw doom: they said that private health insurance take-up would plummet as a result of the means testing, but the data has given a lie to that claim. When we means tested and restricted the baby bonus to second and subsequent children, the now Treasurer said it was like China's one-child policy. He gives speeches about the age of entitlement, but when Labor came to put in place modest savings measures to ensure that savings were made in a way that shared the burden fairly across the community, all the member for North Sydney could do was to run scare campaigns—big speeches in London; scare campaigns in Australia.
The decisions the government is making are decisions that are going to assist the most affluent and imperil jobs. This is the first Treasurer to knock back a foreign investment bid by a US company, which potentially imperils jobs in Australia. The Treasurer's decision to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank is bewildering, given that we have no evidence that the Reserve Bank asked for such a grant; and the Treasurer is defying a Senate order to produce the documentation that would support that. The Treasurer says that the reason he needed to give $9 billion to the Reserve Bank was that Labor had taken a larger dividend from the bank than was appropriate. Again, the data gives lie to that claim. Adjusting for inflation, the Howard government took $3 billion a year from the Reserve Bank and Labor $1½ billion a year. So, what Labor took from the Reserve Bank was half in real terms what the coalition, when in office, took from the bank. Of course, we know why the Treasurer has gifted $9 billion to the Reserve Bank; he wants the 2013-14 budget to be someone else's problem. He is like a coach who takes over the job a quarter of the way into the season and wants to be able to blame a whole set of decisions on his predecessor.
This is a man who has not made the transition into government. Like the Prime Minister, the Treasurer is the shadow Treasurer in drag. He is a man who is still out there attacking the economy, when he should be fighting for jobs. He is happy to come in here and play a game of high stakes poker with Holden, but when he loses he wants to blame that on someone else. At the same time he is making decisions which will cost the budget still further. Take the parental leave scheme, which his own backbench strongly opposes, for instance. Alex Hawke, the member for Mitchell, is the most articulate critic of the parental leave scheme on the other side. He argues, not unreasonably, that a scheme that gives $75,000 to a millionaire family to have a baby is probably a scheme that is pretty hard to justify to the average family when they are having their schoolkids bonus taken away. What were the talking points when the coalition was putting this gold-plated, diamond-encrusted parental leave scheme in place? They told us that it was appropriate to have such a generous scheme, because it was an entitlement. That is why we had to support it—because wage replacement parental leave paid for by the taxpayer was an entitlement. So much for the end of the age of entitlement! I think the age of entitlement is just getting going for those millionaire families. And it is just getting going if you are a mining billionaire: you are going to see a very generous tax cut under this government—something in the order of $4 billion under the forward estimates is forecast by this Treasurer to be lost when the mining tax is repealed.
For the no-surprises, no-excuses government that the Australian people were promised, they are seeing something entirely different. The Prime Minister—who said there would be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to the pension or to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS—is now facing off with the Treasurer who says that all options are on the table. Last Friday we heard reports that the Treasurer was flagging changes to Medicare, education and the pension age. Despite the fact that he spent an election campaign clutching a Our Plan–Real Solutions for all Australians pamphlet—which says on page 49 that the government would be more accountable to the Australian public—we now have a Commission of Audit, which has been sitting on the Treasurer's desk since Valentine's Day. If it had been a bunch of roses it would be a little the worse for wear by now. The roses that I purchased for my wife on Valentine's Day have had to be consigned to the dustbin.
But the Treasurer has apparently been more interested in other reading. We have seen in recent media reports that he is halfway through a new biography of Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps while he is reading Margaret Thatcher's biography he could share with the Australian people the Commission of Audit report. Of course, that is what the Howard government did when they commissioned a commission of audit report. They had a commission of audit that was independent and which released its report to the Australian public at the same time as it did so to the Treasurer. But this is a government which is even more secretive than the Howard government, which, let's face it, did not set many international records for its commitment to transparency and openness. The Treasurer said that he would release the Commission of Audit report sooner rather than later. Well, Treasurer, the clock is ticking. This is, of course, the Treasurer who said he would give us a budget update in his first 100 days in office and failed to meet that deadline. So he clearly has form. That is right: MYEFO—not delivered in the first 100 days.
We hear a lot from those opposite about the state that Labor left the budget in. But the state in which they claim they received it is not what Peter Costello would have said. Peter Costello would have said: 'If you want to know the state of the books when you took over, look at PEFO.' Joe Hockey and Mathias Cormann want you to look to MYEFO, a document delivered more than three months into the Abbott government.
When Labor left office, as independently verified by the Pre-Election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, there was to be a surplus in 2016-17. Labor had deficits across the forward estimates of $54.6 billion. But, by the time we got to MYEFO, those cumulative deficits over the forwards had more than doubled, to $123 billion. We saw, from the PEFO to MYEFO, Labor having net debt at zero by 2023-24 but, once the Abbott government had put in place their changes in expenditure which we are debating today, and their shonky changes to the fiscal rules, net debt by 2023-24 was projected to be 14.3 per cent of GDP. So the fact is: Labor had the budget heading into surplus in 2016-17 and to zero net debt in a decade; this government, by decisions totally of its own accord, has blown that out of the water.
This debate is occurring in a broader context, and it is absolutely critical to recognise that context, which is that the government is trying to pretend that Australia is a different country from that which it is. The social services minister, Kevin Andrews, has been found by the ABC Fact Check unit to be false in his claims that Australia's welfare system is not sustainable and in suggesting that there is a European-style fiscal crunch coming within a decade.
The simple fact is that, when we look at how Australia compares with other countries and at the size of government in Australia, Australia is a relatively low-taxing country. Do not take my word for that. In 2006, then Treasurer Peter Costello—I cannot quite believe I am quoting him twice in this speech, but there you go; even a stopped clock is right twice a day—requested a run-down on how our tax system compared with those of other countries. The report, which was co-authored by Peter Hendy, now the member for Eden-Monaro, concluded simply:
… Australia is a low-tax country.
That report pointed out that we do not have wealth, estate, inheritance or gift taxes. It found that, for individuals, we have one of the lowest income-tax burdens in the developed world. Since then, federal Labor has delivered significant personal income tax cuts. When Peter Costello was describing Australia as a low-tax country, the federal tax to GDP ratio was 24 per cent. After six years of Labor, that ratio had fallen to 23 per cent. Add in state and local governments, and the tax ratio is around 33 per cent of national income. To put that in perspective, New Zealand and the United Kingdom currently have a tax take that exceeds 40 per cent of GDP, and they have conservative governments in charge.
So let us see this for what it is: the size of our government is much more similar to those of Korea or the United States, not, as ideologues on the right would have you believe, in the league of Finland and Switzerland. So, when this government attacks expenditure, and when it says that it is unsustainable to have a schoolkids bonus, to have income support payments, or to ensure that low-income earners get a fair deal on their superannuation and do not pay a higher tax rate on super than they pay on wages, then you are listening to an ideological agenda. When the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, describes DisabilityCare as 'reckless', he is striking fear into the hearts of thousands of Australians with a disability.
This government has engaged in backflips on school funding and backflips on debt. This is, after all, a government that went from holding press conferences in front of a debt truck to striking a deal with the Greens for uncapped debt. It is hard to tell whether BA Santamaria, Friedrich Hayek or the Marx Brothers are in charge. And you do not need to take it from me. Peter Costello—
Mr McCormack: Three times!
Dr LEIGH: It's three times the cock has crowed, isn't it! Peter Costello famously replied, when asked if he had endorsed Tony Abbott, 'Oh, not on economic matters.' And he was said, in private, to describe the Prime Minister as economically illiterate. His former employer, John Hewson, has covered off the other side of the basic skills test by describing the Prime Minister as innumerate. This is a government which needs to recognise the broad context in which it sits—which needs to recognise a report from the mid-2000s which describes Australia as a low-tax, low-spending nation.
The vital debate in Australia at the moment is over productivity and jobs. If you are serious about jobs, you have to get the short-term settings right and the long-term settings right. In the short term it is absolutely vital that we do not withdraw demand from the economy at a time when employment is fragile. This is a government that came to office with a target to generate a million jobs in five years, yet since it won office we have seen very modest growth in part-time jobs but backsliding in full-time jobs; 63,000 full-time jobs lost since this government came to office. So the net result is 7,000 net jobs gone. That million jobs target is slipping away by the day. Partly that is because—and I am sure the minister at the table may have something to say about this—this is a government that said no to foreign investment in GrainCorp, said no to foreign investment that would have generated jobs in the rural sector.
Mr McCormack interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): The parliamentary secretary can have a go later if he likes.
Dr LEIGH: Did I just promote the parliamentary secretary? He can make a personal explanation later. This is a government which is withdrawing regional jobs as it closes ATO offices. A government which is serious about jobs ought not to be firing Public Servants left, right and centre, particularly not as the growth in public sector employment under Labor was slower than the population growth. The growth in the number of Public Servants was smaller than the growth in population. Most public services are deployed on the basis that you need a certain number of people to look after the population, whether that is the hardworking Public Servants in the Centrelink offices, Family Assistance offices or Medicare offices. Anyone who argues that Australia has a bloated public employment problem ought to say that doubly of the Howard government, which had more Public Servants per capita than we have today.
So in the short term the government is withdrawing demand and it is cutting jobs at a fragile time for the economy. But it is the long term that worries me even more. In the long term if you want to sustain employment you need to make the investments in skills and in infrastructure. You need to make the investments in the National Broadband Network and in urban rail, both of which this government is walking away from. Having breached their solemn pledge to the Australian people to deliver 25 megabits a second to Australians by 2016, they have now said that, disappointingly, that that is impossible to deliver on. Having said that he wants to be the infrastructure Prime Minister, the Prime Minister has now backed away from Infrastructure Australia, a process designed to put infrastructure decisions at arm's length. And he is being criticised by members of the business community for being unwilling to fund urban public transport, something which is fundamental to city productivity.
Then there is what they are doing on education. You need investment in great schools if you are to build the jobs of the future. This is where Labor said, 'We're going to strike a deal with states where we put in $2 of federal funds and the states guarantee a dollar for federal funds.' This government's funding deal is, 'We'll put in $2 of federal funds and if you want to take out your funds at the same time, feel free.' That is a very different deal to the unity ticket that Australians were promised on school funding and it is fundamental to Australia's economic prosperity. We cannot be a high-skill, productive nation in the future if we are slashing into schools, if we are getting rid of trades training centres and if, as this education minister has suggested, we walk away from the demand-driven model which has allowed children first in their family to attend university and which has benefited particularly rural and regional students.
These hits to Australia's productivity and to our short-term growth prospects are deeply disturbing. We need the government that we were promised before the election, a government of no surprises and no excuses that takes responsibility, steps up to the plate as an adult government and is willing to make the decisions that the Australian economy demands.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Snowdon: I second the amendment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is now that the amendment be agreed to.
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:12): I welcome this opportunity. It was a very interesting contribution by the shadow minister today because it seems so surreal that the realities of the past two terms of government have been glossed over so completely. Every budget that has been delivered by the previous two Labor governments, the Gillard government and the Rudd government, has been shown to be inaccurate with regard to its figures. The assumptions must have been wrong on so many occasions, because in every case none of what the Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said has been proved to be even moderately accurate. There was no surplus in that first budget. The money was left over from the Costello-Howard years but it was gone very quickly after that. Then the much-vaunted return to surplus that was promised on hundreds of occasions and that the last member for Lindsay ultimately proclaimed was already reality just before he lost his seat, on all those occasions it was clearly shown that what Labor did with the budget could never be relied upon and was never accurate.
Now, when we are faced with the reality of what the figures were and the reality of what must occur in the future, we see across the forward estimates $123 billion of accumulated deficit and—if we do nothing, if we just let it carry on according to the Labor Party's plan—$660 billion of debt over the next 10 years. When I look around this country and I meet the people of my electorate, I think to myself, 'If we are doing the right thing, if we accept responsibility, we have to do something now about the budget situation that was left to us, the $660 billion.' I see young children in the gallery today. It is not right that today's generation leave that debt on them. If we are talking about $667 billion, that is something we need to do something about, because it might not be them; it could be their children as well. So it is time for responsibility and it is time for someone to act. Fortunately, under the leadership of the Hon. Tony Abbott and under Treasurer Joe Hockey, we are back on the road.
We hear from the other side talk about Holden that is fanciful as well. It is so effective to gloss over the demise of Mitsubishi and Ford, and so convenient for the Labor Party to just disregard what General Motors said from Detroit. General Motors said that nothing could have been done. Nothing was going to change their minds about stopping production of Holdens in Australia. In the end, they could not export enough, and not enough Australians bought their cars. This is where we have come to. These are the sorts of problems that have faced manufacturing in Australia. And we are, sadly, at this point.
The main reason I wanted to speak today was to talk about the boats, the illegal arrivals. I talk about that because it was the main issue in my electorate, and it was for a long time. It was not just something that happened in the move up to the last election or the election before that; it is something that has been on people's minds for a long while in my electorate. It is not out of a sense of fear, as the Left so often say. 'Fear', 'demonisation'—they throw these words out. They even throw out the word 'racism' to try and make the people of this country feel that they are doing the wrong thing by questioning what was going on over the past six years.
It is so unfair to do that, because I do not see a whole lot of racism in this country at all. I see people who want a fair go for the refugees who are out there in this world behind the barbed wire. That is what Australians want. That is what people in my electorate want. They do not say: 'Let's have no refugees. Stuff them all.' They do not say that. They say: 'Who is most deserving? Who is going to work well and get the most out of living in this country if we give them the opportunity?' That should always be our focus. It should always be about that fair go for people who are out there in the world, stuck behind barbed wire without two dollars to rub together.
Then you contrast that with those who come by boat—yes, they want a better life; there is no doubt about it. Although they do not come at all anymore. We are getting up towards 70 days since a boat has arrived, so obviously the minister, the system and the policies of the government are working well. I completely endorse the minister in everything he is doing. But the reality is that there were a lot of people coming in the past. As we know, 50,000 arrived on over 800 boats under the failed border policies of the previous government.
I compare those in refugee camps like those along the Burma-Thailand border, such as the Mae La camp. I have been there. I have seen the little kids, not quite in rags but not flashily dressed or anything like that. I compare them and their need to those who come by boat.
When we think about people coming by boat, let us keep in mind that it is not just by boat. No-one hops on a boat out of Kabul harbour, because there is no harbour in Kabul. There is no water. There is no way you could get on a boat, so they have to cross a border. And people do not actually come by boat from Iran or from Lebanon. People do not come by boat all the way from Lebanon. We have heard those stories—stories of tragedy, yes—where family members have unfortunately lost their lives at sea. It is a great tragedy. But I remember seeing—I think it was on an ABC program—the lone survivor of a family who all lost their lives at sea trying to get to Australia. He described how they were all on an Emirates flight out of Lebanon or Dubai, and they had the whole row. I have trouble reconciling that with the desperate need that we so often hear about from the Greens, those pretenders like Senator Hanson-Young—disgrace that she is to this country. I find it hard to think about people getting off a plane in Dubai and passing the duty-free stores—their apparently desperate need to go through a terminal—compared to those who are stuck in a refugee camp.
It is about priorities, and it is about time that we got back to the position we are in now, whereby we can clear the backlog of those who were left behind to us and then work on making sure that those who are in the greatest need and who are going to thrive in this country are the ones we work to get into this country. That is the compassionate approach, and it is not the encouragement of the recklessness of risking lives at sea that so many on the Left, particularly the Greens and some on the other side of this parliament, pursue. I think that Australians really need to realise—and I think that just about everybody does, and that is great—that there is a difference between those in true need and those whose circumstances are such that, while it might be desirable to come here, they are nowhere near as desperate or in need as those behind the refugee camp wire.
I want to take exception to the ABC program Behind the News. In 2012 they aired a program where they talked about the success of a young refugee who had come from Afghanistan. Obviously, he had been successful in going to high school. In one of the graphics that they were showing to primary school students they demonstrated the way he came to Australia. I do not expect anyone here in the chamber to be able to see this document, but it describes a hatched route that goes from Afghanistan, down through Pakistan, probably through Karachi, and then it has got the route, with a boat on it, going down the west side of India. Clearly, that is a fabrication because we know that people come from there through Malaysia or Indonesia by aircraft. No boats go down that way. So it is sad when the ABC attempts to mislead primary school students with fabrications.
Again, because encouragement of this sort of inaccurate information can eventually flow through to public opinion, it comes back to those who are most in need being put aside in favour of those who can afford to pay to bypass existing systems. It leaves people in refugee camps for longer and that is a disgrace and a tragedy.
Again, I am not saying that those who want to come to Australia and who try to come by boat are not in difficult circumstances. I am sure that none of us would choose to live in some of those places. However, the reality is that our duty should be, first and foremost, to those in most need and those who I have mentioned.
It is a good thing that the government and the minister have been so effective in curtailing the arrival of people by boat. Again, it comes back to the priorities of those who are most in need and also the protection of people's lives, to ensure that no more people drown at sea, as happened under the last government—1,100 people.
We certainly want to stop the waste of taxpayers' money, the $6.6 billion, that was spent on the failed border protection policies of the former government. We certainly want to stop that. There is also a great benefit for our neighbour Indonesia, so they do not have as many people coming into their country, trying to stage there before they get on a boat. Obviously, the success of this policy is good for Australia and good for our neighbours. It is also good for those people who try to come here, whether through the right way or by boat. Again, I applaud the minister.
Of course, I can understand why the Greens and the opposition are so unhappy about this situation. Firstly, the Greens are a disgrace and counterproductive to the best interests of this country and even those people who they seek to speak on behalf of. They truly are a disgrace and it is such a shame that they get any votes. I also think that they are hypocritical. They had nothing to say when people were drowning at sea under the policies that they were supporting of the last government. They had nothing to say at all about that but are more than happy to arc up and talk about the tragic death of the asylum seeker on Manus Island.
I really question the motivation of opposition senator Senator Lines, who described the immigration minister as 'a person with blood on his hands'. I am sure that Senator Lines in previous capacities never spoke at all on the previous deaths at sea. In fact, if she is so thrilled and so indignant about these matters, then I suggest to her that she resign from the Senate and run against me in the electorate of Cowan at the next federal election. I would welcome her pursuing these matters in an election for the lower house. I invite her and encourage her to do that. However, she has probably spent a lot of time working through the factions to try to parachute into the Senate position that she got. I am sure she will not take up that offer. In any case, in the 15 seconds I have remaining, can I say that I fully and utterly endorse the policies of our government and the success of the minister. It is a compassionate response, the correct response and the best thing for refugees in our region. (Time expired)
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:27): This is the first opportunity since the coalition government were elected for them to present to the House bills concerning money supply: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-14 and cognate bills. It is very disappointing indeed because, in the bills before the House, we see that the government said one thing before the election and did the complete opposite immediately thereafter. We were promised no surprises and no excuses, but the bill before the House today provides plenty of surprises. The Prime Minister, on the eve of the election, said that there would be:
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.
Those are not my words but the words of the Prime Minister, the then Leader of the Opposition. Yet we saw the Treasurer on numerous occasions, after he was sworn into government, saying almost the complete opposite:
All options are on the table.
Those are his words, not mine. Nothing will be spared the devastation of their cuts to public services and benefits to ordinary Australians.
We see already $13.2 million worth of cuts to the health portfolio, $11.5 million of cuts to multicultural programs, and $4.8 million in cuts to education programs. 'There will be no cuts to these programs' were not our words or our guarantees before the election; they were the government's. All these cuts were in no way flagged by the coalition. In fact, they specifically promised that they would be left alone. Far from there being no surprises and no excuses; they are a government full of excuses, full of secrecy, full of surprises.
When you have a look at what is before the House today and compare it to what Labor presented, as we were required to present through the charter of budget honesty, you see a yawning gap. Before the election, in compliance with the charter of budget honesty, Labor had the budget going back into surplus in 2016-17—a surplus of $4.2 billion that year in fact. These were independently audited and produced documents. Now we see a deficit of $17.7 billion by this government and deficits totalling $54.6 billion in the government's forward estimates. What has happened? What is the difference? The difference is decisions the government has chosen to make—and here is where you see their values on display. One of their first acts was to give an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. We all want to see the Reserve Bank of Australia having the liquidity to manage our finances in conformance within its mandate but those opposite are complaining that they do not have the dough to do the normal things that we need our government to do.
What else have the government done? We have seen tax cuts for the big end of town and tax hikes for the rest of us. If you want a tax cut in this country, you had better make sure you own a mining company, because you will get a tax cut and your own special bill before parliament. But, if you are the rest of us, it will be a tax hike. Anyone earning less than $38,000 a year, it will surprise people in the House today, will get a tax increase; that displays the values of those opposite. Who are they governing for? Clearly, it is the big end of town.
This has been a pretty sad week for people looking for work. It has been a pretty sad week for people in work. Yesterday we saw the news that the government is now contemplating axing the Aussie jobs act. The Australian Jobs Act was part of Labor's job creation and job protection policy when it was in government. It had at its centre a very simple proposition. If you are coming to government, state or federal, with a proposition to invest in a major resource development project in this country or if you are coming to government and you are proposing to take a contract for government for a major piece of public works, then we ask you to put in place a plan to ensure that Australian businesses employing Australian workers get a fair chop at winning some of the contracts. It is a fairly simple proposition and one that I would wager most Australians would agree with. So you have got to ask yourself: why is the government contemplating axing that legislation? Who are they governing for: the big end of town or ordinary Australians?
If that is not bad enough, we find out today that the government is now seriously contemplating removing the provisions of the Qantas Sale Act. The Qantas Sale Act is an act which puts requirements upon Qantas—for example: that they have their headquarters here in Australia; that they perform maintenance, catering and other functions here in Australia. They are provisions which indirectly or directly mean that Qantas is an employer of over 30,000 Australians in Australia. It is a critical Australian company.
I heard the Prime Minister on the TV today saying the government has got no business in engaging itself in the airline industry. Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you would know that eight out of 10 airlines in the world are directly or indirectly owned by a government. The net result of the government tinkering with or doing away with the Qantas Sale Act will be to ensure that Qantas is owned by another government either through a sovereign wealth fund or through direct investment. So it has been a sad week for Australian jobs. There are Qantas jobs at risk and jobs for businesses at risk that might otherwise seek some advantage in contracting to the resources sector or to government.
This would be bad enough news in any week but it comes hot on the heels of one of the first increases in unemployment levels in this country since the GFC. Unemployment is going up; employment is going down. In fact there have been 63,000 full-time jobs lost under their watch. That is about 10,000 jobs a month, about 350 jobs a day. This is from the man who wants to be known as the man who is all about creating jobs and who is all about creating employment opportunities.
It has been a sad three months and a sad week for employment in this country. Employment is a critical issue in my electorate because we have one of the highest unemployment levels of any region throughout New South Wales, and youth unemployment is higher still at around 16.5 per cent in the Illawarra, which is well above the state average of 11.8 per cent. These people are looking to government to put in place programs and policies which will help them find their way into a job and, if they have a job, ensure that it is a good, secure job so that they can provide for themselves, their family and their future.
We know that the best chance of getting a decent job is having a good education—which is why the cuts to the education budget are so tragic. In government we put in place the trade training centre program. We funded over 510 trade training centres in schools around Australia. More than 60 per cent of these were in regional areas. There were eight in my electorate. They were well received by all sides of politics.
What is the benefit of a trade training centre? We know that not every kid who goes to school will go on to university but, through a trade training centre in their school, they get the opportunity to get a head start in a trade qualification while they are still at school. So you have to ask yourself: what is going through the head of a government when you see unemployment going up and youth unemployment going up? I know: 'What we will do is rip the guts out of the money which is providing the next generation of kids an opportunity to get a start in life, to get a trade.'
The government simply do not get it. If you want help from this government you had better make sure you are producing Freddo frogs or that you own a mining company. But, if you are like the rest of us, you can go beggar. A billion dollars has been ripped out of the education program—and that is simply not good enough.
I want to talk about a couple of other programs. This was an opportunity for the government to say, 'There are critical support programs for people suffering disadvantages throughout the country, and they rely on these programs to help them back into the workforce or to get their lives back on track.' This was an opportunity for the government to say to the service providers and to the people relying on those services: 'You do not have to worry; you are going to be spared the axe. We are going to cut the hell out of government benefits, services and programs, but those of you in these critical programs that help people into work and help them get their lives back on track, do not have to worry. You do not have to panic; we are going to spare you the savage act of slashing your programs.' That opportunity has not been taken up by the government.
Two programs that are of critical importance in my electorate are the Better Futures program and the Youth Connections program. The Better Futures program was put in place by the former government, identifying 10 local government areas throughout the country for intensive work with long-term unemployed or people at risk of being long-term unemployed—particularly single mums—to help them get their lives back on track and find their way back into work. We have had a lot of success with these programs, getting people into the retail industry and the aged-care sector—for some of these people, it is the first job they have ever had—and helping them to get their lives back on track. You would have to say that that is a good investment and you would have to ask: 'Why hasn't the government taken the opportunity to confirm this program and say that it will continue?' The exact opposite is the case.
Over $850,000 worth of programs were promised and budgeted for under the Better Futures program, including the Skills and Networks for Job Seekers project at the WEA Illawarra—an innovative project connecting young people and long-term unemployed people with local businesses and helping them into a job. It has been axed. The Future Education and Care project run by Illawarra Area Child Care provided flexible care hours to help parents get back into the workforce. Why is that important? We know that when people are getting back into the workforce they might be working shift work. Perhaps they are working a night packing job in the retail sector or perhaps they are working in the aged-care sector doing early morning shifts and late night shifts as a pathway back into employment. If they are a single mum, who is looking after their kids when they are getting back into the workforce?
This program was set up to ensure that we had child care available for those people who did not have access to it while going back to work. It was very innovative and had the support of the entire community. Employers loved it. Funding for the program has not been continued, and they are in limbo. These appropriation bills were an opportunity for the government to say: 'We think that is a good program. It was not our idea. It was not put in place under our watch, but there is no monopoly on a good idea and we will continue this program.'
I could go on about other programs. There is the $7½ million Home of Soccer project, which I am a strong advocate for. There was an opportunity in these appropriation bills to confirm the money for that, but it did not happen. The $50 million to get the Maldon-Dumbarton rail link up and running did not happen. This legislation before the House is a missed opportunity to do the right thing.
Mr BALDWIN (Paterson—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry) (12:43): I rise today to address Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014. The bills seek appropriation authority from parliament for the measures announced since the 2013-14 budget. In total these bills seek to appropriate $14.8 billion for government departments and agencies. When considering these bills, I think about the concerns and funding needs in my electorate of Paterson. Like all electorates, we face a range of pressing issues; however, the critical issues in my area are: funding for local roads; addressing mobile phone black spots; improving digital television reception; and employment.
Under Labor's reign, road funding in my electorate eroded. As I travel around the electorate of Paterson, from Dungog to Raymond Terrace, from Nelson Bay to Maitland, from Metford to Forster and from Gresford to Nabiac, the common concern amongst the locals is the condition of their local roads. As the elected representative for Paterson, I fought hard for and delivered real federal cash under the Howard government for local roads in Dungog, Great Lakes, Port Stephens and Maitland LGAs. The last six years of the Labor government saw little or nothing spent on local government roads in urgent need of repair.
Shortly the F3 link road, now rebranded the Hunter Expressway, will become a reality when it opens. However, I would like to remind the House that it was the coalition that committed the funding during the 2007 election campaign for the F3 link road between Seahampton and Branxton and it was the member for Hunter who said it should not be funded. I refer to the front page of the Maitland Mercury on 26 November 2007 when he said that he did not think the project was viable or doable. So it is interesting that the Labor Party finally succumbed to public pressure and funded this project.
I was particularly pleased when last year I was able to speak on the joint announcement from the New South Wales and federal governments regarding the funding for the duplication of the Tourle Street Bridge. I have got to say that there was a fair amount of lobbying of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss to earn his support. Whilst the Tourle Street Bridge is not in my electorate, it serves the people of my electorate who go from the bay to Newcastle each day or, conversely, come into the Williamtown RAAF base or Newcastle Airport from the west. Years ago the former New South Wales Labor government replaced the ageing Tourle Street two-lane bridge with another two-lane bridge. Now that was real smart, because had they built the additional two lanes on that bridge and made it four lanes at the time it would only have cost $15 million extra. Today it will cost in excess of $100 million to provide that same infrastructure. Incompetency is Labor by another name.
The same could be said for the Scone level crossing as it also received funding once the coalition government came to power. For years the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, has made much song and dance and all we have seen is money for studies. It was time for rubber to hit the road. People needed action not news articles, and now the coalition federal government has committed $45 million and the New South Wales coalition state government is offering $45 million and we will see an end to the delays there where the town gets cut in half because the coal trains are going through.
Local government road funding remains a big issue in the region. Labor neglected our region over two terms of government. I will continue to work with Dungog, Great Lakes, Port Stephens and Maitland councils to fight for better and safer roads for the area to build on the improvements that were commenced under the former Howard government.
As I said, the issues surrounding mobile telephone reception in my electorate are a major concern to my constituents. It is no secret that around the township of Paterson, from Tocal through to Vacy and Gresford, there is little or no mobile phone reception. I also know full well the issues of capacity constraint at peak tourism times around the Tomaree Peninsula and Forster Tuncurry areas. During the election the coalition announced $100 million funding to address mobile phone black spot and capacity constraint issues. I am currently working for the Paterson area to get a fair share of the $100 million national program to improve mobile coverage throughout regional Australia as part of that program, in particular the $20 million allocated to removing or reducing mobile black spots.
I put a call out to the residents of my electorate for submissions to tell me exactly where the black spots are so that I could prepare a submission. I believe my electorate of Paterson is a prime candidate for the project and I will continue to push for improved mobile phone coverage in locations with unique coverage problems such as areas with high demand for services. Recently, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Paul Fletcher, visited Paterson to see the very region that I represent. We met with the residents to discuss the mobile phone black spots in the area and let them add their voices to the discussion. I was encouraged by his visit and the frankness of the concerns raised by residents and I believe it will be enough to get the necessary funding over the line.
I also raised with the parliamentary secretary the issue of NBN towers being constructed and only carrying data services when, by simply adding voice, large areas of poor mobile phone reception would be immediately addressed. Currently three towers in my electorate have commenced construction—at Booral, Nabiac and Darawank—and these services are due to go live in the third quarter of this year. The three remaining towers at Stroud Town, Stroud North and Marshdale are due to begin construction in the second quarter of this year and go live in the third or fourth quarter. A common-sense approach would be to include voice as well as high-speed data on these and other towers.
Without a doubt digital television has been the single largest issue I have ever dealt with in my electorate. In fact, over 50 per cent of the nation's complaints about digital television emanate from the electorate of Paterson. I have spoken in this House many, many times on this issue. But I have not waited around. I have proactively sought meetings with Regional Broadcasters Australia representatives, Deborah Wright, who is also the CEO of NBN television in Newcastle and the Hunter; Steve Brown, the manager of Broadcast Engineering and Technology; and Scott Briggs from Regional Broadcasters Sydney and director of Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, to discuss digital television reception in my electorate.
We formulated a plan. It was developed and has been put forward to install new re-transmission facilities at Nerong, Wallaroo and Peppers Mountain and upgrade transmitters at Dungog and Gan Gan. This follows on from a report prepared by the ACMA in April 2013 on an earlier proposal put forward by Free TV. I have also asked for the investigation of the co-location of a new commercial broadcast re-transmitting unit at Vacy to better serve the Paterson, Vacy and Gresford District. The plan was formalised. I personally briefed the Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, on 14 November. We cannot continue with poor TV reception in my area in particular for the aged communities in my electorate. I will continue to drive this issue until it is resolved.
One of the significant items proposed for appropriation in the bills is just over $540 million for the Department of Defence for overseas operations to supplement the foreign exchange movements and for the re-appropriation of amounts between the appropriation acts aligning with Defence's current work programs. It will be put towards dealing with priority pressures that were recognised by the former Labor government in their August 2013 economic statement. This includes consolidation of Defence warehousing and fuel storage remediation by Defence to secure future efficiencies. This will have an immediate positive impact on jobs and economic activity in affected regional locations.
In the 2013 election campaign, the coalition committed to stopping the underinvestment in Defence. We understood that Australians wanted to be confident that we would invest in the future security of our nation; that we would not gamble with the security of future Australians by further reducing Defence spending like Labor had done.
One of the many reasons that I am so supportive of the RAAF Base Williamtown is due to the considerable financial and social contribution it makes to the local Hunter community. The base directly employs over 3,500 people, including support staff, and injects over $280 million in salaries alone into my region. In particular, I welcomed the introduction of the government's National Australian Defence Force Family Health Program. As I said, RAAF Base Williamtown is a major employer in my area and I believe that the families of the Australian Defence Force members who have to relocate due to postings on a regular basis are deserving of additional support of free basic medical services.
As well as being the nation's premier RAAF base, Williamtown is the home of the tactical fighter element of the Air Combat Group and the Airborne Early Warning and Control element of Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group. It will also house of the planned F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning aircraft. Over the next 10 years, the government will invest $219 million for the Williamtown Redevelopment stage 2, with a time frame between 2014 and 2019 and $679 million for new air combat capability works and $200 million for runway extensions.
This is a welcome investment as unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, is a crippling issue in my electorate—especially with the downturns in the mining and manufacturing industries and the closure of many companies, in part due to the destructive carbon tax. The former Rudd-Gillard government cut almost $30 billion out of Defence through broken promises, deferments, delays and cancellations. We cannot expect our Defence Force continually to do more with less and maintain our national security at a high level. The coalition is committed to rebuilding a Defence Force that is properly resourced, equipped and managed after six long years of talk, decline and underinvestment by Labor.
The other significant item proposed for appropriation in the bill is just over $1.1 billion for the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, particularly including amounts for offshore asylum processing. This bill allocates funding for offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals and to address the backlog of illegal maritime arrivals. Funding for more effective border protection arrangements will support a continued reduction in the number of people taking the perilous risk of ocean crossings.
In 2013, the coalition government made an election promise to establish a comprehensive regional deterrence framework with our neighbours to stop any asylum seekers transiting through our region in an attempt to gain illegal entry to Australia. Unlike the former Labor government, the coalition believes that an effective regional solution must have a single-minded focus on deterrence, preventing secondary movement of asylum seekers into our region. Labor's focus was processing and resettlement of those coming into the region and seeking to enter Australia illegally, not on deterring their arrival in the first place.
The previous government also only ever intended to send one in six arrivals offshore. In the economic statement in August last year, they budgeted to send one in six. The rest were to come to Australia and be released into the community on bridging visas or placed in held detention. In practice, they did just that: they only sent one in six arrivals offshore. They did not even provision adequately for the one in six. Contracts expired at the end of January this year. There was no money for 2013-14 year; the money ran out in January. The former Labor government left the Australian people with an enormous funding black hole. And they have the hide to stand up here and complain about conditions in camps.
This black hole would have been bigger, but the policies that the coalition government is putting into place are working and arrivals have reduced by more than 80 per cent since the election—and more recently have stopped. The coalition is fixing up an illegal arrival problem that Labor solely created: there were no arrivals before the election in 2007. This problem is one solely of Labor's making.
Now we need to address their funding black hole on offshore processing. The coalition will stop the boats by implementing our full range of policies, including ensuring that offshore processing is run properly—not the half-hearted attempt and misleading version Labor left the Australian people. Under the coalition, we have committed the funding to ensure that all those who seek to enter Australia illegally by boat will go to Nauru or Manus Island, with no exceptions. No exceptions.
Under Operation Sovereign Borders, the government is more than doubling the capacity of offshore processing at Nauru and Manus Island, reversing underfunding and undercapacity left by the previous incompetent government. The previous Labor government restored offshore processing in name only. It takes more than a press conference, a few flags and a signing ceremony to actually stop the boats.
The former Labor government left us with a big mess and a massive debt. They recklessly overspent and underplanned. So now the coalition needs to balance the books and spend a little more realistically. I pledge my support for the bills, but these bills have come about in large part because of the mismanagement of the former Labor government.
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (12:58): I rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2013-2014, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2013-2014 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014.
I have spoken in this House about the many workers at Toyota and Holden in Port Melbourne, in my electorate, who have suffered, as a consequence of the government's goading—in the case of Holden—and negligence—in the case of Toyota—the non-continuation of the operations of those major companies.
In both cases they successfully exported tens of millions of dollars of cars to the Middle East until 2008, until the sharp rise in the Australian dollar. This country has to earn export dollars somewhere in the future after the mining boom. We will have no car manufacturing in this country, when the Australian dollar declines, as a result of this government's goading and negligence, as I said. That is a topic for another day.
One area that does concern me about the government's appropriations is the Prime Minister's pledge, and that of his team, before 7 September—before the election:
I offer the government bipartisan support for a responsible and timely NDIS.
After the election claims by the Treasurer were reported on 18 December in The Australian:
THE National Disability Insurance Scheme has already been hit by a "massive blowout'' in costs and will have to be made more efficient, Joe Hockey says.
This was not said before the election. Before the election we also had similar claims about education. Thankfully, we have seen the government retreat from those.
Let me turn to some of the specific areas of appropriation in my electorate. One area of interest I particularly want to focus on is the $10 million announced to transform Junction Oval as a hub for Cricket Victoria. This was designed to fund the Centre for Diversity through Cricket involving the national headquarters for women's cricket, for Indigenous cricket and for social inclusion of new migrants, including some of the very young men from the Subcontinent who have subsequently played for Australia. It was to provide training for all of them as it is becoming more and more difficult to use the MCG. In keeping with the theme of cuts, this project has been revoked and the short-sighted policy has prevailed. Junction Oval remains in a terrible state and needs investment. Local people, local cricket and national cricket, both women's and Indigenous, will all miss out.
In the arts, Creative Partnerships Australia has already closed its offices in Adelaide, Hobart and Canberra. Yesterday in Senate estimates Minister Brandis confirmed that funding for the arts in our cities and regional areas will be reduced under this government. Just how deep the cuts will be remains to be seen. I believe the minister's favourite think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has suggested cutting off funding for the arts, taking us back to the 1930s. Minister Brandis claimed that arts funding was reduced under Labor. This is untrue. Under former Ministers Crean and Burke—and I was Mr Burke's parliamentary secretary—Labor established the Creative Australia policy, the first Australian cultural policy in nearly 20 years. Creative Australia delivered $235 million in fully funded new investment in the arts on top of the $64 million announced during the policy development process. This included $75 million for the Australia Council and $69 million for other national cultural institutions.
While on the topic of ideological zealotry, it would be remiss of me not to mention the government's plan to dump section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act were introduced in response to recommendations of major inquiries, including the National Inquiry into Racist Violence and the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. These inquiries found that racial hatred and vilification caused psychological harm to their targets and reinforced other forms of discrimination and exclusion. They found that low-level behaviour like this softens the environment for more severe acts of harassment, intimidation and even violence by impliedly condoning such acts.
I have the agreement of the opposition and the government to table a complete set of complaints since the act was established in 1995. It shows complaints received and outcomes of complaints received, conciliated and withdrawn. I seek permission to table that document.
Leave granted.
Mr DANBY: The table shows that since 1995 there have been 1,656 complaints received under section 18C and of those complaints 478 were referred to conciliation and the remainder were withdrawn or terminated for a number of reasons. Only eight were required to go to court. The whole purpose of section 18C is to promote tolerance by bringing parties together to discuss the subject of their complaint and arrive at a conciliated and agreed outcome. Conciliation meetings that are resolved required the following outcomes: an apology; an agreement to remove offensive material; systemic outcomes, such as changes to policies, procedures and training of staff or individuals; or even the payment of compensation.
Similarly, the new 'freedom commissioner' Tim Wilson, another of their warriors blinded by ideology, has restated his demand for the abolition of section 18C. Strangely, it is the most effective legislative arm of the agency that he works for. I have not come across a situation like this where a public servant in an agency is calling for the abolition of the most effective work of that agency.
Fifty-three per cent of racial vilification complaints in 2012-13 were resolved by conciliation. Less than three per cent of hatred complaints proceeded to court, according to the Human Rights Commission. This small percentage of complaints referred to court illustrates that the use of section 18C under the discrimination act is not being abused. It should not be repealed. Why are we getting rid of it? What is the mindset of those in the coalition—and I am sure in this room there are people from the coalition who do not share those views?
The fervour of the coalition and their tribunes in the Murdoch echo chamber on this issue reflects an attempt to repeal what they call the Bolt laws. Section 18C reinforces pluralist Australia and complaints are resolved by a process of reconciliation. It worked well under that well-known socialist John Howard, the former Prime Minister. For the years that that socialist John Howard was in office he allowed section 18C to proceed. He saw that it was mainly a process of reconciliation and, as a person genuinely committed to pluralist Australia—
Dr Stone: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding appropriate language. I would like the speaker to withdraw the remark that he has made several times about the previous Prime Minister. I find it offensive.
Mr DANBY: I am happy to, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it was used with deep irony of course. Mr Howard was not a socialist. I was seeking to juxtapose his very tolerant views on these issues with the views of the current government.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Broadbent ): Member for Melbourne Ports, if you decide you are going to withdraw, can you use the words 'I withdraw'?
Mr DANBY: In deference to my friend the member for Murray, I am happy to withdraw. The majority in this government feel it should be abolished because the IPA feel that in the Bolt case he was treated harshly as a result of an interpretation by a judge of section 18C.
The member for Fairfax has vacated the chamber, but I want to turn to the issue of free market ideology taking over what is in the public's best interest with Australia Post. Australia Post delivers services that are essential to the citizens and businesses of Australia, yet we might see a reduction in these services and the closure of regional offices. Treasurer Hockey has not made any official statements regarding the possible sale yet, as far as I know, but we have seen Australia Post attempting to raise its bottom line by increasing the price of stamps from 60c to 70c, albeit with a 60c three-year freeze for government concession card holders. I think it will cost more to run that concession than to keep stamps at 60c. This rise, the second since 2010, has been approved by the ACCC and will affect Australian citizens and businesses from 31 March. Australia Post claims that this rise must be implemented because of losses incurred from digital communication and the steady decline in what it disparages as 'snail mail'. It is very strange for an organisation that is involved in communications between people, primarily the mail between businesses and people, disparaging its own product and calling it 'snail mail'.
Australia Post CEO, Ahmed Fahour, has stated that he has seen a loss of $218 million in regular mail delivery between 2012 and 2013. The use of regular mail is slowing down, but the express parcel business is fast growing. With an increase in digital communication, we have seen an increase in online shopping and other online services. Australia Post took over 100 per cent of StarTrack, a leading parcel and express freight service, by buying out its joint venture partner Qantas for $400 million—probably one of the few times Qantas has made some money recently. In just one year, between 2012 and 2013, StarTrack brought in a 29 per cent increase in earnings to $355 million. Australia Post's profit commensurately rose to $811.9 million last year.
The government will undeniably ignore the public's interest in maintaining regular mail services. Again, I am sure not all people here, including people from the country, will support that, but let us hope the agrarian socialists, led by the member for New England, do not sell us out on this one. Let us hope that they can twist the arms of what I see as the dominant Sydney libertarian bankers faction of this government and keep regular services that the Australian people expect, such as normal, regular mail. Australia Post is a profitable business by any measure, and the public are owed services and not just profits by people who would seek to be privatised, so perhaps executive salaries can be promoted at a level beyond even what they are at the moment. In my view, that would be a quick fix solution for the government and the problem with the budget. Inflating the 'crisis' in Australia Post while not talking about areas in which it is expanding is a poor attempt to veil what is clearly an ideological agenda about privatisation without a view to the public interest.
In the last minutes I have, let me turn to the Melbourne Grand Prix. Last year Victorian taxpayers were forced to pay billionaire promoter Bernie Ecclestone $30 million a year for his licence fee alone. The five-year contract between the grand prix and the Victorian government has cost taxpayers $170 million. The licence fee was $31 million in 2011. By 2015 it will be nearly $40 million. Ecclestone has received $55 million in fees from the Grand Prix Corporation this year. He has threatened, if the cash handout is cut, that Melbourne will lose the race. Attendance is at an all-time low. At the moment the $55 million accounts for $800 per person attending the Melbourne Grand Prix by my calculation. It would be better if the Premier of Victoria and Mr Ron Walker stood in the Bourke Street Mall and distributed hundred dollar bills to Melburnians—it would cost them less! Perhaps they could spend the money saved from the grand prix on the many problems that the Victorian government has said it is going to fix. It is outrageous that Victorian taxpayers are spending $800 per person to attend this unpopular race. If these are not good enough reasons to raise the chequered flag on the grand prix, I do not know what is.
Finally, I turn to the Australian Defence Force's participation in this private event, which, over the years, has been at various levels—$113,000 in 2013. The total contribution of the Air Force to this event has been $3,846,000. The RAAF did not participate in this event for a couple of years. I am a strong supporter of the ADF; however, I do not believe it is necessary to conduct low-flying operations over residential suburbs. My constituents hate it and I have asked the Air Force to consider that. Against my advice, it will proceed with it. It is a blatant waste of Air Force money. There are much better things it could be spent on. The F-35 could do with $3,846,000, rather than Mr Ecclestone's grand prix. He is an unsuitable person, in my view, to be in receipt of such government largesse—whether it is from the federal government indirectly via the Air Force or directly via the Victorian government—as he is about to be arraigned before a corruption trial in Germany for bribing a German banker. (Time expired)
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:13): Underlying these appropriation bills is a truism—that is, strategy without resources is an illusion. And that is an observation with great relevance to the last six years of our country's economic history. That is because our economic freedom of action has been constrained by $123 billion in accumulated deficits and peak debt approaching an unprecedented trajectory to $667 billion. And all of this in just six years of Labor and Labor-Green governments. Our loss of economic freedom of action at the national level has been exacerbated in Tasmania by the double whammy of a Labor-Green government in Hobart.
During the past 16 years of Labor government in Tasmania, the size of the state budget has ballooned from $2 billion to $5 billion. And as Tasmanians head to the polling booths on 15 March, they are entitled to ask, 'How exactly has our state benefitted from this explosion in expenditure?'
Whether it is jobs, health, education or levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, Tasmania's performance lags behind every mainland state. Tasmania has by far the worst outcomes of any state in the Commonwealth. And yet when Labor came to power in Tasmania in 1998, the path to a brighter economic future had been laid out for them. Two years previously, during the 1996 federal election campaign, the coalition had initiated a joint Commonwealth-Tasmanian review into the Tasmanian economy. The result was the 1997 Nixon report, produced by Fraser government cabinet minister, the Hon. Peter Nixon AO.
Nixon's report highlighted five critical problems underpinning Tasmania's poor economic performance. These related to governance, debt, sub-optimal educational outcomes, a business environment that was unattractive to investors, and planning processes that were too complex. Nixon detailed 122 separate recommendations and he particularly highlighted the importance of ensuring that Tasmania's debt burden was kept manageable, that costs on business were kept as low as possible, that Tasmania's industry development policy was focused on the key strategic advantages of our state, and that local jobs were created to address outbound migration. After 16 years of hard Labor, Deputy Speaker, you will be disappointed to hear that the key problems retarding Tasmania's prosperity are very similar to those highlighted by the Hon. Peter Nixon AO. Less than three weeks out from the Tasmanian state election, the key problems dominating the campaign are jobs, unsustainable government debt, sub-optimal education and health outcomes, obstacles to investment, and over-regulation. Tasmania seems to have been stuck in a time warp for the last 16 years, where the Labor faces have changed but the problems have remained the same.
Interestingly, Nixon also reported that it was too easy for minority groups to use the system to oppose developments that would benefit our state. And again there is a sense of déjà vu here, with minority groups, like the Greens and activist groups, exercising a disproportionate influence on Tasmania's future. Two Tasmanian Greens party members have been ministers in the Labor cabinet these past four years, until the inevitable fake divorce a few weeks ago—but only after parliament had risen for the last time before the election was called. Tasmania has become a place where loud minorities with megaphones define much of its politics, to the detriment of the silent majority. Tasmania is in economic crisis, requiring a rescue mission. That is why we announced an Economic Growth Recovery Plan for Tasmania on 15 August last year. And that is why an entire section of the Governor-General's speech to open the 44th Parliament was devoted to Tasmania's economic recovery. It is little wonder, when you consider the performance of the Labor government during the last 16 years in Tasmania. The $5 billion budget in Tasmania is 60 per cent funded by the Commonwealth, and 54 per cent of the budget is spent on health and education—yet the state of our hospitals and the state of our economic performance is a distant last on national benchmarks.
It was with a heavy heart that I listened to Tasmania's literacy crisis being exposed on the ABC's Lateline television program on 19 February 2014. I listened to Dr Ben Jensen of the Grattan Institute, who has recently been appointed to the Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group, suggest that the literacy crisis in Tasmania could become unmanageable within the next 10 years—'unmanageable' is the word that he used. At least half of Tasmania's population cannot read or write properly—a record of neglect that constitutes a shameful Labor legacy. The latest global report card on 15-year-olds found that more than half of the state's students fell below the national baseline for maths, compared to 42 per cent nationally. Forty-seven per cent failed the minimum standard of English, compared to 36 per cent nationally. With so much money being allocated to education in Tasmania, the results clearly don't reflect that investment—despite the fact that Tasmania's teacher-to-student ratios are nine per cent higher than those on the mainland.
Just this week we were presented with a disturbing report on rising youth unemployment across the country. It was a disturbing report because many young people will now find that transition from school to work much more difficult than previous generations. It was disturbing most of all because my home state of Tasmania performed worst of all the states and territories. One in five young people in Tasmania aged 15-24 are without work: a statistic that heightens the risk of generational disadvantage, poor health outcomes, and things like homelessness. Yet on 22 December last year, the Labor Premier, Lara Giddings, was quoted in The Examiner, the main paper in Northern Tasmania, as saying, '…there will be jobs for your children. There are jobs today for your children too.' Well, where are they, Premier?
I'm not sure which parallel universe Premier Giddings is living in, but the ABS monthly unemployment reports and the youth unemployment report released just in the last week highlight just how out of touch this Premier is with reality. Her performance as Treasurer was just as bad, when you consider the crisis in Tasmania's finances. In the lead-up to the state election on 15 March, the Mid-Year Financial Update for 2013-14 revealed some appalling statistics. The underlying budget deficit was estimated to be $365.9 million. This represents a $100 million deterioration since the 2013-14 budget was prepared—Ms Giddings has clearly modelled her performance on that of the member for Lilley, who has achieved similarly appalling outcomes in the federal budget. This result has effectively blown any prospect of a return to surplus in the forward estimates, which was anticipated to be a wafer-thin $9.9 million in 2016-17—again, a Swan-like result. There is a spooky resemblance between the Labor-Green government's performance in Tasmania, and that of its federal counterpart. This is best illustrated by examining the decline in the underlying budget position since the first estimate of the current budget.
Three years ago, Labor's estimate for the 2013-14 budget was an underlying surplus of $53.4 million. That has now been revised to a massive deficit of $365.9 million, representing deterioration in the budget's underlying estimate of $419.3 million. In other words, between 2010-11 and the 2013-14 mid-year update, this Labor-Greens minority government has blown the budget by $419.3 million. That is despite the fact that they signed up to a fiscal strategy to reel in expenditure as revenues collapsed on the back of deteriorating economic performance at a national level under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd minority governments.
You may ask the question: why does this matter? Running an underlying deficit of $365.9 million in a small state like Tasmania suggests that the sustainability of ongoing operations is in peril. A fiscal deficit of $441 million represents a 30 per cent deterioration in the budget estimate, which means that the capacity of government to fund its capital expenditure is in peril. The unfunded superannuation liability in Tasmania as at 31 December last year stood at $6.173 billion—an appalling and extraordinary result.
In response to the emerging dire financial circumstances evident in the 2011-12 mid-year update, the Premier and treasurer Lara Giddings said:
… there is now no more hay left in the barn. We are living beyond our means and spending must be cut in line with our reduced income so we do not go back into net debt.
Two years later, not only is there no more hay in the barn but the barn has been burned down and the surrounding property has been sold to fund Labor's unsustainable approach to spending. Just as Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard and the member for Swan wrecked the joint federally, Premier Giddings and her Greens partners have wrecked Tasmania's economy.
In place of the damage caused by the Labor-Greens alliance in Hobart and Canberra, a different approach is needed. Tasmania is a small, sub-national, peripheral economy. While it is true that regions can change their industrial profile over time, small economies like Tasmania's are limited in achieving this due to: scope and scale challenges; labour markets, skills and investment uncertainty; and demand and supply distortions. Transition or transformation of an economy like Tasmania's cannot occur without major investment, and it happens quite slowly. Diversification in economic terms is almost always strongly linked to existing industrial structures. Transition becomes almost impossible when the very foundation for change is shut down or removed from productive capacity. For example, Labor-Greens efforts to close down native logging in Tasmania under the Tasmanian Forest Agreement is not just a political travesty but a regional development policy failure. This is what happens when unelected, self-interested groups hijack the policy process and the Labor Party allows the disproportionate policy influence of the Greens party to have its way.
A significant forest resource must be retained beyond the current lockups as the foundation for innovation and constructing competitive advantage for Tasmania. You cannot simply kill off forestry and mining, which constitute our competitive advantage, in Tasmania and purport to fill that vacuum with boutique industries like blueberries, electric cars and film making, as some Greens politicians have proposed—quite to the contrary. Innovating and connecting different but related activities in existing strong sectors of the Tasmanian economy is essential for a more prosperous future. Labor and Greens politicians in Tasmania should do some study on the concept of related variety and how that is particularly applicable to our state.
We need new business models characterised by horizontal relationships between and across sectors, not just vertical or cooperative relationships within sectors. Collaboration becomes the business model to drive the next platform of innovation for regional economies like Tasmania's that are trying to do more with less. The important role for government is in building the platforms of innovation at a regional level through a focus on related variety and collaboration.
After 16 years of stagnation under Labor, Tasmania needs a new way. It needs a majority Liberal government in Hobart with fresh ideas, empowered to drive the changes we need for a prosperous future. On 15 March, Tasmanians have an important choice to make: whether to reward Labor for its continuing failures in relation to jobs, education, health, front-line service delivery and investment or to vote for a majority Liberal government with new ideas and new vitality and finally get Tasmania off the bottom of national benchmark lists. We must do what Labor failed to do: address critical deficiencies and reset our economic course to a brighter future. I hope Tasmania seizes the opportunity for change on 15 March. I thank the House.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:28): The member for Bass just spent his entire speech railing against alliances with the Greens. I point out that before the election this government repeatedly said that, if debt is the problem, more debt is not the answer. But, after the election, what did they do? They did a deal with the Greens to legislate for an unlimited debt limit. I repeat: they entered into an unholy alliance with the Greens to legislate for an unlimited debt limit. Now they come before the House seeking approval for $14 billion in additional expenditure.
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Wills gave you the courtesy of silence.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON: What we see in this bill is the seeking of parliamentary approval for an additional $14.8 billion in 2013-14. The biggest item being sought here is $8.8 billion for the Reserve Bank, one of the largest contributors to this additional appropriation.
On Monday I said that what we need as economic objectives are things like low unemployment, low inflation, low interest rates and a balanced budget. In my view, they are more exciting objectives than growth, which is not an end in itself. The Treasurer came in, in question time, and attacked these comments about balancing the books, but what we see with this legislation is the coalition doing the exact opposite of what was suggested by its comments about a budget emergency: it is blowing out the budget deficit by nearly $17 billion.
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 honourable member for Wills will have leave to continue his remarks.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospitals
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:30): I rise today to commend the former Labor government's National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospitals, which has come to fruition today in my electorate. This morning was the official opening of the Werribee Mercy Hospital's rehabilitation centre. This $28 million COAG funded project comprises 30 specialist subacute beds, a gymnasium and a two-storey community rehabilitation centre to service Melbourne south-west. The Werribee Mercy funding was part of a $36 million injection into western suburbs hospitals, which has also funded an operating theatre at Williamstown Hospital and short-stay beds at Sunshine and Western hospitals. Unable to attend the opening this morning, I was disappointed to hear that state Minister for Health David Davis and MLC Andrew Elsbury have a press release that does not give credit where credit is due and attempts to diminish the role of the previous Labor federal government in securing this project. They are of the same stripe as the government across, causing anxiety about health funding and health costs in my electorate. Families in our region could be forced to pay $6 every time they visit their doctor if the Abbott government breaks yet another election promise and introduces a GP tax. In our community, with a bulk-billing rate of nearly 91 per cent, $6 a visit would cost local residents more than $7.5 million every year. This will hurt my community and be a further hit to the most vulnerable.
SPC Ardmona
Dr STONE (Murray) (13:31): I rise to thank Australians who have given huge support in buying Australian processed fruit, all grown in my electorate and manufactured by SPC Ardmona. Just weeks ago, the future of the last Australian fruit processor was in doubt. Fortunately, parent company Coca-Cola Amatil and the Victorian government have made a co-investment of over $100 million to help retool for new products, and our future now looks bright. But it was not just the Victorian government and Coca-Cola Amatil that saved SPC Ardmona. The Australian public got behind the last Australian fruit processor and showed that Australians really do want home-grown, Australian owned and made food. A Shepparton social media campaign started in April 2013, calling for everyone to 'toss a tin in the trolley', and Australians did, by the thousands. In January another social media campaign was started, by a concerned Australian in Newcastle, nearly 1,000 kilometres away from Shepparton and the great Goulburn and Murray Valley orchards. On Twitter, her hashtag #SPCsunday took off and gained momentum, and we had more than 20.4 million mentions of SPCA on Twitter as well as an additional 10,000 Facebook page 'likes'. The social media was overwhelming but so was the Australian public going beyond their computers, walking outside and going and buying this great Australian food. I want to commend the media as well. We thank you most sincerely. You all helped us to save this great Australian industry. (Time expired)
Twentyman, Mr Les, OAM
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:33): I commend the member for Murray for her strong advocacy for Australian manufacturing. There ought to be more of it.
Les Twentyman OAM is a youth worker who has spent a lifetime working with disadvantaged young people and street kids in some of Melbourne's toughest neighbourhoods. There is not much he has not seen. But he asked if I could help him undertake a visit to Canberra on Monday and yesterday because he wanted to drive home a message to members of parliament about the urgency and dangers of the ice epidemic. He said to me that ice is worse than heroin because it makes users paranoid and violent and therefore a real danger to their own family and to the people who love them the most. He wanted to talk about the need for outreach youth workers to give young people who are giving up on school a plan B which does not involve drugs and crime. During his visit he saw the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten; government minister Kevin Andrews; the Greens health spokesperson, Richard Di Natale; and Labor shadow minister Cathy King. He addressed the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and met with other members as well. I support Les Twentyman's call for action by the federal government to address this issue. This action should include developing a national strategy to address the ice epidemic; youth workers in our schools to assist children at risk; early intervention, diversion and rehabilitation programs; and increased resourcing and support for social and community services. We must put this issue on the agenda.
Dobell Electorate: Tuggerah Sporting Precinct
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (13:35): I am happy to announce that the government is honouring its election commitments to the people of Dobell by delivering $1 million towards the land acquisition and planning studies for the Tuggerah Sporting Precinct. Dobell is home to a strong sporting community. The people of Dobell have a passion for sport, which is evidenced in the many outstanding achievements of our sports men and women. I am committed to seeing Dobell as the sports tourism capital of New South Wales. This funding will help us realise this goal. This facility will deliver economic benefits to the Central Coast through increased tourism, sporting and recreation events and jobs. The investment has strong support from local sporting organisations. Mr Ian Robilliard, Managing Director of the Central Coast Academy of Sport, in support of this facility said:
Too often the development of sport isn't supported by a corresponding investment in sporting infrastructure. I commend the Government for their ongoing commitment to sport on the Central Coast.
Country Rugby League Infrastructure and Game Development Officer Mr Graham Boland commended the government's commitment to this much-needed sported sporting infrastructure. Graham said:
Unfortunately at the moment the area lacks a facility of this magnitude. This development will allow for large scale events and will add value to the economic, social and health benefits of the Central Coast community.
As the member for Dobell, I made a commitment to our local sports groups, and sports men and women, to put Dobell back on the map for sports tourism and provide quality sports infrastructure. I am proud that this government is delivering on its commitments.
Special Olympics Logan
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:36): On a Saturday earlier this month I was really privileged to join the team from Special Olympics Logan for their Come and Try Day at the Logan Metro Sports Centre, a fantastic purpose-built complex. It was a really important opportunity for some of the young people in our community to experience sports like indoor soccer and basketball in a friendly environment at a great facility. Judging by the smiles on everyone's faces, it was a roaring success. I want to thank and acknowledge Suzy, Gary, David and all of organisers and coaches for inviting me along and for the opportunity to meet some of the parents of some great young athletes and participants.
I also want to thank the sponsors for the prizes I was able to present along with Linus Power, the state Labor candidate for Logan. It is not every day in this job that you get to throw the sneakers on and kick the ball around or shoot some hoops, so I want to thank some of the young sportspeople, including Tim, Andrew and James, for spending some time with us and for showing us how it is done from the free-throw line in particular.
The Special Olympics movement adds a great deal to my community and to communities around the country. I formally mark their contribution by rising in this place and by paying tribute to their important work. Australians love their sport and the more people who can experience it for themselves the better.
Bruce Highway
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (13:37): I would like to inform the House that the federal government continues to pour much-needed money into improving the Bruce Highway in the City of Rockhampton. The George and Albert streets intersection on the south side of the CBD is among the latest projects to go ahead thanks to a $9.2 million contribution from the federal government. This is an extremely busy and congested intersection that sees 26,000 cars and heavy vehicles go by each day. These vehicles pass through the inner city. The scope of the work includes a new right-hand turning lane that means south-bound traffic on the Bruce Highway will no longer have to stop for traffic lights. It will make for a less acute and safer turning route for heavy vehicles. There will be other changes to local traffic flow as well and motorists will be advised of this closer to the time it occurs.
The entire project is due for completion in July this year. If all goes well, it is possible that this project may come in under budget. This is another example of the federal government fulfilling its election commitment to improve the Bruce Highway. The highway is the state's main transport corridor from Brisbane to Far North Queensland.
South East Neighbourhood Centre
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:38): On 21 February this year, I was privileged to join the South East Neighbourhood Centre for their International Mother Language Day celebration at their centre headquarters in Eastlakes. The South East Neighbourhood Centre is a wonderful volunteer organisation with a simple yet vitally important mission—to help people in our community, particularly new migrants and the elderly. The centre provides volunteer services, including community transport, in-home respite, parenting groups, out of school care and family support, language classes and health and social activities. In August last year they celebrated 35 years of service to the community. At the International Mother Language Day local representatives from the Aboriginal community, from the Spanish, Bengali, Chinese, Japanese, Afghan and Indonesian communities and from local school students came together to perform poems and dance and to speak of the development and importance of their language to their heritage and culture. It was a wonderful celebration of multiculturalism and harmony in our community. I thank and congratulate all of the volunteers, the staff and the board of the South East Neighbourhood Centre. I am proud to be associated with them.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (13:40): The ABC has again sought to slur and denigrate an honourable Australian citizen on behalf of left-wing activists. On Monday's PM program, Mark Colvin and Sarah Dingle ran a story that suggested that Dinesh Perera was an inappropriate person to hold a senior position at the Manus Island detention centre. Sarah Dingle pushed the agenda of Emily Howie, an activist with the Human Rights Law Centre, who claimed that because Mr Perera was a former citizen of Sri Lanka, and because he was a former senior officer in the Sri Lankan army, he was not an appropriate person to work in an Australian detention centre—despite item 7.7 of ABC's Code of Practice stating that it must avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning prejudice.
Ms Howie criticised Mr Perera despite her admission that she had not met him and did not know his background. It appears his greatest crime is that he is Singhalese. Not all Sri Lankan asylum seekers are Tamils; many are ethnic Muslims and Singhalese. Mr Perera is a well-educated and well-credentialed Australian citizen. To try to connect a fine professional to the sordid agenda of Ms Dingle, who is drawing a long bow, says much about our national broadcaster. Thankfully a true professional of the ABC, Chris Uhlmann, sought to add balance to this story and Dinesh Perera received some justice. This Australian citizen deserves better.
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:41): This week is DonateLife Week, Australia's national awareness week to promote organ and tissue donation. This morning I participated in Canberra's eighth annual DonateLife Week walk around the shores of beautiful Lake Burley Griffin. The walk always draws a large crowd and today was no different. Canberrans were out in force this morning, and there was a particularly strong school-student contingent. Labor was well represented at the walk. I was joined by colleagues and fellow organ and tissue donation advocates including the members for Ballarat, Isaacs and Kingston, Senator Kate Lundy, ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and many dedicated ACT ALP members and MLAs.
Organ and tissue donation saves lives. One donor can transform the lives of up to 10 people. There is a great need for organ and tissue donation in Australia with around 1,500 Australians waiting for a lifesaving transplant at any one time. The majority of Australians are willing to become organ and tissue donors. However, family consent is required for donation to take place. So it is not enough to be willing; you must talk to your family and ensure they are aware of your intentions.
Currently only 53 per cent of Australians say they know of their loved ones' intentions when it comes to organ and tissue donation—this is not enough. Every Australian family needs to ask and know their loved ones' donation decisions. So this week, have a conversation about donation with your loved ones and register your donation decision on the Australian Organ Donor Register. And thank you members for wearing the teal ribbons for Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week.
Ringwood Secondary College
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (13:43): It gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognise the significant milestone for Ringwood Secondary College in my electorate of Deakin. On 18 February, I was honoured to attend a whole college assembly to celebrate the 60th anniversary of classes at Ringwood Secondary College. In my speech to the students at that assembly, I reminded them that the outstanding reputation of the college had been built over a period of time through the hard work and dedication of countless parents, teachers and students and that all current students at Ringwood Second College had an obligation to continue that outstanding tradition by diligently applying themselves to their learning and representing the college to the best of their ability. On behalf of the government, I also thanked all of the teachers and school leaders, most particularly their outstanding principal Michael Phillips, who has ably led Ringwood Secondary College for nearly 20 years.
On a personal level, it was also special for me to attend these celebrations as both my mother and uncle attended Ringwood Secondary College. Once again, I congratulate the Ringwood Secondary College community on the occasion of their 60th anniversary and look forward to participating in further anniversary events throughout the year.
Preventative Health
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (13:44): I want to reflect on the comments of my colleague the member for Rankin and the Special Olympics Logan, and commend them for what sounds like good work. I also commend them on the fact that they have actually seen the member for Rankin shoot a basketball, because this has been a thing of myth. I have seen the member for Deakin and I have seen the member for Gellibrand do it, but I remain to be convinced about the skills of the member for Rankin.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: We will be waiting a long time. I want to talk about the importance of young people being active and getting involved in sport. The health benefits are critical and preventative health is a big focus for people across the country. Primary health care is the best way that we can see movement on this front. I remain stunned that we have a government actively considering the application of a $6 co-payment on Medicare visits. In the Chifley electorate, 99 per cent of the services provided by GPs are bulk-billed and there is an important reason for that. People in Chifley deserve the health care that they need not the health care that they can afford. The stats that came out today about the impact of that are remarkable. If the co-payment is applied, Chifley families will be forking out $8.2 million. This is unacceptable and it should be stopped.
Macquarie Electorate: Small Business
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:46): Last week, I was honoured to host the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson, in the electorate of Macquarie. Mr Billson and I addressed two round tables of small business owners, for the Hawkesbury and for the Blue Mountains. It was significant to see some key stakeholders come together, including the Hawkesbury City Chamber of Commerce, the Blaxland Chamber of Commerce, the Windsor Business Group and the Blue Mountains Accommodation and Tourism Association. These operators are key in the local economy, representing over 10,000 small businesses in my electorate. Macquarie, similar to the minister's electorate of Dunkley, is a product sector economy that is driven by small business and tourism.
Because of the recent bushfires, as many would know, small business has been hit hard and these round tables were an imperative opportunity for owners to have their concerns heard. I am committed to doing whatever I can to support small business. I have been in constant contact with the minister since the fires hit so he had a strong understanding of the concerns raised. One of the main frustrations raised by attendees at the forum is increasing red tape and compliance regulations. This is a legacy of Labor, with the former Labor government introducing 21,000 regulations.
We as a coalition are committed to removing the burden of red tape on small business and the minister spoke at length of the upcoming regulation repeal day on 26 March that will see 8,000 regulations repealed in this parliament. My thanks to all those who attended the round table and to the minister for his dedication and willingness to always listen. There is no substitute for being on the ground and seeing firsthand the day-to-day challenges for our small-business owners. We are getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead.
Gellibrand Electorate: Yarraville Festival
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:47): I recently had the pleasure of attending the 33rd annual Yarraville Festival in Melbourne’s west. The Yarraville Festival celebrates what makes us proud about the west of Melbourne. During the festival, we saw the talents of local leaders in the worlds of fashion, comedy and music on display. We also saw our local craftsmen and entrepreneurs showing off their skills at stalls throughout the festival. I was particularly pleased to see the inaugural Flik Fest, or Yarraville Film Festival, showcasing the creativity of our young filmmakers. With the theme of ‘Made Near Me’, the film festival allowed us to celebrate and reflect upon the west’s manufacturing heritage.
With the thousands of jobs lost and under threat in recent weeks in Melbourne's west, it has been a tough period for many families in my electorate. But it is during tough times that we most appreciate what it means to be a part of a community, to know that we are not just individuals but surrounded by people who care about us and are there to support us through adversity, and also to know that we can celebrate the things we love most in our life with those around us at events like the Yarraville Festival.
The Yarraville Festival is a symbol of the resilience and community spirit of Melbourne’s west, and I look forward to seeing it grow in the years to come. I would particularly like to acknowledge those who put their time and effort into organising this festival. I would like to thank the organising committee led by president Richard Moore and including Martin Zakharov, Megan Darling, Violet Browne, Brenton Burley, Karl Imke, Linda Dorj and Adam Coad for all their hours of work on this festival.
Macedonia
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (13:49): Ten years ago today, the president of the republic of Macedonia Boris Trajkovski died in a plane crash. The crash occurred in thick fog in southern Bosnia. The President is remembered as presiding over a NATO-brokered peace deal in 2001 that prevented armed clashes with ethnic Albanian guerillas, in the mountain bordering Kosovo, turning into a full-blown civil war. At the time of his death, he was highly regarded. Europe minister from the UK Denis MacShane praised the even-handed spirit of compromise he brought to the job, saying he was one of the best leaders in the western Balkans. The UK foreign secretary Jack Straw said:
Thanks to his efforts Macedonia is firmly on the path to Euro-Atlantic integration. The UK remains committed to helping Macedonia along this path.
Jack Straw made that statement in 2004. The greatest tragedy for the people of the republic of Macedonia is that Europe and NATO have not allowed the republic entry. On this the 10th anniversary of former President Trajkovski's death, it is about time Europe and NATO admitted the republic of Macedonia and I call upon them to do so.
Health Funding
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:50): I was pleased to hear the member for Chifley's comments about the $6 co-payment for visiting a GP—the $6 GP tax. His electorate has a 98.9 per cent rate of bulk-billing, the highest in the country. My electorate of Parramatta, which is next door, is not far behind that. In my electorate, 95.3 per cent of GP visits are bulk-billed. That is 1,139,000 GP visits each year that are bulk-billed. An imposition of a $6 GP tax would have a dramatic impact on many of those visits. Six dollars sounds like a small amount of money, but for many people in my electorate and those around it is not a small amount of money, particularly if your family has the flu and you turn up to the GP with your two children in tow.
In this country a person should be able to see a GP when they need to and not just when they can afford to. GP visits are particularly important because it is the first wave of contact with the medical profession. It is the place where early intervention can occur, when GPs and my local community can work to ensure that a condition does not get worse, and a $6 GP tax will only hurt my community.
Higgins Electorate: Local Sporting Champion Grants
Ms O'DWYER ( Higgins ) ( 13:51 ): Today, I am delighted to rise to congratulate the recipients of the Local Sporting Champions grants in my electorate of Higgins. These recipients have displayed excellence in their chosen discipline by representing their club, state or Australia at a national or international competition.
Athletes in my electorate who received these grants include:
Chynea Lang
,
for her participation in the 2013 Taekwondo World Championships
;
Sarah Papadimitriou
,
who participated in the School Sport Australian under
-
17 softball exchange
;
Monique Beckwith
,
who is a member of the Australian Deaflympics swimming team
;
Olivia
Keppell
,
for her excellence in canoeing displayed by her particip
ation in the Olympic Hopes tour;
Anna Philip
,
for her participation in the under
-
21 Laser Radial World Championships where she came 38th out of 91 participants
;
Noam Tidhar
,
who participated in the National Judo Championships where he came second in the junior men category
;
Lachlan Webster and George Richards
,
who were members of the Australian junior boys eight who represented Australia in the Junior World Rowing Championships where their crew placed
fif
th overall
2
Greenway Electorate: Trucking Industry
Ms ROWLAND ( Greenway ) ( 13:53 ): I rise to acknowledge the hard work of truck drivers and the role they perform in our community. I particularly note more than 1,000 professional drivers I represent in the electorate of Greenway. I congratulate the Transport Workers Union for its outstanding and ongoing work to improve safety issues for its members in the trucking industry and in particular the vehicle maintenance problems recently highlighted at Cootes Transport, which are a concern to all of us as we share the nation's roads. Nobody wants unsafe trucks on our roads, least of all the drivers who spend their working lives driving them. But right now too many in the industry are forced to choose between taking trucks off the road for important maintenance and the possibility of losing a contract or even a business.
After strong campaigning by the TWU, the Roads and Maritime Services and police raids on trucking depots in New South Wales have uncovered hundreds of instances of poorly maintained and dangerously unsafe vehicles operating on our roads. The tragic consequences of this systemic maintenance neglect are accidents like the one late last year which killed two innocent men in Sydney's northern suburbs as they drove to the beach. These men and the hundreds of people killed each year in heavy vehicle accidents are not the only victims of this systemic under-maintenance and forcing down of rates in the transport industry.
This week at Cootes hundreds of hardworking men and women, who through no fault of their own have been risking their safety in unsafe vehicles, are now facing losing their livelihoods as Cootes loses contracts. My thoughts are with these people and I congratulate the TWU for its work in making sure these people get all their entitlements. (Time expired)
PETITIONS
Pharmacy Guild of Australia
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:55): by leave—I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia—indeed, the largest petition ever tabled in the House of Representatives, with 1,210,471 signatures. I understand the previous record holder was a petition on beer prices lodged in the year 2000 with more than 700,000 signatures. What you can see here is only a small part of the total petition delivered in 22 boxes.
The petition read as follows—
To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This Petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House a recent announcement by the Federal Government, without consultation, to change the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and reduce what is paid to community pharmacy to dispense medicines. This PBS change will ultimately put at risk the viability of community pharmacies across Australia.
We therefore ask the House to take whatever action is needed to ensure that community pharmacy receives the funding support it needs to stay in business, serve patients, employ staff and remain open after hours.
from 1,210,471 citizens
Petition received.
Mrs PRENTICE: I congratulate the Pharmacy Guild on their amazing effort, which saw pharmacies all over Australia collect signatures during August and September last year and has resulted in what I believe is the largest petition ever tabled in the Commonwealth. This petition calls on the House to undertake whatever action is needed to ensure that community pharmacies receive the support they need to stay in business, provide patient care, employ staff and remain open after hours.
I can assure the Pharmacy Guild that members of parliament are acutely aware of the key role pharmacies play in our local communities. Indeed, in his address to the guild's annual dinner last November, Minister Dutton said: 'It is incredibly important for us to embrace community pharmacies while going forward. That is an agenda that is shared by the Prime Minister.'
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Bendigo Electorate: Bulk Billing
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:56): I rise to raise my concerns about the future of bulk billing and GP visits in the Bendigo electorate. Under the Howard government bulk billing in the Bendigo electorate fell to as low as 49.9 per cent in 2003. Under the former Labor government this rate went back up to 74.6 per cent. However, despite the increase in GP bulk billing rates in the Bendigo electorate, it still ranks 99th out of 150 electorates.
This is despite the fact that 30 per cent of Bendigo households live on less than $600 a week. They do not have the budget to continue to fork out for out-of-pocket medical expenses. That is why it is so important for us to have a high bulk billing rate. It is also why the proposed GP tax of $6 would be disastrous for Bendigo households. If this tax were levied on the number of GP visits we had last year, that would result in the government taking $4.5 million out of the pockets of Bendigo households. The government needs to back off Bendigo households, because our budgets are tight and we cannot afford another tax.
Forde Electorate: Community Organisations
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:57): I take this opportunity to praise the efforts of a number of community organisations in Forde. Firstly, I commend the Beenleigh Lapidary Club for last year's gem festival. I acknowledge the efforts of President Grace Pickering, Vice President Graham Solway, Secretary Lyn Jeffares, Treasurer Chris Withers and the club members for putting together a fantastic festival. It was great to catch up with them all, and I look forward to this year's event.
Secondly, I express my gratitude to our local Rosies group. In Logan, more than 180 volunteers, including schoolchildren, offer their support to our most vulnerable. I thank in particular the students of Trinity College and Waterford State School. On Thursday and Saturday nights Rosies volunteers visit locals around the Beenleigh station, offering tea, coffee and snacks in addition to moral support.
Lastly, I thank the performers in and organisers of the Beenleigh Theatre Group for their wonderful performances in our community, in particular the musical Fame. Director Christopher King has done a fantastic job, and the locals certainly enjoyed celebrating the 25th anniversary of the musical.
National Database for Missing Persons
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:59): In May 2003 Mr Ian Stanton, the son of a constituent of mine, went missing. More than 10 years later his whereabouts is still unknown. I was recently contacted by Mr Stanton's father, Norman, who is concerned with the lack of a national database for missing persons in Australia. Currently it is the role of police services in each state and territory to investigate reported cases in the jurisdiction. They each coordinate their own missing persons system with no link between. So once a missing person crosses state lines, they drop off the radar and the database on which they were first registered and it becomes increasingly difficult for authorities to investigate.
Of the estimated 350,000 people reported missing in Australia each year, I am happy to say that 95 per cent of them are found.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, I interrupt the member. The time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Given everything that the public now knows, does the Prime Minister still have full confidence in the Assistant Minister for Health?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): Yes.
Drought Assistance Package
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House what the government is doing to help Australian farmers who are suffering through crippling drought?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:01): I thank the member for Maranoa for his question. I think all members of the house for the concern that they have shown about our fellow Australians, particularly in Western Queensland and western New South Wales, who are suffering from crippling drought. I was pleased to be with the Minister for Agriculture about 10 days ago in the member for Maranoa's electorate. I was also in the member for Parkes's electorate and the member for Farrer's electorate to look at the predicament and to hear first hand what people are experiencing.
I should point out to the House that a once-in-20-year drought—let alone a once-in-a-century drought, which is what some people are experiencing— is much more akin to a natural disaster than it is to an ordinary variation in the business cycle. I want to assure country Australians, I want to assure all Australians, that this government intends to stand by people in need. We intend to stand by people in good times and in bad.
The package of measures which the minister and myself announced earlier today is, I believe, fair, fiscally responsible and builds on existing programs. That is why it is able to be implemented reasonably quickly. There are five elements to the package which the minister and I announced. The first is greater access to income support for drought affected people who have no income and who cannot sell, cannot leave and cannot borrow on the strength of their properties; greater access to concessional loans for drought-hit farmers; more assistance to state governments dealing with feral animals; more assistance to state governments to deal with water infrastructure projects; and more assistance to community groups who are dealing with people in personal crisis.
I think the Australian people get it when it comes to drought. They understand that our cities cannot live without a countryside to support them. That is why I am sure that Australians will welcome the package of measures that the minister and I announced today. Obviously, what we really need is rain. I hope and pray for rain. The government, regrettably, cannot work miracles, but we will do what we reasonably can to stand with people in trouble. My message to country people is: we will not let you down.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): On indulgence, on behalf of the opposition, I welcome the announcement of a drought assistance package. We offer our strong support for helping farmers in the face of this severe drought. We look forward to securing further details and an indication of exactly how many farm families the package is likely to assist. We appreciate and know that our farmers need help and they need his help now.
There are days and issues in this parliament where the opposition will not agree with the government, but on the issue of supporting our farmers in drought, we agree. We offer a bipartisan approach to future drought policy development. Australia's hardworking farmers deserve no less than the strong support of the entire parliament, which they have today.
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer in question time on Monday, when he said Senator Nash's chief of staff:
… was required to divest himself of a shareholding
in his wife's business.
I also refer to the Special Minister of State's statement in Senate estimates last night that Senator Nash's chief of staff was not required to divest his interest in a lobbying firm. Who has misled the parliament—the Prime Minister or the Special Minister of State?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): The short answer is: neither. I know that there is likely to be a series of questions today from members opposite on this subject, but I can assure members opposite that on this particular issue there is Labor smoke but there is no coalition fire—there is smoke without fire. I wish to make two essential points. The first is that every action that this good minister has taken is eminently defensible, and within a couple of days of issues being raised the staff member in question did the right thing and he resigned.
Drought Assistance Package
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (14:06): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Will the minister outline what new action the government is taking to support farmers and communities both in Parkes and other drought-affected areas across Australia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:07): I thank the member for Parkes, who allowed me into his electorate with the Prime Minister. It has been part of the hard work he has done over such a long period of time—and not only him, but also the member for Farrer, Susan Ley, and the member for Maranoa, Bruce Scott. I also commend the Leader of the Opposition and thank him for his support. I think issues such as this should rise above politics. It is a clear example of the Australian people who are seeing mums and dads doing it tough and are under the pump and who are saying, 'That for this issue we'll put politics aside, because we must concentrate on these people, who are such a clear reflection on who we are.'
I would also like to thank the people of the Australian cities—in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—who when they are vox-popped say that they get it; they understand quite clearly that these are people who need to be supported because they live by the vagaries of the weather. They live by the fact that for the last 18 months or two years they have had no income stream and they have no prospect of one for the next six to eight months, in many instances. Nobody else would want to see themselves in that position, where someone would say to you, 'Well, not only have we not paid you in the last 18 months, but we don't intend to pay you for at least another half a year.' You could not survive.
The question clearly pointed out some of the advantages of this and how we move things forward. I want to point out a few of them. We will be moving the assets test on what was formerly known as the Transitional Farm Family Payment to the new settings so that it goes from 1.5 to 2.55, exempting the farmhouse and also allowing off-farm assets that are comparable to what you would get under other social security packages. We will also make sure that we give the capacity to the person to earn money off farm up to the value of $80,000, providing that their interest bill is in excess of that. What you will often note, and the member for Parkes will be aware of this, is that the money from that just goes straight to the bank. We will also be making sure that people have access to a concessional rate of four per cent for a million dollars or 50 per cent of their loan, whichever is the lesser, so that we keep control of that credit and we are prudent with the finances of our nation. The advantage if someone has money at, say, eight per cent and they can refinance down to four per cent—$40,000 per million over five years that is $200,000 and that is a real advantage.
We will also be looking at mental health and we know how important those issues are. We will be re-investing in them. There are other issues such as wild dogs—people might snigger about it—but it is important. There is no point in feeding the sheep if the sheep are getting eaten by wild dogs and other animals. Water infrastructure is also vitally important. I commend the work that has been done by so many and I thank the Prime Minister for his support.
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:10): My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the requirements to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in doing so'. Who has misled the parliament—the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister there is an assumption in that question that there has been a misleading of the parliament. That is out of order. You may rephrase your question.
An opposition member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There are other forums of the House in which you can make those sorts of allegations.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on two points of order: in the first instance, you are ruling out of order a question, and a part of the question is identical to something that was in order only minutes ago. The second issue with that is it has always been the practice in this parliament that if there is a belief that someone has misled that we are allowed to ask a question about it.
The SPEAKER: I have asked the member to rephrase her question and the question will then stand.
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:11): Would you like me to ask the entire question with the rephrase, or just the end? I am happy to ask the whole thing again. My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of Minister Nash at Senate estimates this morning: 'My chief of staff has complied with all the requirements to ensure that there was no conflict of interest.' I also refer to the Prime Minister's statement in the House on Monday: he 'was required to divest himself of' a shareholding and 'he was dilatory in doing so'. Who is right—the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister for Health?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:12): Happily, Madam Speaker, both. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that there has been no breach of the conflict of interest rules.
United States Economy
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (14:12): I have a question for the Treasurer. The US economy leads the world with its economic strength, growth and exports. I understand that Equatorial Guinea and Uzbekistan have the lowest debt levels in the world. Is the government seeking to follow the US model for growth and jobs or are we seeking to follow Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea to achieve their standard of living? When was the last time the US had a surplus? How many surpluses has the US had in the last 50 years? Is the US economy, with its military and economic pre-eminence, sustainable?
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:13): I would like to thank Professor Palmer for the question. I would to make a confession to him and to Australia: I am not very familiar with the budget position of Equatorial Guinea or Uzbekistan. I am more familiar with the United States. The fact is that the United States economy has been running at a substantial deficit for a number of years. The quantitative easing in the United States has suited their times but, of course, tapering is now coming into play. As tapering comes into play and the previous fiscal drag that was in place in the United States is no longer in place, in this current year, the United States economy continues to grow—although I must say there was recognition at the G20 over the weekend that there had been some disappointing data that had come out of the United States over the last month or so, which many are carefully monitoring. The fact is that we need a strong United States to have a strong global economy. We want the world economy to continue to improve. It is the case also that easy monetary policy, whether it be in Australia or around the rest of the world, is not going to do the long-term heavy lifting when it comes to growing the economy. That has to come through structural change in economies.
Australia is no different. Easy monetary policy will, at some time in the future, come to an end. The result is that unless we have prepared our economies by having appropriate structural reform such as: getting rid of the carbon tax; getting rid of the mining tax; having a better balance in workplace relations by bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission; ensuring that the budget gets back to a sustainable surplus and that as a nation we live within our means—and if we do not do it and other countries do not do it—then the problems that have beset the world over the last few years will come back again and we will consign a future generation around the world to a lesser quality of life than that which we have had. There is no easy solution here. There are only hard solutions and the whole nation and the whole world need to do the heavy lifting.
Mining Tax
Mr PASIN (Barker) (14:15): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the medium- to long-term impact of the mining tax on the Australian economy?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:16): I thank the member for Barker for his question and recognise, as he does, that the mining tax was one of the worst public policy disasters of the last six years.
Ms Julie Bishop: That's a big call!
Mr HOCKEY: It is a big call. It is a very significant call. There has been a helluva lot of competition for bad policy over the last six years but the mining tax was right up there. It was originally forecast to raise $49.5 billion over 10 years, and after 18 months it raised $400 million. The problem was that Labor committed all this new expenditure against a tax that did not raise any money. To put it in perspective, it was like having a $75,000 yearly salary, spending all that money and more, but only getting $6,000 in salary in that year.
So where does that leave the budget? The Labor Party is so supportive of the mining tax that they are happy to see the budget $13 billion worse off. That means $13 billion of extra debt. The mining tax, as a matter of principle, is harmful for the economy because, as was clearly pointed out during its bungled introduction, it was going to have a negative impact on investor sentiment and it was going to affect the reputation of Australia as a safe and stable place to do business.
I am glad that the new member for Perth understands this. I am glad that the new member for Perth, previously a minister for planning and infrastructure in Western Australia, knows that the mining tax is bad for Australia. But I would suggest to the member for Perth that she just lean over to the person on her right and whisper into old Swanny's ear, 'What were you thinking, mate?' Go on, give it a shot—just whisper. You do not have to move your lips. Or write him a little handwritten note: 'What were you thinking of, Swanny, introducing a mining tax that raises no money, spending all that money against that tax, leaving Western Australia worse off and representing a threat to the sustainability of good finances?'
But the problem is that this is typical Labor. In South Australia we have just seen that Jay Weatherill, the Premier of South Australia, has had a story leaked that identifies a $212 million hole in the budget. That is almost Swanny-esque. Jay Weatherill, where did that go to—another $212 million missing in a Labor budget. That is the problem. Labor do not understand money and they certainly do not understand taxes.
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:19): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Senator Nash told Senate estimates this morning that her chief of staff resigned solely because of the media interest that was causing a distraction for the government. On Monday, the Prime Minister told the parliament that Senator Nash's chief of staff resigned because he was dilatory in divesting a shareholding. Who is right—the Prime Minister or the Assistant Minister of Health?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:19): Again, happily, both of us are. I simply say to the member for Ballarat that she will no doubt continue to ask questions on this subject but, really, certainly since the resignation of the gentleman in question, there is just nothing there. This is not so much a storm in a teacup; it is not even a zephyr in a thimble; it is nothing because the conflict-of-interest rules have been observed.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for McMahon!
Australian Defence Force
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs representing the Minister for Defence. I remind the minister of the 56,000 Australian men and women serving our nation in the Australian Defence Force. Will the minister please advise the House on why it is important that all Australians respect and support the work of our military?
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:21): I thank the member for Bass for his question and I acknowledge his distinguished service as an officer in the Australian Army and his deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq. There is an unwritten rule, indeed, a protocol that has been observed for decades in this parliament and across Australian political life, that there be bipartisan support for our military, our troops, whether at home or abroad.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be silence on my left!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: That was shattered yesterday in Senate estimates by Senator Stephen Conroy when he launched an attack, when he traduced the reputation of one of Australia's most distinguished military commanders for serving his country.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order, the member for McEwen!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Senator Conroy attacked this commander's motives and his conduct in a most despicable slur designed to dishonour an honourable man.
Lieutenant General Angus Campbell has served this country for 30 years: as a squadron commander of the SAS and he commanded the 2nd Battalion group in the UN Mission in East Timor. Indeed, he was awarded the Order of Australia for exceptional service. He commanded all Australian troops in the Middle East and he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his outstanding leadership.
He is a man of the highest calibre; an officer who has served his country with distinction. It was because of his outstanding skills that he was asked by the Australian government to serve his country once more. He has headed up Operation Sovereign Borders to fix the mess that was left on our borders by the last Labor government.
Operation Sovereign Borders was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election. It has been designed to dismantle the criminal people-smuggling trade. It is designed to stop people taking that dangerous journey to Australia and it is designed to save lives. It is dangerous work and it is difficult work, and General Campbell has undertaken this task with the professionalism and diligence for which he is renowned.
Labor can disagree with that policy. They can come up with their own policy. They can attack the government. But they should never engage in the gross disrespect that we saw meted out to General Campbell in Senate estimates yesterday. General Campbell himself said he took extreme offence at the slurs.
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
Now, Senator Conroy should apologise. The member for Hunter knows that. Senator Conroy should apologise—he should have given an unqualified apology. If he does not, the Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the role of shadow minister for Defence. He is unfit for that role.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! We will have a little more attention paid to a very serious answer as was given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:24): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that 66 eminent public health professors have written to all state and territory health ministers, including Senator Nash, calling for the health star rating website to be reinstated as a matter of urgency? Why did one junk food lobbyist employed as the minister's chief of staff determine the government's public health policy rather than the advice of dozens of public—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. If the member wishes to rephrase her question, leaving out the argument in the latter part, she may ask her question. I give the call to the member for Ballarat.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am trying to work out how describing a business that this individual actually was part of, and admits to being part of, and has resigned because of—
The SPEAKER: What is your point of order?
Mr Burke: cannot be referred to in a question?
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr Burke: The point of order is that there are no grounds for you to make the ruling you just made.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.
Ms Plibersek: What are the grounds?
The SPEAKER: I have offered the member for Ballarat the opportunity to leave out the argument of her question and to rephrase it.
Ms Plibersek: What is the argument?
The SPEAKER: She is an intelligent woman; she will work it out.
Ms KING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister: is the Prime Minister aware that 66 eminent public health professors have written to all state and territory health ministers, including Minister Nash, calling for the health star rating website to be reinstated as a matter of urgency? Why was the minister's chief of staff allowed to determine the government's public health policy rather than the advice of dozens of public health experts?
The SPEAKER: I will let the question stand, despite its final assertion.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:26): I thank the member opposite for her question. The premise of the question is simply wrong. It is simply wrong. People are entitled to disagree with the position of the government, but the position of the government was determined by the government and by the minister. It is eminently defensible.
Ms King: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table the letter from the 66 eminent public health experts.
Leave not granted.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! There will be quiet on my left!
Australian Defence Force
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (14:27): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Defence. I remind the minister of this statement of the Leader of the Opposition of 23 January this year:
… what I won't do is join in and start attacking our own military personnel … I for one don’t want to see our military being used as some sort of political football.
Minister, how does that compare with the statements made in Senate estimates by the shadow minister for Defence yesterday, and the Leader of the Opposition's response today? And why is this matter important with respect to the morale of the men and women of our Defence forces?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Assistant Minister for Defence) (14:28): Let me thank the member for Mitchell for his question, and acknowledge that as he is a former Army Reserve officer he is a man with deep interest in the military.
It is now a matter of national attention that Senator Conroy has opened his account as Labor's Defence spokesman with a grubby and premeditated slur against one of our most respected three-star Lieutenant General officers, accusing him of a political cover-up no less. Six months of near total silence from the opposition's shadow Defence minister and he decides the best way to come out and support those who support us is to sling mud at a general's face.
Let me tell you what the military says. It says, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'. And what the nation wants to know and what this parliament wants to know, Leader of the Opposition, is whether you accept the comments—whether you—
Ms Rishworth: It's a question to you!
Mr ROBERT: Madam Speaker, what the nation wants to know is whether the Leader of the Opposition accepts the comments made by the shadow Defence spokesman. And if not, what is the Leader of the Opposition going to do about it?
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member the Kingston will desist!
Mr ROBERT: The Leader of the Opposition was asked today, 'Do you personally think Conroy went too far?' And the Leader of the Opposition's response? 'The senator has withdrawn his remarks, and that speaks for itself.' Well, the only thing that speaks for itself is that the Leader of the Opposition's abject failure to bring into line his own shadow defence minister is as unacceptable as the original comments themselves. Will the Leader of the Opposition look at what former Labor defence minister, the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, said when asked today about his regard for Stephen Conroy? His response was, 'Stephen Conroy is doing an excellent job as the shadow defence minister.'
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I quote a page you are familiar with. Page 555 ofHOR Practicestates:
As is clear from the above examples, it is not in order for Ministers to be questioned on opposition policies, for which they are not responsible. The Speaker has been critical of the use of phrases at the end of questions, such as ‘are there any threats to ...’, that could be viewed as intended to allow Ministers to canvass opposition plans—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker—
The SPEAKER: I said there was no point of order. Do you have a second one?
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I have a second point of order. In that instance your ruling must be saying that the minister is responsible for the issues that he is now talking about.
The SPEAKER: I did not make a ruling; I said there was no point of order. I call the Assistant Minister for Defence.
Mr ROBERT: If that was not enough, Senator Conroy was given another chance to apologise. He could not manage it. He could not man up and manage it. He even went so far as to say that the people who should apologise apparently are the Australian government.
Our serving men and women deserve a lot better than this sort of grubby attack. They deserve an opposition leader who mans up, an opposition leader who says, 'I don't condone this behaviour.' If the opposition leader had some courage, he would demand that Senator Conroy publicly apologise for these outrageous remarks. If the Leader of the Opposition takes no action, he reduces himself to exactly the same level as Senator Conroy. And, let us face it, if Senator Conroy were in the Army, he would be peeling potatoes right now.
Australian Defence Force
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Treasurer's statement two days before the election, 'We're not cutting health, we're not cutting education and we're not cutting Defence.' I also refer to the decision by the government to cut the pay of some ADF personnel by as much as $19,000. Prime Minister, why are ADF personnel paying the price for another broken promise?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:32): I do appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is a little embarrassed by the conduct of Senator Conroy.
Mr Dreyfus: Answer the question.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will desist!
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga and the member for Sydney will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: If the Leader of the Opposition is embarrassed by Senator Conroy's conduct, he should have a word in Senator Conroy's ear and say that it would be good for his dignity and that of the parliament if he simply apologised to General Campbell.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was no argument in the question. It was specific to the pay of people who are serving Australia. If anything should deserve direct relevance, it is a question of this nature.
The SPEAKER: My recollection of the question asked—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston is warned! The question as it was asked was reflecting on the situation with regard to pay to ADF personnel generally and why the situation was as you have described; therefore, the Prime Minister's answer is in line with that question.
Mr ABBOTT: Obviously anticipating this issue, members opposite have decided that this is some kind of a riposte for the Leader of the Opposition's unwillingness to pull into line his shadow minister for defence. The trouble with this question is that it is false—utterly, absolutely and completely false. It is typical, I regret to say, of this opposition. They never let the facts get in the way of a good smear. That is typical of this opposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There will be silence on my left!
Mr ABBOTT: The truth is that the conditions of service of personnel in the Middle East have changed. Haven't members opposite realised that we are no longer in combat in Afghanistan? Haven't they recognised that we have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan? Haven't they realised that? Well, we have. We have concluded our combat mission in Afghanistan.
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will remove herself from the chamber under standing order 94(a).
The member for Kingston then left the chamber.
Mr ABBOTT: Has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten that he and I both went to Tarin Kot to solemnly observe that our combat mission had ended? Because the conditions of service have changed, the relevant allowances have changed. That decision was made quite properly by the service chiefs in response to the changed conditions of service in Afghanistan. I can see the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, sitting there squirming in embarrassment at this grubby tactic on the part of the opposition. You should be embarrassed by Senator Conroy's behaviour—
Mr Shorten: You're a puddle of grubs.
Mr ABBOTT: I am sorry, what was that?
Mr Shorten: You're a puddle of grubs.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection. If it was offensive, I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.
Mr Shorten: I am happy to assist. I withdraw.
Mr ABBOTT: The best way to deal with this issue is for the Leader of the Opposition to ask Senator Conroy to apologise.
Opposition members: Time! Time! Time!
The SPEAKER: There will be quiet on my left, particularly from the member for Isaacs. If there was not so much noise on my left, I would have been looking at the clock instead of you.
Asylum Seekers
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (14:37): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister update the House on how many days it has been since a successful people-smuggling venture has arrived in this country? What impediments exist to the existing continuous successful implementation of the government's strong border protection policies?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:37): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question and her keen interest in these issues; I know it has always been a very keen interest of the electors of Lindsay. It has been 69 days since there has been a successful people-smuggling venture make it to Australia. But despite the success to date of this operation, it still faces obstacles. And those obstacles sit on that side of the chamber, they sit amongst the Greens and they sit in the other place as they band together. Those obstacles are there.
So miffed are those opposite about the success of this government's border protection policies, and how that has exposed their weakness and their incompetence and their failure in government—as boat after boat arrived, as person after person arrived, as boat after boat sunk—that what they seek to do is adopt the policy of miff. They will try and make it fail. That is what they are trying to do. What they are trying to do is make the government's policies fail. Make it fail.
The Leader of the Opposition has become the chief executive of 'wreck the joint', and not just wreck the joint when it comes to the government's border protection policies but also wreck the joint when it comes to the budget. As a former union official he knows exactly how to do it, he knows exactly how to wreck the joint. He is the chief executive of 'wreck the joint' when it comes to policy in this country.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: 'Make it fail' is the objective of that opposition when it comes to this government's policies.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned!
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: As is the member for McMahon!
Mr MORRISON: But unsatisfied with seeking to frustrate us, frustrate our policies, to deny the obvious that our maritime operations are having success and seeking to undermine them, now they have embarked on a new strategy—that is, to attack the people who are implementing our policies. He may be a resident of 'Conrovia' on some other distant planet, as the Minister for Communications advises us from time to time, but it is up to this Leader of the Opposition to call into line the most disgraceful act of Senator Conroy against Lieutenant General Campbell in the Senate last night. He accused him of a political cover up, and this Leader of the Opposition's failure to force an apology from that senator to Lieutenant General Campbell is an absolute disgrace.
I will say there is one member opposite who knew what was the right thing to do last night, and that is the member for Chifley. This is what he said last night: 'I'm not going to dance around it. What he said was wrong'—referring to Senator Conroy—'it shouldn't have been said, not to a serving officer, in that way.' Well maybe the member for Chifley should be able to step up, because this Leader of the Opposition cannot step up when it comes to these matters of border protection.
Ministerial Staff: Code of Conduct
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Today at Senate estimates Minister Nash explained how she managed her chief of staff's conflicts of interest: 'I required those undertakings. It was my responsibility. I ensured that they were done.' Given that Senator Nash failed to ensure her chief of staff had ceased his directorship and divested his shareholding, hasn't the minister misled the parliament and failed in her responsibilities as a minister in your government?
The SPEAKER: That question is going quite close to the wind, but I will allow it to stand.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:41): There is a very simple answer; the answer is no.
Former Member for Dobell
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (14:41): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Education and Leader of the House, representing the Minister for Employment. I remind the minister that the House passed a motion yesterday apologising for the statement of the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, to the House on 21 May 2012. In light of bipartisan support for this motion, what further measures could be taken to better protect members against the misuse of union funds and union power?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:42): I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. I do welcome the bipartisan support that the government received yesterday for its motion to apologise for the statement of the former member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, on 21 May 2012. Admittedly it was two years too late, but better late than never.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
Mr PYNE: The Leader of the Opposition at least measured up to that test and led the Labor Party into stopping the protection racket—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned!
Mr PYNE: that had existed around the former member for Dobell. But it presents the Leader of the Opposition with other tests that he needs to meet if he is going to prove that he is more than a union official representing union officials, that he runs a protection racket for protection rackets. Those tests are mounting up, like passing the Australian building and construction commission bill, passing the registered organisations commission bill, supporting the Royal commission into union governance and union corruption. He needs to pay back the $267,000 of HSU members' money that Labor used to elect the former member for Dobell in 2007.
And there is a new test that has been set for him today if he is going to show that he is a real leader and not just a union official representing union officials—that is, whether he will stand up to Senator Conroy in the Senate and make him apologise for the egregious remarks that he made yesterday to Lieutenant General Campbell. He attacked him and used him as a political football. The Leader of the Opposition said himself, on 23 January this year, 'I don't like seeing the Navy—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. This takes direct relevance to an entirely new planet. There was nothing in the question that in any way relates to where the minister is now going. The beginning of the answer was directly relevant, no argument at all, but where he is now is completely unrelated.
The SPEAKER: The minister will return to the question.
Mr PYNE: The reason it is relevant to the question is because Senator Conroy is a well-known union organiser from way back. He cut his teeth as a union organiser, and the question is about union power and the misuse of it.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat.
Mr PYNE: And the reason why Senator Conroy remains in the position he is in today—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business, on a point of order—he has already raised direct relevance.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: now it is that the Leader of the House is directly defying your ruling.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. I call the Minister for Education.
Mr PYNE: Madam Speaker, it is directly relevant to the question, because the reason Senator Conroy remains in the position he is today; the reason he was brought back from political death; the reason why the Leader of the Opposition won't make him apologise today is because he relies on him to stay in the position of Leader of the Opposition: Senator Conroy has the power. He is calling the tune—just like every other union leader that the Leader of the Opposition responds to, about all those policies. Whether it is the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the Registered Organisations Commission, the royal commission—the Leader of the Opposition is a union official representing union officials. He went to the AWU conference two years ago, and he said, 'I am union today; union tomorrow; union forever.' The point is, he needs to rise above his background. He could start by disciplining Senator Conroy, and apologising for the way he treated our military personnel.
Building and Construction Industry
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Walton Construction company, which paid an LNP trust $430,000 and recently collapsed, owing its employees millions of dollars in wages and entitlements. Will the Prime Minister direct the Liberal Party to repay these payments to the workers whose entitlements are at risk?
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the LNP. The question is out of order. I call the honourable member for Page.
Telecommunications
Mr HOGAN (Page) (14:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Communications. Will the minister explain the importance of government agencies, including the NBN Co., giving the government—and the public—frank, credible, factual and correct information? And what are the consequences, Minister, of ignoring or indeed denying such information?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:47): I thank the honourable member for his question. Madam Speaker, yesterday was a big day in the Senate for denying and ignoring information and truth and facts about the National Broadband Network. We had, in the morning in room 2S3, Ziggy Switkowski, the chairman of the NBN Co.—one of Australia's leading businessmen—laying out the facts about the NBN rollout. And what did the shadow defence minister have to say, Senator Conroy, appearing there in his shadow shadow role as broadband spokesman? After hours of abuse, he then proceeded to accuse Ziggy Switkowski of lying and misleading the Senate and he refused to retract—one of our most respected businessmen! But then—after being compared in this chamber with Lieutenant Onoda, who fought on in the jungle for 28 years—Senator Conroy careened into the Main Committee room, madder than ever, and then proceeded to accuse Lieutenant-General Campbell of being none other than Colonel Jessup—and he actually said: 'We are living in a movie, and you are Colonel Jessup.' Well, of course, that means that he obviously thought he was the incredibly handsome Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise. We can all see the resemblance—it's obvious! He can be excused for thinking that.
When it comes to denial of the facts, I think the better movie analogue is in fact Colonel Kurtz, leading the Labor Party further and further up the Conrovian River into delusion and denial. And you know, we remember the last scenes of that movie, as his temple fortress, his jungle fortress, is being smashed by bombs, fire everywhere, columns falling, walls collapsing—and what does he say? What does Colonel Conroy-Colonel Kurtz say, as he is dragged from the ruins? He says, 'I had immense plans, I had immense plans. I was on the verge of greatness!' Madam Speaker, the real summary of Colonel Conroy's performance are of course the most famous lines in that movie: 'The horror, the horror!'
Government members applauding—
The SPEAKER: Order! That is disorderly. We will have none of that. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Health
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:49): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Prime Minister. Given everything that has been put to the Prime Minister, and given the testimony at estimates this morning, how on earth can the Prime Minister—or anyone—have any confidence in the Assistant Minister for Health?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:50): Madam Speaker, the minister has not breached the conflict of interest rules. In order to avoid any perception of potential conflict of interest, the staffer in question resigned. The minister is doing a fine job. Every single decision that has been made by her in that portfolio is eminently defensible and I back her to the hilt.
Carbon Pricing
Ms SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:50): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the medium- to long-term impacts of the carbon tax on the Australian economy?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for her question. And I advise the House that, whilst the Leader of the Opposition has a horse running wild in the top paddock, he has a Senate that is not prepared to pass one of the bills that will actually improve economic growth in Australia and create jobs, and that is the bill that repeals the carbon tax. The fact of the matter is that modelling commissioned—not by this government; modelling commissioned by the previous Labor government—identifies that the carbon tax would actually detract from economic growth. It would actually cost jobs. It would actually cost the economy. Now, Labor are sticking like glue to the carbon tax. They own the carbon tax. It is their creation, and they are prepared to die defending the carbon tax. The carbon tax—
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
Mr HOCKEY: 'Hear, hear!', they say, 'Hear, hear!' They are all there defending the carbon tax, which costs jobs, which means less economic growth, and which at the end of the day is going to cost the Australian economy. The cumulative loss of output would be $22 billion by 2020 as a result of the carbon tax. What is more, this will rise to $175 billion as a cost to the Australian economy by 2030. That is in 2012 dollars—$175 billion to the Australian economy by having the carbon tax.
Yet Labor is determined to fight to the death to keep this tax. You can be sure that, if Labor are ever elected, they will reintroduce the carbon tax. If they are so absolutely committed to the carbon tax here in opposition after losing an election, they would not be afraid to reintroduce it. They would not be afraid to go back and reintroduce it. They might not promise it at the election; we know they have form in that regard. They never tell you about a carbon tax before an election but you can be as sure as the sun will rise up in the morning that they will introduce it after the election, because the carbon tax is in the Labor Party's DNA, even though it costs jobs.
As New South Wales Treasury said, it is going to cost 31,000 jobs in New South Wales by 2030, and yet Labor is defending this to the death. There is the impact on wages, the impact on industry, and the impact on the health and education sector, which is not compensated for the carbon tax. It flows right through the economy. It flows through to every single area of production, every single area of activity. Yet Labor is defending it to the end. The problem is that the Labor Party does not know what it stands for other than the fact that it is prepared to hit the average Australian worker.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:53): I wish to announce that we have with us today in the gallery the Hon. Mark Vaile AO, former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and also Mr Mike Symon, the former member for Deakin. We make you most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Asylum Seekers
Mr MARLES (Corio) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm his office was told before 1 pm on Saturday that the information provided to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in Tuesday's press conference about the location of Reza Berati's death was inaccurate?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:54): I can confirm that my office would have been listening to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on Tuesday afternoon when he said that it was unclear exactly where many of the things that had taken place on that fateful evening had in fact taken place. I will gladly check the record, and, if there is anything to tell the parliament, I will come back and tell the parliament. But, again, exactly what is the evil here? Exactly what is the grievous error? Exactly what is the monument of maladministration that members opposite are trying to uncover? As soon as the minister was aware of a problem on the Monday night he went public, on the Tuesday morning. By the time he got to Canberra on the Tuesday afternoon he was aware that there was some possibility that more information might come to light. He went public with that. On the Saturday, he conclusively discovered—
Ms Macklin: When?
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: Maybe it was midday. Maybe it was one o'clock. Maybe it was two o'clock. It was as soon as he was clear. What does it really matter if he delayed 15 minutes, half an hour or an hour? What does it really matter?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Those on my left will be quiet.
Mr ABBOTT: The truth is that, as soon as he reasonably could be, after clarifying the position, he was completely up-front with the Australian public and the Australian people.
This minister has a very difficult job, restoring border security with the legacy that this government inherited—a massively difficult job. I want to say that I deeply admire and respect the strength and the integrity that he has brought to this job. While I can understand that members opposite would be a little embarrassed at the way the boats are stopping now, surely they at least ought to be men and women enough to give credit where it is due. This minister is stopping the boats. That is what counts.
Carbon Pricing
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I refer to the information released by the Clean Energy Regulator last week that shows that the cost of the carbon tax is a $1.1 billion impost on Australian manufacturers. Can the minister inform the House how many businesses are paying the carbon tax?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:58): I want to acknowledge the member for Hume and a very distinguished business career in which, throughout that time, he learnt a lot about how to manage businesses. He has always been concerned about bad bills of all kinds, whether they have been bad electricity bills, bad carbon tax bills, bad fuel bills or just plain bad bills. He asks how many businesses are being affected by these bad bills. The answer is not, as they would have us believe on the other side, that 500 firms have been hit by the carbon tax. It is not that 5,000 have been hit by the carbon tax. It is not even that 50,000 have been hit by the carbon tax. According to the Australian Treasury, 75,000 firms have been directly hit by carbon tax bills. More than that, every firm in Australia that consumes electricity or gas is hit by the carbon tax, and every family in Australia that consumes electricity or gas is hit by the carbon tax.
The question specifically went to manufacturing. As the Clean Energy Regulator set out recently, it is not just a multibillion dollar hit on Australian firms; specifically on manufacturing, it is a $1.1 billion hit. That $1.1 billion includes $596 million in the metals sector for firms such as Rio Tinto and Nyrstar. In the chemical manufacturing sector, there is a $311 million hit for firms such as Incitec Pivot, which provides fertilisers to farmers. In the glass and cement manufacturing sector it is a $30 million hit—CSR, Adelaide Brighton. At a time of massive global pressure, we are putting massive Australian pressure on our manufacturing firms. In the pulp and paper sector, there is another $25 million, and, in food product manufacturing, another $25 million. It is a $1.1 billion manufacturing hit.
The question then is: with these bills being foisted upon Australian firms, what can we do about it? Come next Monday, when the Senate sits again, it will have been three months that the carbon tax bills have been before the Senate. The Senate, according to this Leader of the Opposition, is on an industrial go-slow. The opposition leader, who has a history of enforcing industrial go-slows, has his senators on a go-slow. Three months and they are not even close to repealing the carbon tax. They are not even close to voting on repeal of the bills. The message is: if you want to do something for Australian manufacturing firms, get out of the way and repeal the bills.
MOTIONS
Senator Conroy
Mr WILKIE (Denison) (15:01): by leave—I move:
That the opposition defence spokesperson be admonished for calling into question the integrity of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell.
I think everyone in this place would be well aware that I have not been slow to criticise this government and previous governments when it has come to the decisions they have made about the use of the Defence Force. I of course was especially outspoken about the decision during the Howard government to join in the invasion of Iraq, for what I thought were fraudulent reasons. I was very critical of the decision more recently to keep our troops in Afghanistan much longer than they should have been there, and my outspoken criticism of the current government's abhorrent response to asylum seekers I think is well known. When it comes to asylum seekers, I think we should be acting like a rich and civilised country and as a signatory to the refugee convention. We should be taking people in, giving them protection, hearing their claims and giving them refuge if their claims are found to be accurate. Those whose claims are found not to be accurate should be sent back from where they came.
But in all of these instances I have been very careful not to criticise the men and women of our security services and in particular of the Defence Force and of the intelligence services. I think a line was crossed yesterday when the opposition defence spokesperson called into question the integrity of General Campbell. General Campbell is a classmate of mine and someone I know a little, and I know that he is a good person and I know that he will do a good job following the orders he is given by the government of the day, as unpalatable as those orders are. I want to make this absolutely clear: I am in no way speaking in support of the government's abhorrent response to asylum seekers. I am criticising, though, the shadow defence spokesperson, who went too far yesterday by calling into question the character of one of Australia's most senior military officers. He has been given shocking orders to carry out, but I am sure that he is carrying them out to the best of his ability and he is doing it as honestly as he can. So I call on everyone in this place to support this motion: that the opposition defence spokesperson be admonished for calling into question the integrity of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell.
Ms JULIE BISHOP (Curtin—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (15:04): I second the motion. I support the motion moved by the member for Denison because what occurred yesterday in the Senate estimates hearing was a reflection not only on the Senate but on this entire parliament. That a person who occupies the position of shadow minister for defence could use the opportunity to launch a personal attack against one of Australia's finest military commanders is nothing short of a disgrace. What we wanted to hear, from last night and this morning and throughout question time, was something from the Leader of the Opposition to show that he did not agree with the outrageous, appalling, despicable conduct of the man he appointed as shadow minister for defence. What we wanted from the Leader of the Opposition was for him to say that Labor distanced themselves from this disgraceful act of attacking a military commander who had been asked by the Australian government to return to the service of this country by heading up Operation Sovereign Borders.
The member for Denison can disagree with the policy, as he just has. The member for Denison can move motions in the House about it. We can debate it. What the member for Denison has done is the decent thing, by standing here and demanding that the opposition and other members of this House stand in condemnation of Senator Conroy.
Look at this cabal going on here! They are so disorganised that they cannot even find a line to run in question time!
Mr Dreyfus: It hadn't come up!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: This happened last night in the Senate.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs and the minister will both desist.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Any political party that had any idea of what its members and senators were doing would have acted immediately. The Leader of the Opposition should have come out last night and condemned Senator Conroy for his disgraceful act. This morning the Leader of the Opposition should have been at the doors condemning Senator Conroy.
Mr Abbott: He's getting David Feeney's advice now.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: So he is taking former Senator Feeney's advice. It is about time, Leader of the Opposition. Take some advice from somebody who actually has worked with our defence forces and understands what this is doing to the morale of the men and women who serve this country. They do not expect to turn up in Senate estimates and have abuse hurled at them by the factional bovver boy of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition unleashed the bovver boy. It is time he put him back on the rein. It is time the Leader of the Opposition showed some courage, some decency, and demanded that Senator Conroy give an unqualified apology to an honourable man who has served this country for over 30 years.
This is a difficult task for any officer. This is a difficult task for any public servant. Lieutenant General Campbell was chosen because of his professionalism, his skill and his objectivity and he has risen to the task asked of him. He has to protect his Navy personnel because it is dangerous work in dangerous and risky circumstances. He has to withstand the glare of the media, who are focusing on Operation Sovereign Borders, but make no mistake: Operation Sovereign Borders was endorsed by the Australian people at the last election. So he is carrying out the tasks required of him by the government of the day. That is what our military personnel do, time in, time out. They do military work, they do humanitarian work, they carry out the policies, the requests and the directions of the government of the day. That is what they did when Labor were in government.
What has happened to the Labor Party, who said there was bipartisan support for our military? What has happened to the Leader of the Opposition, who said he did not want our Navy to be a political football? What has happened to the decency that should be within this party? Enough of them have been defence ministers. Enough of them have been assistant defence ministers. There are decent people within the Labor Party, but they are not the Leader of the Opposition. It is now 10 past three on the day after this appalling attack, since this despicable slur was directed at Lieutenant General Campbell, and we still have not heard from the Leader of the Opposition.
Does it really take a motion from one of the Independents for the Leader of the Opposition to get on his feet? Is that what it is going to take? He had opportunity after opportunity in question time. He could have stood up on indulgence and, Madam Speaker, we would have given the Leader of the Opposition an indulgence, had he asked you, so that he could have disassociated himself from the appalling conduct of Senator Conroy and joined with the government in condemning an attack on our military commanders.
Lieutenant General Campbell deserves far better than this. He deserves our respect. He deserves our admiration. The Australian public have given him that respect and that admiration through the awarding of the Order of Australia for the work he did in East Timor. They have recognised his distinguished service as he headed up all Australian troops in the Middle East. This is a man who deserves the greatest respect and admiration. And what did he get from the shadow minister for defence?
Mr Dreyfus: It was directed at you!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: An attack, a slur. Senator Conroy accused General Campbell of personally being involved in a political cover-up. It was a personal attack. It was unwarranted. It was indecent and deliberately designed to dishonour the reputation of an honourable man. The Labor members should hang their heads in shame for allowing the bovver boy from Victoria to get away with yet another attack.
Mr Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen!
Ms JULIE BISHOP: Our Minister for Communications indicated that Senator Conroy was obviously on some unspeakable rant yesterday. Not only did he attack the reputation of one of Australia's leading businessmen under parliamentary privilege but also then he attacked one of our most distinguished, one of our finest military commanders, a man who has put his life on the line for this country. The Leader of the Opposition is madly writing notes now. Leader of the Opposition, it is too late. You should have demanded an unqualified apology this morning. You should have stood up in question time and distanced yourself from Senator Conroy and having unleashed this dog of war, it is time you put him back on the leash.
Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—
Ms JULIE BISHOP: So the princess from Adelaide says, 'Grow up!'
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Plibersek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the foreign minister to withdraw that sexist remark.
The SPEAKER: While we are on the question of sexist remarks, I would ask the member for McEwen to withdraw his calling the minister 'Madam Asbestos'. While we are in the business of tit for tat, we will have proper behaviour, thank you very much!
Mr Mitchell: I am happy to comply with the changing rules and I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you.
Ms Chesters interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Bendigo will desist.
Ms O'Dwyer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that Mr Mitchell has just reflected on you in the chair with that statement.
The SPEAKER: I think I can handle it.
Ms JULIE BISHOP: I withdraw. Madam Speaker, this is the test for the Leader of the Opposition. He must stand and support the motion moved by the member for Denison and show that there is some decency left in that disorganised rabble on the other side.
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): The opposition will not be supporting this motion.
Government members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I was most interested in particular in the contribution of the foreign minister when she talked about deserving better. I will tell you what this nation deserves. It deserves better from this government than that which we are hearing. I agree with some of what has been said about the distinguished career of General Campbell.
Government members: Some!
The SPEAKER: We will have quiet on my right so we can hear the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr SHORTEN: I agree that he has had a distinguished and decorated career in his service in the Australian military. I recognise that he has been a squadron commander in the SAS—a remarkable achievement if he never did anything else. I recognise that he is a qualified paratrooper—a remarkable qualification. I recognise that under Labor he was in charge of our Middle Eastern forces and he did a great job there.
Government members interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: I do not know why, when I speak well of General Campbell, the government interrupt. What I also recognise about General Campbell is that he should not be treated as some sort of political target. We fundamentally reject—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! We will have some quiet on my right. The Leader of the Opposition is speaking.
Mr SHORTEN: What a disorderly rabble this government are. We recognise on this side of the House that General Campbell and indeed everyone who serves in our armed forces, be it in Australia or overseas, is deserved of respect from the political process. On any number of occasions, as we have been discussing in public the policy issues around Operation Sovereign Borders, I have clearly stated that I do not regard our military as deserved of being the whipping boys or girls when there are legitimate concerns with government policy.
Although it is very rare, I agree with part of what the Assistant Minister for Defence said. When he said that if the opposition have problems with what is happening with government policy, raise it about the government and do not attack the military. I have seen through my working life that when there are complex political issues, it is most easy for the blame-game to rain down from the top to the bottom. I do not support hiding behind the military when there are problems with government policy. I accept that those opposite think that their policy is great and I accept that we on this side believe that the addiction to secrecy is wrong. I do not accept as appropriate the use of the military by the government to hide their own lack of willingness to talk about what is really going on and to not be straight with the Australian people.
The flavour of the debate from the Minister for Foreign Affairs that somehow the opposition do not support our military is wrong. It is a grievous mistruth. That is why this morning, when I was asked questions about the debate in the estimates committee last night, I made it very clear that Senator Conroy had withdrawn his remarks. People said, 'What does that mean?' and 'What do you think?' The fact that Senator Conroy made the comments and then withdrew them, I believe, speaks for itself. There is a recognition in this debate, if anyone bothers to read the whole transcript, that Senator Conroy is most concerned about the way the government is handling issues of secrecy around Operation Sovereign Borders. We see the government feign patriotism and wrap the flag around themselves and say, 'We're true patriots and anyone who criticises the government is in fact criticising the military and that makes them unpatriotic or unAustralian.' We are not falling for that lie. They say that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels and we are seeing that truism yet again with this government.
I respect our military and, like many here, I have had family members serve in the military. I understand the ultimate sacrifice that 40 of ours have made in Afghanistan. I understand that 200—
Ms Julie Bishop interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Minister for Foreign Affairs! I am talking about the sacrifice of our soldiers. You could at least listen to that with respect. I understand—look at the government frown, as if they have a monopoly on patriotism. Forty people have died in Afghanistan. I know this and I know everyone on the other side knows this too, actually. I know that all of us in this House respect the 260 people who have come back with injuries and I know all of us in this House respect that there are many more people who will no doubt be dealing with the consequences and the psychological trauma of war for the rest of their lives.
What Labor will not allow in this debate is false, faux patriotism—that when the opposition pursue the government on its policies somehow it is a reflection of Labor's commitment to our armed forces.
A government member interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: And, yes, I was quoted correctly on 23 January when we heard reports about the alleged events involving Navy personnel on the high seas. I set my line in the sand early as opposition leader. I do not have a default button which says that when there are problems blame the military because I do not think that. I resent very much the cowardly insinuations of some of those false, flag-waving patriots who say that we on this side do not care as much about the military. That is why, at the start of my address to this House, I made it very clear what I think about General Campbell. That is why, before this afternoon, I have already made efforts to be in contact with him to indicate on behalf of Labor our ongoing respect and support for him because, you know what, I think that is the right thing to do.
When we see the sanctimonious, finger-wagging, lecture-giving, sermonising, false patriotism from those opposite, when they seek to use the military as a stick to beat Labor about the head and when I hear the Minister for Foreign Affairs say that people deserve better, I say that General Campbell deserves better than being used as a political football to pursue your grubby culture of secrecy. Our military deserve better than you hiding behind uniforms. The minister ought to do his day job and tell us what is going on.
The military deserve better than what the government did on the Saturday morning after what they said on Tuesday—implying blame on Reza Berati, that he was outside the wire and somehow had to take his own chances, and if he had stayed inside the wire he would have been safe. Then on the Saturday morning, we find out, or at least the government find out, that maybe what they said definitively was wrong. Then they waited until past the six o'clock news on Saturday to come out with the facts of the matter. When we want to give a lecture about morality, you do not live in a glass house, members of the government.
What I also know is that in 2007, when Chief of Army General Gillespie was at estimates, it was Senator Ronaldson who called him a coward. I am sure given his time again that Senator Ronaldson might have chosen his words differently. But what we never do in this place is seek to use debate in estimates to somehow make a lie of the Labor Party's support for the men and women in our military. You know what? You can fight the next election and you can try your best to attack us with your policies, but do not ever try—
Mr Joyce interjecting—
Mr SHORTEN: Mr Barnaby, say nothing and leave us wondering if you know what you are talking about. What I really object to is that we in this parliament and the Australians who put us here deserve a bit better than the kindergarten, flag-waving, faux patriotism which you guys want to wrap yourselves around. Every Australian Labor Party member loves this country as much as you do. Every Australian Labor Party member of parliament supports our military. Every Australian Labor Party member will never give up holding you to account.
The fact is that you choose to try and hide behind this sort of military patriotism when, in fact, there is no daylight between yourselves and ourselves. You should be better than that. Stick to your day jobs of trying to run your ministries and stop trying to smear and politicise the Australian military. We are on to your trick, and the Australian people are too.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, I am allowing a wide-ranging debate on this motion. For the purposes of the next speaker I restate the motion so we know what we are debating. The motion as moved by the member for Denison and seconded by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is:
That the opposition defence spokesperson be admonished for calling into question the integrity of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (15:23): I am pleased that you restated the motion, Madam Speaker, because the motion is, as you say, moved by the member for Denison, not a government member, and it is seconded by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The motion is quite specific, and I believe the member for Denison has sought to be very specific in putting forward this motion so there is no confusion about any broader claim being made. I acknowledge that the member for Denison and I may have some differences on matters of policy which General Campbell is responsible for implementing, but the member for Denison has been specific in crafting this motion. The motion is that the opposition defence spokesperson, not the opposition as a whole, be admonished for something quite specific: calling into question the integrity of Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. That is the motion we are debating.
Let us go to the conduct of Senator Conroy yesterday that the member for Denison is referring to. In Senate estimates he said this, very specifically, in questioning General Campbell:
You—
specifically General Campbell—
are engaged in a political cover-up.
That is what Senator Conroy said yesterday, and it is an outrageous sledge against someone of General Campbell's standing. I am pleased that the Leader of the Opposition is at least prepared to acknowledge that some of what has been said about Lieutenant General Campbell is true. I acknowledge all of it as true, as I am sure every member of this House would want to do and I am certain that every member on this side of the House does.
It is a very specific motion. I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has said that the opposition will not be supporting the motion. In so doing, he has confirmed and affirmed the behaviour of Senator Conroy in the Senate. The Leader of the Opposition in his response to this motion today has demonstrated how small a man he is when the challenge is put to him. The good-faith motion put forward by the member for Denison is to bring this House together and to ensure that the outrageous conduct of a member of the other place is brought under scrutiny. An opportunity has once again been given to the Leader of the Opposition to try and set this right. That is something the member for Chifley did last night, I acknowledge, but his leader is not prepared to do in this place today. That is a very small act from the Leader of the Opposition, who has proved in this place his smallness when dealing with a matter of such significance.
I remind the House that General Campbell was appointed to this role by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Hurley. General Campbell was appointed to this role to take command of the Joint Agency Task Force responsible for implementing Operation Sovereign Borders, which the foreign minister reminded the House was a policy detailed, articulated and advocated at the last election by those now on this side of the House and received the overwhelming mandate of the Australian people. Any good serving officer in the Navy, Army or Air Force—and I go beyond our defence forces and talk about the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service which is also involved in this initiative and the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, the Department of Foreign Affairs, our intelligence services and agencies—all these men and women are engaged in the implementation of this policy. General Campbell was selected because of his experience, because of his credibility, because of his integrity, because of his sincerity and because of his ability. I have had the privilege of observing these things on a daily basis. He is one of the finest, if not the finest, men I have ever met and certainly I have ever worked with.
The fact is he was subjected to that sledge by Senator Conroy last night. In a rare sign General Campbell went to the point of admitting offence. If a general of his standing says he has taken offence then Senator Conroy should not just have withdrawn. Everyone in this place knows that a withdrawal is not an apology. Senator Conroy should have apologised but he has not apologised. For that act, the member for Denison is right. The opposition defence spokesperson should be admonished by this House. He should have been admonished by the Leader of the Opposition. That should have happened last night; it should not have been dragged on.
Let us look at the comments from General Hurley this morning when he appeared before Senator Conroy, as unrepentant as anyone could possibly be. He said:
I was surprised by the accusations made against Lieutenant-General Angus Campbell. I was pleased these accusations were withdrawn but, unfortunately, once said, the shadow will linger.
Mr Abbott: The shadow lingers.
Mr MORRISON: The shadow lingers.
Lieutenant-General Campbell—
he says—
has a reputation in Canberra, and more widely in Australia and overseas, of integrity,—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Lingiari will desist!
Mr MORRISON: I note the interjections opposite. I will continue:
… intellect and studied impartiality. He is widely respected across Australia's political divide.
The shadow is lingering and this House, on the good motion of the member for Denison, has the opportunity right now to dispel that shadow, and the Leader of the Opposition is not up to the task. He is not up to the task and that is extremely disappointing.
Last night the member for Chifley talked about, 'I am not going to dance around it. What he said was wrong. It shouldn't have been said, not to a serving officer that way.' That is the transcript of what the member for Chifley said, but what we are seeing—
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will desist!
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton is warned!
Mr MORRISON: I note the interjections opposite. What we are seeing from the Leader of the Opposition is a dance. He is dancing around it. He will not face up to the behaviour of his own shadow minister for defence. As the Assistant Minister for Defence said earlier, he opened his account as the shadow minister for defence with a sledge against one of our strongest and most able and most distinguished serving officers in our military.
Other matters have been raised in this debate by the Leader of the Opposition. I want to correct the record for their benefit, because they seem to not understand how Operation Sovereign Borders operates and how it works. It brings together 15 agencies which the commander of the Joint Agency Task Force operates on a daily basis. They have a single-minded task, and that is to stop the boats—and they are stopping the boats. Those policies are working. General Campbell's leadership is proving to be a key ingredient in that success. It only makes me wonder: why didn't the previous government ask someone like General Campbell to go and fix their mess? That is what this government did. This government put someone in who had the ability to take the policies of this government and implement them and get the results the Australian people were crying out for, because after almost 1,200 deaths it demanded the sort of action and the sort of leadership for the policies and their implementation that General Campbell is putting in place.
I note particularly that the opposition takes issue with the policy regarding information and the handling of sensitive information in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders. I said before the last election that we would leave that matter of how information on matters of operations was to be addressed in the public domain to the commander of the JATF, and that is exactly what we did. Every time those opposite have criticised the way information is being handled in terms of maritime operations they are actually criticising the measures put in place by the commander of the JATF, because that is the body and that is the commander who has advised me on those policies.
I am not surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has not risen to the member for Denison's challenge here today, because he wishes to continue the attacks and undermining of this government and its policies and now that attack has shamefully gone at the hands of Senator Conroy to attacking one of the most distinguished men ever to pull on a uniform for this country.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The Leader of the Opposition asks me to sit down. I will not be sitting down, Leader of the Opposition; I will be standing up for General Campbell, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:29): I move:
That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“That this House express its full support to the men and women of Australia’s Defence Force and that this House resolves that political debate should accept our armed forces dutifully follow the instructions of the Government of the day.”
Mr Pyne: I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, as you would probably be aware, the motion moved by the member for Denison bears no resemblance whatsoever to the amendment being suggested by the Manager of Opposition Business—it is an entirely different matter. In which case the amendment is therefore out of order and cannot be accepted by the chair. If the Manager of Opposition Business wants to move a different motion at another time, we would be more than happy to consider it, but this is a motion about the actions of Senator Conroy; it is not a motion about the entire military defence forces.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—to the point of order that was raised. On many occasions amendments have been moved to resolutions once leave has been granted. In the scale of what is being considered—
Opposition members: We cannot hear! Turn on the microphone!
The SPEAKER: I am listening to the Manager of Opposition Business. He has the call.
Mr Burke: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There have been many occasions where amendments have been moved and accepted and much precedent for amendments which look at the issues contained within the resolution in a different way. It is in no way a direct negative; it deals directly with respect for our Armed Forces and is well within the precedents of this House.
The SPEAKER: I am looking at the terms of the motion as it was moved and I am looking at the amendment and there is a requirement that the amendment be relevant to the substance of the motion. There is no relevance of the amendment to the substance of the motion and I rule the amendment out of order. The question is that the motion be put. All those in favour? To the contrary? I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.
Question agreed to.
An opposition member: What motion?
An opposition member: You are going to gag debate!
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, when did I cease to have the call?
The SPEAKER: When I made my ruling.
Mr Burke: But I was still on my feet.
The SPEAKER: I am sorry, you were not properly on your feet—you should have been sitting down.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I made my ruling.
Mr Burke: A point of order.
The SPEAKER: A point of order you may make.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, could you please define what it means to be 'properly on your feet' in this House, because there is nothing in Practice, no precedent anywhere? You are on your own!
The SPEAKER: The member will take his seat!
Mr Dreyfus: This is the most partisan Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Isaacs then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The fact of the matter is this: you are on your feet when you are given the call. Earlier today we had an instance where I gave the call to the Leader of the Opposition; I expected him to answer a question; he did not do it. He spoke on indulgence without first seeking it, but I let it pass. But on this occasion I had made a ruling; I had put the motion; the motion is now carried; and we will move on to the rest of business.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I will acknowledge the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: If I can refresh you on why you made your ruling: I took one step back, remained on my feet seeking the call—
The SPEAKER: You should not have; you should have sat down.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.
The SPEAKER: It has passed, I am sorry. The moment has passed.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order—
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr Burke: Is that your ruling?
The SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Mr Burke: Is it your ruling that I should resume my seat?
The SPEAKER: It is not a ruling; it is a statement.
Mr Burke: Is that how you rule?
The SPEAKER: I call the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: I will hear your point of order. What is it?
Mr Burke: My point of order is that the debate should still be considered to be underway, given the error you made earlier.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. This is getting a little tedious. I will make a statement that there was no ruling. I simply said there is no point of order and I call the Prime Minister.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:39): Madam Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr Burke: On a point of order: I ask that the debate be recommitted to the parliament.
The SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. If you wish to move that way, you had better do so.
Mr Burke: If you are ruling that it is not a point of order, then make that ruling.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, no Speaker in the history of this parliament has behaved in the way you are behaving now.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business is reflecting on the Chair and will remove himself under 94(a).
The member for Watson then left the chamber.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:39): Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:40): I present Report No. 4 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 3 March 2014. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business
1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday 25 February 2014.
2. The committee determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 3 March 2014, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 Standing Committee on Economics:
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2013 (First Report).
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.
Speech time limits—
Ms O ' Dwyer — 5 minutes.
Mr Husic — 5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR WILLIAMS: To move:
That this House notes:
(1) with concern that unemployment in South Australia is higher than the national average;
(2) that South Australia has a talented workforce that deserves a government determined to:
(a) reduce taxes and regulation;
(b) grow the state's economy, and
(c) liberate the people of South Australia to realise their destiny; and
(3) that the Australian Government has a plan to build a stronger South Australian economy so that everyone can get ahead through abolishing the carbon tax, ending the waste, stopping the boats, and building the roads of the 21st century. (Notice given 24February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Mr Williams — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MS PLIBERSEK: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the United Nations Human Rights Council's Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) released on 17 February 2014;
(b) the gravity, scale and nature of human rights violations and crimes against humanity which have been and are being committed systematically by the DPRK, including murder, enslavement, starvation, torture, rape and persecution on the grounds of race, religion and gender, and other inhumane acts;
(c) first hand testimony from DPRK refugees, escapees and asylum seekers;
(d) the political and security apparatus of the DPRK and the use of tactics including surveillance, selective distribution of food, fear, public executions and forced disappearances; and
(e) the crimes against humanity against non-DPRK citizens through international abduction and forced repatriation;
(2) recognises the significance of the public hearings held by the commission of inquiry, in informing the report;
(3) acknowledges the work of the Chair of the commission of inquiry, the Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG, and his important contribution to improved international understanding and capacity to respond to the state of human rights in the DPRK; and
(4) calls on the Government to take all available steps to:
(a) support the recommendations of the report;
(b) urge United Nations action on the findings of the report; and
(c) support efforts to hold those responsible for crimes accountable through the International Criminal Court. (Notice given 24February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Speech time limits—
Ms Plibersek — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR NIKOLIC: To move:
That this House notes:
(1) with concern:
(a) the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2012 survey, which are the worst for Australia since testing began and show that Australia is falling further behind its regional neighbours on critical objective measures; and
(b) that, in spite of a 44 per cent increase in education funding by the Government during the last decade, student performance has declined, which indicates that there is much more to improving educational outcomes for our children than simply increasing funding;
(2) that the PISA 2012 survey has also revealed how critical teacher quality is to Australia's education system and to lifting student outcomes and how outcomes for students, regardless of which school they attend, are directly affected by the quality of the teaching they receive;
(3) that the Government's response to the PISA 2012 survey emphasises the critical importance of teacher quality to Australia's education system and to lifting student outcomes, coupled with a robust curriculum, expanding autonomy for principals, and encouraging more parental engagement; and
(4) the Government's consistent commitment to ensuring a fairer, needs‑based funding arrangement for schools nationally, to deliver better schools for Australian students. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon.
Speech time limits—
Mr Nikolic—10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 + 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR ALBANESE: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) that investment in infrastructure is a vital contributor to economic growth;
(b) the broad support in the House for:
(i) the principle that infrastructure priorities should be developed by experts, based on the benefit to the national economy;
(ii) Infrastructure Australia as an independent source of infrastructure advice to government; and
(iii) the continuance and enhancement of the successful role played by Infrastructure Australia since its formation in 2008; and
(c) the overwhelming desire of infrastructure providers, financiers, and others involved in the infrastructure chain, for a robust, bipartisan approach to the governance of Infrastructure Australia; and
(2) resolves that:
(a) the issue of the future governance of Infrastructure Australia be referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications for consideration and report back to the House by 30 April 2014;
(b) that the Committee seeks formal submissions from the public, and specifically stakeholders across the infrastructure chain, on the matter of the governance of Infrastructure Australia;
(c) that Infrastructure Australia, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, other relevant federal agencies, COAG and its member governments, including local government, be specifically requested to provide input; and
(d) that until such time as this review is completed, the Infrastructure Australia Amendment Bill 2013 not be further proceeded with in the House or the other place. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Mr Albanese — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR VAN MANEN: To move:
That this House:
(1) commends the Government for its strong commitment to small businesses in Australia;
(2) notes:
(a) that small business is essential to the Australian Economy;
(b) there are approximately 2 million actively trading small businesses in Australia employing 4.6 million people;
(c) small businesses generate over $900 billion in income and contribute around 34 per cent of Industry Value Added;
(d) that under the previous Labor Government, 412,000 jobs were lost in small business and there are 3,000 fewer employing small businesses than was the case when the former Coalition Government left office; and
(e) the share of employment provided by small businesses has shrunk from 53 per cent of the private sector workforce in 2007 to 43 per cent under the former Labor Government; and
(3) supports small business owners throughout Australia by endorsing the Coalition's Small Business Policy that outlines 23 initiatives to further remove challenges and roadblocks in their way. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Mr van Manen — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 Ms O'Neil: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that in July 2013 general elections were held in Cambodia, the results of which have been disputed and led to civil unrest;
(2) notes that on 2 and 3 January 2014:
(a) 5 people were killed by Cambodian security forces while protesting in Phnomh Penh; and
(b) 23 people were detained for participating in protests to secure a better wage for garment workers; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) join human rights organisations and multinational business leaders to express deep concern over the actions of the Cambodian Government;
(b) condemn violence against protesters; and
(c) ask the Cambodian authorities to release those detained for social and political activism. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
Time allotted—50 minutes .
Ms O ' Neil — 5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 Mrs K. L. Andrews: To move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) 13 to 20 March 2014 is national Coeliac Awareness Week, with the aim of increasing rates of testing and diagnosis of coeliac disease;
(b) coeliac disease is one of Australia's most commonly under-diagnosed conditions, with an estimated 80 per cent of sufferers currently not diagnosed; and
(c) diagnosis and treatment immensely improves well-being and quality of life for sufferers of coeliac disease; and
(2) congratulates Coeliac Australia, and its five state organisations, on their work in promoting awareness of the disease, improving quality of life for sufferers, and fundraising for research of coeliac disease. (Notice given 11February 2014.)
{DPS, "PFStart", "n"}
Time allotted—30 minutes .
Mrs K. L. Andrews — 10 minutes.
Next Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 Ms Hall: To move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 28 February is Rare Disease Dayand encourages all Members to acknowledge that around 10 per cent of the population including 400,000 children suffer from these diseases;
(b) rare diseases, of which there are more than 8,000, are complex, often with inadequate or no treatment; and
(c) 80 per cent of rare diseases affect children and most begin in childhood only to continue throughout life;
(2) recognises that:
(a) for best practice treatments to be achieved, Australians with rare diseases must have access to a wide range of trials; and
(b) a rare disease registry is potentially valuable to the progress of medical research in this field; and
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the vital role organisations play in assisting the patients with treatment and quality of life; and
(b) that an investigation into the establishment of a national patient registry, free of commercial interests, for research purposes would benefit the wellbeing of many patients. (Notice given 24February 2014.)
Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm.
Ms Hall—5 minutes .
Next Member speaking—5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Economy
The SPEAKER (15:40): I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The failure of the Government to develop a domestic economic agenda that reflects the G20 priorities on growth, jobs, infrastructure and tax.
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 BOWEN (McMahon) (15:40): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for the call. This matter of public importance goes to the yawning chasm between the government's rhetoric and their performance, between what the government says they will to and what they actually do, between their rhetoric and what, dare I may call it, the real action that the government have taken when it comes to the economy. We have a Treasurer who likes to huff and puff and beat his chest and lecture Australians about how they have to work harder, earn less, pay more and receive less from the government, but we have a Treasurer who does not follow his rhetoric when it comes to his performance in the Australian economy.
The Treasurer's favourite line is about the age of entitlement. He loves to tell us that the age of entitlement is over. He tells us that SPC should not get industry assistance because the workers there are on $50,000 and they earn too much. He tells Australian families that they should pay when they go to the doctor. He tells Australian lower-middle-income earners that they should get no relief from the tax system when they save for the future through superannuation. He tells the Australian people that the age of entitlement is over and then he says, 'By the way, can we give you a cheque for $75,000 when you have a child? We do not care if you are a millionaire; we do not care how much you earn.' But this government is going to introduce an extravagant and unaffordable paid parental leave scheme at the same time that he tells us that the age of entitlement is over. So, there is a fatal and fundamental flaw to the rhetoric of this government and the rhetoric of the Treasurer, in particular.
No wonder he appears more like a c-grade actor in the North Shore dramatic society than the Treasurer of Australia, with his antics. I do fear that I might just have offended the North Shore dramatic society and I do under the chairmanship apologise if I did. Of course, this is just one part of the Treasurer's rhetoric. On the weekend we saw the G20 held in Australia—a very good thing for Australia—under the chairmanship of the Treasurer. I am more than willing to recognise those who contributed to the key role Australia has played in the G20—the member for Lilley, the former member for Griffith, the former Prime Minister and I will even pay tribute to Peter Costello for his role in formulating the G20 finance ministers. The Treasurer was not backwards in coming forwards when talking about his own role in the world economy the other day. I saw that he gave an interview to the Financial Times and he said:
I have a unique goal to try to drive the world into greater growth and prosperity.
A unique goal, he said. Greater growth and prosperity! You can just imagine the rest of the world's finance ministers saying, 'Oh, phew, we have a new Treasurer in Australia and he's going to get world growth and prosperity. We were thinking about recession and poverty. That is where we were going wrong. That is what we got wrong. This Joe Hockey, he's better than ours.' He said, 'I have a unique goal for world growth and prosperity and I am going to force it through.' Thank goodness we have that Treasurer in Australia! But what is the reality of the Treasurer's goal for world growth and prosperity?
We got the G20 communique, and it did set a target for growth—an aspirational aim for more growth—and that is something that is very welcome. But an aspirational target for more growth does not create one job.
And what is this Treasurer's plan for jobs for Australians? Let us just check in and see how he is going. We have seen 63,000 full-time jobs lost since the last election. Sixty-three thousand full-time jobs were lost on his watch, making 2013 the worst year for full-time job losses since 1992—worse than at any time during the global financial crisis, on his watch. Of those full-time job losses in the last calendar year, 57,000 happened since the last election, and then another 7,000 in January. We now have more people looking for work in Australia today than at any time since 1998. And yet we are very glad that the Treasurer has a unique goal of world growth!
What does all this mean in terms of the economy going forward? We know we now have unemployment at six per cent, and the House will be interested to know this: we have also seen participation in the workforce decline—fewer people in the workforce looking for jobs. If we had the same participation rate now as we had under the Labor government, unemployment would be a full one per cent higher. We would have unemployment now at seven per cent if participation rates were the same now as they were under the Labor government.
The Australian people understand that unemployment does go up from time to time, but they want to know that the government has a plan to deal with it. What is the plan of this government? The first thing they have done is rip up the previous government's $1 billion jobs plan and throw it out the window. That plan, which involved innovation precincts and a half-a-billion-dollar contribution to innovation and research and development in Australia—gone. That plan is even more needed today than it was when it was introduced by the previous government almost exactly a year ago. It is needed now more than ever before, and this government throws it out.
This government talks about how: 'It's all right. These people will get other jobs—high-tech jobs, innovative jobs, well-paying jobs. But, by the way, we're going to rip up the innovation plan.' The Prime Minister told the Holden workers: 'Don't worry. You can go and work at the uranium mine.' Never mind that it doesn't exist; never mind that it is not going to start; they were going to get jobs at the uranium mine, the Prime Minister told them. And then he told them, 'Don't worry, you'll get high-paying, innovative jobs,' but they ripped up the jobs plan which was exactly designed to create those jobs.
We hear a lot from the government about taxes and how we need to reduce taxes. We need to spur growth, the Treasurer tells us. Well, if that is the reality, if that is the case, the Treasurer might want to explain why he is introducing a $3.2 billion tax hike for Australia's small businesses—$3.2 billion over the forward estimates because this government is ripping up the previous government's instant asset write-off and loss carryback measures; ripping them up; taxing small businesses more. And it is not just small businesses; it is also big businesses, because this government is introducing a $3.7-billion-a-year levy on business to fund that extravagant and unfair paid parental leave scheme that their Prime Minister is so proud of. So do not lecture us about taxes when you are increasing small business tax and increasing tax on business generally.
While we are on tax, we also saw the G20 communique talk about the need to reduce tax minimisation and base erosion—a very important initiative, for which I congratulate the G20. It was a long time in the making, and both the member for Lilley and I were very clear in our views at the G20 finance ministers meetings successively, and the meeting that I attended in Moscow, that this was the most important initiative for the G20, and I am glad that the current government kept it up. I am very glad of that, and I congratulate the Treasurer for doing it. I just wish the reality would match the rhetoric. I just wish that one of his first actions in government would not have been to wind back the reforms of the previous government to reduce tax minimisation, at a cost of $700 million to the Australian taxpayer, to benefit those multinationals that think it is okay to shift tax between their jurisdictions and minimise the tax they pay in Australia. So, if the Treasurer is going to get his chest-beating mode on, he could actually do something about it: all he would need to do is not come up with his own idea, not come up with a new initiative, but simply implement the previous government's plans. That is all he needs to do. It is not that hard to just implement a good policy.
Then we have infrastructure. The previous government thought infrastructure was important, and this government says it thinks infrastructure is important. We see infrastructure again figuring in the communique, and the Treasurer says he is pro-infrastructure.
Mr Briggs: Hear, hear!
Mr BOWEN: The assistant junior minister for infrastructure says, 'Hear, hear!' and good on him. Well, maybe he might want to fund the cross-river rail in Brisbane, or maybe he might want to fund the Melbourne metro or the Perth airport link or the public transport infrastructure right around the country that the previous government funded.
When the previous government, the Labor government, came to office in 2007, where do you think Australia might have figured in the world rankings for investment in infrastructure? First, maybe? Second? Third? We are a good country. We were 20th—20th in the OECD. When we left office in 2013, were we 20th?
Opposition members: No!
Mr BOWEN: Maybe we had improved? Maybe we were 19th? Maybe we were 18th? We were first in the OECD—first in the OECD because of our investment in infrastructure. And the increase in spending on infrastructure under the previous government per capita went from $132 under the Howard government to $225 under the Labor government. That is how you build infrastructure. You don't talk about it; you don't write it into communiques; you fund it. It is a pretty simple concept: infrastructure does cost money, and you fund it and you build it. That is how you fund infrastructure.
Mr Ciobo interjecting—
Mr BOWEN: Ninety-three. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer says, 'Oh, it's terrible—you borrowed money to fund infrastructure!' The Treasurer is talking about bonds to fund infrastructure. That wouldn't be borrowed money at all, would it! Bonds—that wouldn't be borrowed money, when you issue bonds to fund infrastructure! No wonder you are so influential on the Gold Coast! They have figured you out, haven't they? They figured you out a long time ago. That is why you came 93rd. You will be a minister one day—when Wyatt Roy is Prime Minister, you'll get there. Don't worry about it.
But this is a serious issue, because this government is strong on rhetoric, strong on acting, and strong on lecturing middle- and low-income earners about how they have got it so good and they need to pay more, but, when it comes to delivering the goods, this is a government that just does not have it.
Mr BRIGGS (Mayo—Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (15:52): It is a great privilege to rise in this place, as always, and speak on the MPI raised by the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, albeit an MPI that is a little misguided, as usual. He should be welcoming the great outcome from the G20 that the Treasurer was able to secure on the weekend. We on this side of the House have been utterly impressed by the way that the Treasurer was able to get the G20 target agreed to by the G20 countries. I do congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury on his role on the weekend also in ensuring that great outcome. So we are surprised that the member for McMahon is not welcoming the outcomes of the G20, but maybe we will get that when he has finally had his meeting with the former Treasurer, the member for Lilley. The House will remember that when they hand over the Treasury they do not actually have a meeting as part of the handover because that is the disdain they have for each other.
It was interesting to hear the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, talk about Labor's current approach to economic policy, which is to decide what is the best economic way forward for business, not to let business innovate themselves but for Labor to tell them what they should do. That is now the thinking on that side of the House. It is not the thinking of Paul Keating and it is not the thinking—
Mr Bowen: Who said that?
Mr BRIGGS: The member for McMahon says, 'Who said that?' Just recently the member for McMahon has been out there backing a $25 million claim by Coca-Cola Amatil for a factory in Shepparton. He was on the record supporting—
Mr Bowen: Have you been salmon fishing lately?
Mr BRIGGS: He raises Huon in Tasmania, a promise made by the Labor Party. The member for McMahon has been supporting the $25 million bid by Coca-Cola Amatil, but it is interesting that in his book which he wrote when he was sacked as immigration minister and he had a few months while he was doing Kevin Rudd's numbers last year—
Mr Bowen: Thanks for the royalties.
Mr BRIGGS: Don't worry; it is borrowed, and it will be returned on time. He says on page 50:
Supporting manufacturing does not mean supporting protection, picking winners and introducing old-fashioned subsidies. Protection is a recipe for an uncompetitive and unsustainable manufacturing sector.
There you go. That is something we agree with. He also raised during the debate the latest fad campaign that we see from the opposition. It is a bit reminiscent—for those of us who were here in 2008—of what it is like to go through the early stages of opposition today. Seeing what has happened today on the other side does bring back some memories, I am sure, for the Parliamentary Secretary for the Treasury as well from mid-2008, watching what is going on on the other side. There will be plenty of these MPI faux leadership speeches today. We will see plenty of those. As part of his contribution the member for McMahon raised the issue of the suggestion to the Commission of Audit of a co-payment for Medicare services. He raised that as one of the latest scare campaigns.
Dr Leigh: It is a fact campaign he raised.
Mr BRIGGS: He did raise it, member for Fraser, and I pay attention. In the last few days that we have gone back and had a look at a few of the things the member for Fraser has written over the years. It turns out that the member for Fraser wrote an op-ed in recent years, in recent times, arguing for—you guessed it—a co-payment for Medicare.
Dr Leigh: That was 2003.
Mr BRIGGS: So after 10 years he now does not support it. Is that right? So the member for Fraser, who is part of the economic brains trust on the other side, supports a co-payment for Medicare. He claims it as a Labor idea, in fact, in the article. He says it is a Labor idea. Yet the member for McMahon, as part of the latest scare campaign that the opposition now wants to come up with, is running around trying to create this. He should talk to the member for Fraser. He says it is his idea.
This is an opposition that refuses to accept that they left the country in a mess. The budget situation that we found when we came to government on 7 September last year was a complete and utter mess. The MYEFO update that was released in December told the truth about the situation in which we found the budget. It said that if we do not address the fiscal challenge we will have a deficit for a decade, unless we change the structure of the budget. Unless we address the budget structure we will end up with over $500 billion of Labor debt. In 2007 when the Labor Party came to government and the member for Lilley inherited the Treasury from Peter Costello there was no debt. In 2008 when there was a global financial crisis the Labor Party went, 'You beauty, it is time to spend.' They opened up the chequebook. They built school halls when schools did not need it. They handed out cash when people did not want it—
Mr Bowen: Did you go to the opening of any school improvements in your electorate?
Mr BRIGGS: No, I didn't, not one. They were still handing out cheques last year when he was Treasurer to deal with an economic crisis in 2009 supposedly. That is how incompetent the Labor Party are. So I disagree with the Treasurer. The mining tax was not the worst policy implementation of the member for Lilley; it was the insanity of handing out $900 cheques. The member for McMahon deep down inside knows it.
Mr Husic interjecting—
Mr BRIGGS: Don't worry, Ed; you have had a good 24 hours, mate. You have had a great 24 hours. You are going to get quoted more often in the next 24 hours than you will for a long time.
We do have a challenge with the budget. We have a challenge with the economy. We need to address the structural challenges in the economy, and we will do that. We are going to do that in the coming months. The budget will be a forward-looking document which starts to address the substantial challenges that the Labor Party has left this country and our people. It is not just the debt that is a problem; it is not just the deficits that are a problem; it is the structure of the economy, which means that young people cannot get a chance at work.
It is shameful that in my home state, in my home town of Adelaide, there is 19.7 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs. That is the record of six years of Labor at the federal level, and that is the record of 12 years of Labor at the state level. Jay Weatherill, the state Labor Premier for another 14 days, said on Monday that it does not matter—that it is all over the top; it does not matter at all—and that there is no jobs crisis. There is 20 per cent youth unemployment in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, and the Labor Premier says it does not matter. Hang your heads in shame. Jay Weatherill says 20 per cent youth unemployment does not matter. It does matter.
We will address the structural problems in the budget. We will address the structural problems in the economy. One of the ways that we are going to address the structural problems in the budget and in the economy is that we will invest in the productive capacity of the economy through infrastructure. We will invest in the roads of the 21st century. We will, for instance, build a north-south corridor in South Australia. We will invest in WestConnex, which will help people in Western Sydney reduce their travel time. It will ensure that we get the productive capacity of that city up. We will also invest in the East West Link in Melbourne. One of the things about which we absolutely agree with the secretary of the AWU in Melbourne is where he says that it is a project that must go ahead. It is a project that must go ahead, and under 'the infrastructure Prime Minister' it will go ahead. And we will have more to say about infrastructure through the budget process.
There is a budget crisis left by the Labor Party. There are structural problems within the economy which mean that our young people do not get the opportunity at a job that they should. There is an utter difference in the approach to the economy between our side of parliament and their side of parliament. They believe in the power of government. They believe in the power of government programs in creating jobs. We believe in our people. We believe in our people and the entrepreneurial spirit. We will take the tax pressure off them. We will get rid of the carbon tax. We will get rid of the mining tax. We will get rid of the regulatory burden, and we will build the infrastructure of the 21st century to create a stronger and more prosperous Australia.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:02): I congratulate the Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development on his decade-old diggings, but I am happy to assure the House that I, like all members on this side, do not support a GP tax. The aspiration set by the Treasurer for an additional 0.4 per cent growth per year over the next five years is a perfectly reasonable aspiration, and nobody in this parliament would disagree with it, but an aspiration is not a plan.
There are two very clear plans for growth on offer in this parliament. This side of the parliament believes that growth is driven by investment, by education and by fairness. That side of the parliament believes it is driven by cuts, cuts and cuts—cutting infrastructure, cutting services and cutting wages.
On this side of House, we are committed to building the National Broadband Network. We took Australia from being 20th in the OECD for investments and infrastructure to being first. On this side of the House, we believe in education. That is why we brought forward the National Plan for School Improvement and demand-driven universities. And we believe in fairness. We believe very firmly that government has a role in looking after the most disadvantaged.
But that side of the House is cutting infrastructure. The government does not believe in urban public transport, so it is not investing in projects like Brisbane's Cross River Rail project, the Melbourne Metro, the Perth Airport link and Adelaide's Tonsley Park public transport project. That side of the House does not believe in supporting services, which of course, in a fragile period for the labour market, has a negative impact on demand. If you cut back on that schoolkids bonus, you are taking money straight out of retail spending. But, if you give $75,000 to a millionaire to have a baby, the chances are that they are just going to pay off the mortgage. The spending cuts are going to hit spending hard, and that is going to hit jobs as well.
But also those on that side of the House believe that they need to cut wages. That is their solution every time to boost productivity. You hear the head of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council, Maurice Newman, say things like:
… Australian wage rates are very high by international standards and … our system is dogged by rigidities …
Mr Newman gave a speech to CEDA in which he cited a number of countries, among them Canada, the European Union, Britain and New Zealand, and he said that Australian wages were high relative to those countries. What he failed to grasp, as Stephen Koukoulas has pointed out, is that all of those 'low-wage' countries have higher unemployment rates. The unemployment rate in Canada at the time Mr Koukoulas was writing was 6.9 per cent; in the US, seven per cent; in the eurozone, 12 per cent; in New Zealand, 6.2 per cent; and, in the UK, 7.6 per cent. When the going got tough, the Australian system outperformed that of other nations.
Of course, we have seen just recently new data out on wage growth which has given the lie to those who say that the secret to Australian prosperity is to cut wages. We have seen the release of the seasonally adjusted wage price index. In the December quarter, it rose 0.7 per cent, giving a growth rate for 2013 of 2.6 per cent. That is below the rate of inflation, which is 2.7 per cent, so Australian workers have had a real wage cut. This comes after a 35-year period in which wages for the bottom 10 per cent grew by 15 per cent and wages for the top 10 per cent grew by 59 per cent.
And yet those opposite, led by people like Maurice Newman, believe that the secret to Australian prosperity is to cut wages. They are utterly out of touch. And while they want to cut wages, they want to keep open loopholes. As the shadow Treasurer so eloquently pointed out, the multinational tax-shifting arrangements that the government took to the G20 were Labor's arrangements, minus the $700 million measure that the government took out and minus the transparency measure that Senator Sinodinos is going to scrap. Shame, government, shame!
Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (16:07): Who would have thought that we would come into the chamber today for the MPI to hear the pinnacle of economic thought on Labor's side—and I am not talking about the member for Canberra. I am in fact talking about the member for McMahon, who mounted an argument built on an old Elvis song A little less conversation, a little more action.
That was the central thrust that we heard from the member for McMahon—how this government is somehow deficient because we are not taking enough action and instead engaging in a little bit too much conversation.
But the reality is that what this government and, in particular, the Treasurer—I acknowledge the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer—achieved at G20 was in fact precedence setting. He was able to collectively raise the sights of G20 nations around the globe so that they could strive for an ambitious target of an extra two per cent growth over the next five years, a target which if delivered upon will ensure that there are literally $2 trillion or $3 trillion of additional economic activity and tens of millions of new jobs on a global basis.
It was pretty rich to hear the shadow Treasurer talk about Labor's legacy and to, in some way, portray Labor's legacy when it came to our domestic economic agenda as in some way being all about action. I have news for the shadow Treasurer and for the shadow Assistant Treasurer: sometimes action is not the right thing. That is especially the case when it comes to the Australian Labor Party. Do you know what? The Australian public would have much preferred a little more conversation from the Labor Party and a little less action, because what they actually got from the Australian Labor Party over the six years that they were in power was in fact an economic record that most would run screaming away from. But not the Labor Party—oh no! They embrace it and they hold it up and herald it as though, in some way, they were great visionaries. They say: what we needed was more action.
'More action is all we needed.' Really, Member for McMahon! Let's talk about GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, pink batts, school halls and border protection. When it comes to Labor action, what exactly does the member for McMahon talk about? He is particularly well versed to talk about border protection because he was one of the four ministers responsible for border protection. We know what your legacy is, Member for McMahon. We saw the consequence of Labor action: 50,000 people and over 750 boats came. That was the consequence of Labor action.
What about pink batts? We saw great overaction on pink batts, didn't we? We remember that $1.2 billion of taxpayers' money went into the pink batts program. What was the consequence of Labor's action there? Deaths; 200 houses caught on fire; and it cost $1.2 billion to put pink batts into people's roofs and then another $1.2 billion to rip them out again. That is the consequence of Labor action. What is another thing that we saw when it came to Labor's economic policies?
They like to say how they saved Australia from recession. What we actually know is that the consequence of Labor's action—the member for McMahon is over there, popping his chest out as though he is some kind of action man—was $123 billion worth of deficits over the forward estimates and $667 billion of debt. That is the action that is going to cost generations of Australians a very big penalty, when it will take us two, three or four decades to pay back this debt. So I say to the Australian Labor Party: we are not too thrilled about your action and neither are the Australian people.
I have to turn to the Australian Financial Review, a Fairfax publication—historically, not one of the coalition's best friends. I think the editorial from the Australian Financial Review summed it up best. It said:
The communique from Sunday's meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors provides the bones of an Australian model for driving economic growth through a period of budget contraction by employing structural reforms that allow business to be the engine of expansion.
I was going to leave it there, but I really want the shadow Treasurer to listen to this. Shadow Treasurer, you are in the chamber; have a listen to this:
What a blessed contrast this provides to Kevin Rudd's response to the global financial crisis five years ago, with his government's overblown Keynesian fiscal stimulus and his grandiose declaration of a new social democratic consensus based around government intervention to supercede the "prevailing neo-liberal orthodoxy of the past 30 years".
I could not have said it better myself.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:12): I rise to speak on this MPI. I think the reason those on the other side are so sore is that this resolution actually expects too much out of the Treasurer. It actually expects him to be able to come up with an agenda that will last five minutes—from the man who is the thought-bubble wand of the coalition. One day he will hop on a flight to London and he will explain to the people over there who are listening to him, by saying words he would never say here. He would never actually deliver 'The Age of Entitlement' speech here before an election. This is a speech where he said:
So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values of the government are or how popular a spending program may be.
Those are big words; a tough speech. As a result of that, the Prime Minister took that into account and developed his paid parental leave policy. Here he had his soon-to-be Treasurer lecturing all these other people that they should be ending the age of entitlement, and one person was not listening: the Prime Minister.
Residents in the electorate of Chifley speak to me about this. In particular, one age pensioner, who I have recounted in times past, said, 'I'm on a pension of $24,000 a year and yet there are people on the other side of the city who are on three times or four times what I'm getting—$75,000.' He cannot understand how the age of entitlement is supposed to have ended.
A few weeks ago in the lead-up to the G20 in an interview with Laura Tingle, the Treasurer was scratching his chin and said we may need to see the G20 collectively assist emerging markets that are having trouble dealing with the aftermath of tapering. He was talking about using the G20 to collectively assist. When the IMF was talking about helping out Europe, what did Joe Hockey say? He said the government must explain to taxpayers whether it would be in Australia's national interest to contribute and from where the government plans to fund such a contribution. One minute he will tell you that things should not be done or that we should stop entitlement or that we should make reform happen and the next minute he changes his mind. And then he goes to the G20 and talks about an agenda for growth, about jobs, about infrastructure. Let us talk about growth. He has got no idea how he is actually going to fund it.
You have seen all those opposite clutch Real Solutions. Their knuckles were going white they were clutching it so hard. Every time you wanted an answer out of them they said, 'It is in this book, read on. It is in the plan'—and somebody else will tell you what is in there.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: I watched Jamie and learned everything. One of the pearlers in there was 'one million jobs in five years'.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr HUSIC: Let us go to a tally—and I thank the member for prompting me. It is roughly 250,000 jobs a year the government has to create. Those opposite have been in office for less than six months, and how many jobs have gone? There are 63,000 jobs gone. A job has gone every three minutes, and they have to create 250,000 in year 1. Look at the jobs that have gone: Holden, SPC, Ford. You can see what is happening. There is a callous disregard from those opposite about supporting people in those jobs to make sure that they stay, to make sure that they have incomes, to make sure that economic activity continues in this country. Their view is if it is in Real Solutions then it has got to happen, but reality demonstrates something completely different. Here they are telling the rest of the world they have to focus on growth, while jobs are being burned.
Mr Bowen: That is unique.
Mr HUSIC: Absolutely. It was a cunning plan to go to the G20 and say: do you know what our idea is? We think you should go for growth—with everyone in the G20 hailing the Treasurer as some sort of genius. Yet those opposite cannot demonstrate what they are going to do here on growth, on jobs and on infrastructure. We have had people and the assistant minister talking about infrastructure. Their idea is that they will provide infrastructure by re-tolling the M4 in western Sydney, and we are supposed to be grateful for it. On every level you have the Treasurer come up with an idea that he distances himself from the minute he has an opportunity. There is no consistency in the decisions they make. Everyone knows this because we heard all they said in opposition and none of it translates or can be explained by their actions once they got on that side of the House.
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:17): This government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so that everyone can get ahead. We are strengthening the economy by abolishing the carbon tax and cutting the red tape burden by $1 billion each year so that businesses can have confidence to grow and expand in order to deliver new jobs.
This government is committed to investing in productivity enhancing infrastructure that will help ensure that our cities and regions continue to develop and prosper for generations to come. Unlike the member for Charlton, I do strongly believe in my electorate and am here to represent it.
This government is committed to building the roads of the 21st century, essential infrastructure that will increase the nation's productivity, and increase growth to enable sustainable job creation. This is in stark contrast to the crippling legacy left by members opposite after six long years of unstable government, irrational decision making and policy on the run that destroyed both business and consumer confidence Australia wide.
We came to government tasked with reversing Labor's legacy to Australia, notably 200,000 more unemployed—contrary to the member opposite who suggested it was 250,000—gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion with $123 billion in cumulative deficits and the world's biggest carbon tax. It is an impressive job-destroying legacy.
Small business is the backbone of my local economy. Collectively, small business is the largest employer on the Central Coast. Dobell has 3,980 employing businesses. Only 24 of these businesses employ more than 200 people. This clearly demonstrates my region's reliance on small business for local employment. Dobell was left with its own legacy from the former Labor government. Last year the Daily Telegraph reported that due to the increase in costs of business, particularly through an increase in the cost of electricity due to the carbon tax, more businesses had shut their doors in Dobell than anywhere else in New South Wales. Unfortunately for the small businesses of Dobell, they were the victims of the former government's inept economic management that saw 412,000 small business jobs lost under their watch.
By the time Labor were done wrecking the economy and racking up levels of unimaginable debt, there were 3,000 fewer small businesses employing people than was the case when they came to office. Fifty-three per cent of all employment in the private sector workforce was provided by small businesses when Labor came to power. By the time they left there had been a ten per cent drop from fifty-three per cent down to forty-three per cent.
I have previously given the example in this parliament of a local small business in my electorate that, due to the rising cost of gas and electricity as a result of the carbon tax, had to make the decision not to employ an additional shop assistant in order to pay the bills. The carbon tax is a jobs-destroying tax that undermines the success of small businesses across Australia.
This government understands small business and listens to their concerns. That is why small business now has a voice at the cabinet table promoting and working to protect their interests. And we have a real and positive plan to bring assistance to small business to increase productivity and generate job growth right across Australia.
First and foremost, we will scrap the carbon tax to bring real relief to businesses struggling to cope with carbon tax driven electricity increases. Small businesses such as the Little Creek cheese shop should not have to make the decision between paying the carbon tax and employing an additional worker. Under this government's commitment, they will not have to make such a decision. We want to reverse the 412,000 jobs lost in small business under the opposition's watch and we will do so by scrapping the carbon tax.
Unlike the Opposition, the government understands the devastating impact of the jobs-destroying carbon tax. We also understand that red and green tape is choking the life out of the engine room of our economy. That is why this government will hold this parliament's first ever regulation repeal day—the first step in reducing red and green tape costs to businesses by $1 billion a year.
This government will also deliver vital infrastructure projects. In total, the government has committed $35 billion to fund key road, rail and intermodal projects between 2013-14 and 2018-19. One such project that was promised at no end by those opposite, yet never delivered, was the M1-M2 missing link. This government will end the frustration of Central Coast motorists by investing $405 million to start construction of the M1-M2 missing link. Unlike those opposite, we understand that this project is a vital piece of economic infrastructure that will boost the productive capacity of the New South Wales economy. For my electorate it will mean shorter travel times, reduced congestion and safer roads. For business, it will mean reduced freight costs for trucks that use this important national road corridor. (Time expired)
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:23): It was a noble aspiration that was agreed to on the weekend at the G20 that there would be an aim to lift the collective GDP by more than two per cent above the trajectory implied by current policy over the next five years. That is a noble aspiration. I have to say, though, that I am surprised that it took our current Treasurer six months to come up with that. I would have thought that, if he was not happy with the current trajectory over the last six months, he has had quite a substantial amount of time. But it has been the slowest start of any government in the history of Australian governments, and this is perhaps a reflection of that very, very low start.
It is not the aspiration that is the problem that we are talking about today—it is not the aspiration; the aspiration is quite noble. The problem that we are talking about today is that the mechanisms that the Treasurer believes are necessary to meet that aspiration—which is a priority on jobs, infrastructure and tax—have not been priorities for this government over the last six months and continue to be on the backburner. We have seen a loss of 63,000 jobs and we have seen no plan to grow new ones. We have seen cuts to infrastructure and we have seen increases in tax, particularly on small business. Once again, what the government say and what they do are two completely different things.
In the area of small business, in particular, they state over and over again that small business is the engine room of the economy and that, if you want the economy to grow, you have to back small business—and they are right. An incredibly important part of growing an economy is making sure that small business is very strong. That is what they say, but what did they do in the last six months? They ripped away $3.2 billion in tax cuts from small business. They say one thing—the friend of small business—and do something else. Also, they are raising taxes for large business by 1.5 per cent with their levy to fund the incredibly expensive paid parental leave scheme. So, again, they say small business has to be strong, they say they back small business, they say it is necessary for growth to meet this aspirational target, but what they do is completely opposite.
Even worse than that, the area in which they have ripped away those tax cuts was one that was designed to stimulate growth. It came from recommendations from the Henry tax review and the Business Tax Working Group following a review back in 2012. I am talking here about the loss carry-back provisions in particular. Business had long been supportive of introducing this ability to carry a loss back, because it smooths out the investment cycle for small business and it smooths out lumps in growth in the economy—incredibly important for businesses that are innovative and are developing new products and particularly important for small start-ups in IT, or film and intellectual property where the lead time for developing a new product can be quite substantial and much longer than the calendar year.
I tell the story quite often that the tax system was developed by a monk in the agrarian age, when the annual calendar year was quite an appropriate tax year, because crops grew and were harvested within the year. Now, of course, that is no longer the case. The loss carry-back provisions in conjunction with the instant tax write-off were a very significant step forward in the government of the day recognising that the patterns for small business differ and that if you want to stimulate investment in the small business sector you need a tax system which reflects their actualities.
We already had loss carry-forward, which allows you to carry a loss forward to next year's tax year. This one actually allows you to get a rebate at the time that you invest from last year's tax return. It is an incredibly important change, and the government have ripped it away. They have not actually told business yet. Unless you read the Liberal Party press releases—this party of small business—you would not even know it. As at 31 December, the tax office was still telling business that the loss carry-back provisions would apply even though they intend to retrospectively remove them as at 1 July last year as soon as that bill is passed.
It is the same with the instant tax write-off. The government have not told business yet that they are operating on a current tax law which will not apply by the time they put in their return. For small business and for growth? I do not think so.
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:28): I am very pleased to be able to speak in this MPI debate, because I want to speak about my electorate of Hinkler and the things that we are doing that will help people in my electorate. As promised, we have suspended Labor's flawed marine management plans and we will create a new plan in consultation with stakeholders—one that is based on science. This is something that was very concerning for the people who work in the seafood industry in my electorate. We are providing $6.5 million for 25 research projects to ensure the continued sustainability of Australian fisheries, including expanding the Status of key Australian fish stocks report to include more species.
Just last month we confirmed our announcement for $4.75 million for work on Hervey Bay roads. We have also announced funding to finish the flood repairs at the port of Bundaberg, which is absolutely critical for the local sugar industry—an industry that employs thousands of Australians in my electorate, which was at risk from damage to the port. It is money that had to be committed. We have done that and the work will be done. The coalition understand that well-planned infrastructure delivered in a timely manner is vital to helping all of us get products to market. It also facilitates service delivery to regional Australia and provides long-term employment and opportunities for training and development. So together over the next 10 years, the Abbott and Newman governments will spend $8.5 billion upgrading the ailing Bruce Highway.
This is incredibly important for the people in my electorate. If you are an exporter, if you are in agriculture, if you are a manufacturer, or if you simply want to go to the shop to buy your groceries at the weekend, you must have access to the Bruce Highway. When it is closed due to floods, our food and our export products simply cannot make it into our region, and that is very, very important to families in my electorate.
The issues that we have for business are that in Australia regulation is high, input costs are high, labour costs are high, the Australian dollar is high, and currently profits are low. As a government that is something that we are working to change. Repealing the carbon tax will be a great first step in helping businesses to flourish. Electricity costs are skyrocketing. The cost of refrigerant gas is skyrocketing and, right now in my electorate, people are turning off their pumps because (a) they are out of water, and (b) they have already expended any possible profit they might have gained from their crops for this year.
It is absolutely incredible to me that we can go from a one-in-200-year flood at the start of last year to now having had no rainfall for almost 12 months. We have cane farmers who are ploughing out their crops, which will mean a replant for next year at the cost of thousands of dollars an acre. It is absolutely incredible. Currently, the estimate in the local region is for a potential loss of 800,000 tonnes of cane on the former estimate had it rained. To give you some idea of what that is, that is a $35 million turnover to the local economy. Our situation is desperate and I would like to congratulate our agriculture minister and the cabinet and all the senior members of the team for getting the drought package over the line and distributed as soon as possible.
The other thing that we need to do is cut red and green tape. A great example came when Assistant Minister for Employment Luke Hartsuyker visited the Hinkler electorate. We visited a training provider called Impact at Jobs Services Australia. The single biggest issue for that organisation was red tape. They are tired of expending all of their money ticking the boxes. They want to spend that money to find jobs and to train people for real positions. It is something that is exceptionally important to them.
A root-and-branch review of competition laws will ensure large and small businesses have an even playing field. The free trade agreement negotiated with South Korea is excellent news for the people in my electorate because the removal of tariffs will provide a benefit for a range of Hinkler exporters including those in sugar, horticulture and seafood. We are also working to conclude agreements with other trading partners. That is great news for the local electorate.
But the important part for small business is around unemployment. I do not need to tell the people in this House that jobs are sorely needed in Hinkler. Unemployment is our single biggest issue. Unemployment and financial hardship are often contributing factors in cases of marital breakdown, domestic violence, criminal activity, poor nutrition, health problems and declining school attendance. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, unemployment in the Hinkler electorate increased from six per cent in September 2007 to 9.3 per cent in June 2013. That is compared to an unemployment rate of 5.4 per cent for the nation or six per cent in Queensland.
As promised, we are revitalising the Work for the Dole program. We will get people back to work. We will give them routine. We will give people structure, presentation skills and access to potential employers, and it is incredibly important that we provide the conditions for business to thrive so that they employ. So I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, for the opportunity to speak. It is great to be part of the team. Thanks for making me welcome.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (16:33): I am glad I could follow the member for Hinkler, who ended on the importance of jobs and employment, because I am incredibly proud of the last Labor government's employment record. In the six years of the Labor government nearly one million jobs were created and, more importantly, we saved 200,000 jobs during the global financial crisis. In a period when almost every other developed nation went into recession, not only did Australia survive the recession but we saved 200,000 jobs and had a very good stimulus package, something the current Prime Minister slept through during the parliamentary proceedings. Labor did not sleep through it. Labor responded strongly and saved the Australian economy and throughout that six years nearly one million jobs were created.
I was interested in the member for Dobell's contribution, which ranged across a lot of areas including small business and the declining share of small business employment in the economy. The most important thing is that jobs grew under Labor and nearly a million jobs were created. Whether they were small business jobs, jobs in medium-sized enterprises or large enterprises, the most important thing is that jobs were created. Sadly, we cannot say the same thing under the current government when 63,000 full-time jobs have been lost and we have seen the heart ripped out of manufacturing.
We have got the economic geniuses over the other side such as the Prime Minister, a man Mr Costello said could not be trusted on economics, a man of great, great economic learning—he learned at the feet of BA Santamaria, no less!—a man who, when confronted with Holden saying before the election, 'If you cut funding to the automotive industry, we will leave,' let it happen. That is a very sophisticated message; it is really hard to interpret that message. So what was their policy: to cut $500 million from automotive industry assistance. And what happened? Holden announced that they are leaving—they are going to go—decimating the North Adelaide economy. Without Holden there providing critical mass for the supply chain, Toyota had no choice but to leave as well. So in six short months, under the economic genius of the Prime Minister, the entire automotive industry is going—50,000 direct jobs and another 200,000 indirect jobs—destroying a key part of our manufacturing sector in only six months! Quite an achievement! If it was intended, it was a great achievement, because they went at it with great purpose. We have also seen job losses at Caterpillar and Electrolux, jobs that could have been saved if we had an activist government instead of a do-nothing government.
Another part of this MPI concerns the importance of infrastructure and providing investment certainty in infrastructure and appropriate market incentives to encourage investment in infrastructure. This government believes in neither the market nor predictable policy. Its gutting of Infrastructure Australia proves that point. By giving the minister the power to redirect funds away from vital infrastructure projects towards projects that he chooses on a political basis, we are seeing the end of evidence based infrastructure funding and more pork-barrelling.
It is not a surprise, as it has come from the government that brought us the regional rorts affair. I am sure that everyone on this side will be very familiar with some of those great efforts. For example, there was the $433,000 going to Coonawarra Gold for a project that was never built, run by a state Liberal candidate in South Australia. Grants went to a cheese factory that closed down, to build a rail line that burnt down, and to a pet food factory that never opened. This litany of regional rorts was great and you cannot expect anything else under the National Party, who glory in regional rorts.
The other part of the gutting of Infrastructure Australia is to remove the evidence based assigning of incentives for private sector investment in infrastructure. Instead, the minister has the power to confer tax loss concessions on project proponents without reference to Infrastructure Australia. So instead of having an expert independent body deciding what projects are nationally important and are deserving of tax incentives, we have the Minister for Infrastructure—the Deputy Prime Minister; a National at the root of his heart and soul and from the party of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. This is in direct contradiction to the G20's communique and just shows how hypocritical those opposite are. They say one thing in international forums and they do another when they are really put to the test domestically.
I am proud that I am the member of a party that created a million jobs when in government. Those on the other side stand condemned for the loss of 63,000 jobs in six short months.
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (16:38): What an interesting day! I am a new member here, from Tasmania, and looking to learn much. And what do I get? I get an MPI that talks about the failure of this government to develop a domestic economic agenda. That would be like getting a lecture on care and compassion from Hannibal Lecter! Seriously! What an unbelievable MPI we see.
A government member: They're all leaving!
Mr WHITELEY: Off they go! Off they trot—they do not want to face the truth. They are all leaving—they are not actually interested in being here to be accountable for what they have just said.
Let us just take up one of the last little matters we talked about: Holden. Yesterday, the old Nick Champion over there, the federal member for Wakefield, fell for the trap. He pulled out the old A4 sheet and could not hold himself down, and he got kicked out. What did it say? Back in 2012:
I—
the member for Wakefield—
have secured guaranteed support for GM Holden Elizabeth, ensuring production until—
Until when?
2022.
How dare they come in here on any day—let alone today—and talk about the fact that this government is the reason that the automotive industry is under pressure? We have lived for six years in this country under the absolute wastefulness of the former government, the Labor Party of Australia. They worshipped for six years at the altar of waste: pink batts—billions of dollars to implement and fix. Whether it was Fuel Watch or Grocery Watch, whether it was school halls or whether it was just anything that they put their hand to, it was a disaster. NBN—you would not even want to talk about it, because it would make you have nightmares at night.
The reality here is that this government is all about growth. That is what we are about, and what I want this government to be about—and can I just say that I have spent the last four years in the state parliament, sitting back and watching this country deteriorate. That is what fired me up to make a shift from state politics to federal politics because this country has that much to go—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (16:40): I move:
That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (16:41): We got the drought package today, and one has to look at government decision making in the light of comparisons. Unfortunately for the LNP, we have to compare their performance with the ALP. The ALP gave us $420 million and this mob gave us $280 million. So if we are comparing performance levels then I would have to be standing here praising the Labor Party, and God forbid that I would ever do that!
What the drought decision really says is, 'We will not be having agriculture in Australia.' We were given $280 million in loans. To put that in perspective I rang up the leader of the Cattle Crisis Council, and I asked, 'How many people have you got in serious trouble?' in a particular town. He said, 'About 50 per cent.' So 50 per cent is 60 cattlemen in one town and they have an average debt of $5 million. So the amount given today will fix up one town out of 400 towns in western Queensland. Small thanks.
This could be fixed up immediately within three seconds, but what has every government in Australian history done? They have simply set up a reconstruction board—a lairy name for putting four or five people in the Department of Agriculture here to one side and a couple of Treasury officials. Six people together in a room, they borrow some money at three per cent and they loan it out at two per cent. The one per cent is a deferred interest payment and it is picked up further down the track when these people come good.
I speak with authority because I was the minister in charge and responsible for the state bank in Queensland. We borrowed, in terms of today's money, about $1,000 million and we put it out there at two per cent interest. We borrowed it at three per cent and put it out at two per cent, and within five years we had made about $300 or $400 million of profit because the sugarcane farmers came good. The commercial interest rates went back up, which were then about 7½ or eight per cent. Of course, with those commercial interest rates we were able to pay back the deferred one per cent interest payment.
What this says is that we do not want agriculture in this country. Within seven years the country will be a net importer of food. I say that repeatedly in this place, and I do not think that anyone is the slightest bit interested in listening to me saying that. But anyone can go to the library, or to the Bureau of Statistics or to ABARE and get the figures. There is a 128 per cent increase in the last 10 years in imports and a 26 per cent increase in exports. You do not have to be Albert Einstein to work out that the graphs cross! Bye-bye agriculture!
The decision at SPC Ardmona reduces the wage levels there, I am told, to $30,000. Let us face facts: nobody in Australia is going to stay in a job for $30,000. It would be impossible to stay alive with $30,000 if you had a couple of kids. I think the result there is: bye-bye food processing in Australia. We already know that because they have announced it. I said in the election that within seven years there will be no motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia. I was wrong, wasn't I? Within seven months they said that there would be no motor vehicle manufacturing in Australia.
Few people here realise that the economy of Australia was carried for 25 years by the coal and aluminium industries, not the iron ore industry. Iron ore is a pretty recent phenomenon and is very big now. We now have amongst the highest electricity charges in the world—surprise, surprise!—because we corporatised the electricity industry and there are only three or four operators in the marketplace. They have put prices up 130 per cent in nine years in Queensland—and they went up 30 per cent last year. Aluminium is congealed electricity, so goodbye aluminium industry. That is one of the two industries that have carried the Australian economy. The aluminium and coal industries have provided nearly 20 per cent of our entire export earnings. Clearly, it is going, going, gone. The steel industry has had $70 million of profits this year, but three years ago the industry took two $1 billion losses two years in a row. So I would not be holding my breath about the steel industry.
What about petrol? The NRMA report was released yesterday. We are at nine per cent self-sufficiency now. The government is proposing that we double tax ethanol. That is rather fascinating. Imported oil from the Middle East gets taxed once at the bowser but Australian produced ethanol gets taxed twice: once at the point of production and again at the bowser. Ethanol gets hit twice. It would be good to have explained to me how the Sarina, Dalby and Manildra plants are going to pay 80c in the dollar tax when their competitors pay only 45c in the dollar tax. It will be rather interesting to hear the government explain that to us.
In five months the government has presided over effectively writing the death warrant on agriculture, on food processing, on the motor vehicle industry, on the steel industry, on the aluminium industry and on the petrol industry. You might think petrol is not important. When I left school as a young man at 17 I thought: 'Good on that John F Kennedy. He stood up to those dirty rotten Russians and we won't have any more wars.' That was when I was 17. When I was 18 they handed me a rifle. I had to give them two telephone numbers and I was on 24-hour call-up to go and fight a war in Indonesia—a war we were fighting to protect our oil pipeline. Every single year since 1964 we have been fighting a war to protect our oil pipeline, yet we have a government today—and the last government were just as bad, if not worse, if that is possible—that has decided we will not have a petrol industry at all or an ethanol industry either, so we will import all of our petrol. The rest of the world has thought they have to fight wars to protect their oil pipeline. Since 1964 till 2014 we have been fighting wars almost every single year.
Let us go back in history and have a look at the Second World War. Why did Japan go to war? Can anyone tell me why Japan went to war? Because the Americans cut off their oil supply. Where did it go? It immediately made a thrust down to Indonesia, and to protect the Indonesian periphery they had to take Australia. Where was the great battle that turned into the Second World War? Stalingrad. What is the significance of Stalingrad? It is the gateway to the oilfields. The Germans threw all of their resource might to make sure they could secure and get access to the oilfields. That is what wars are fought over.
The government here is so toweringly irresponsible. On both sides they have billy goat brains because they think we can run a country without any petrol whatsoever. I do not have my biofuels map with me that I carry around everywhere, but I have held it up here many times, so most of you have seen it. On that map every single country on Earth is coloured in. Every single country has ethanol. There is only one country on Earth outside of Africa that does not have ethanol and that is Australia. Once again I am sure that the rest of the world is wrong and we are the only clever dicks on the planet! We are the only clever people! Of course, the other possibility is that we are run by a bunch of billy goats and the rest of the world, who have seen fit every single year to fight a war to protect their oil pipeline, have it right. They desperately want to protect an indigenous source of supply.
Speaking on behalf of what is left of the ethanol industry in Australia, the ethanol industry can supply for you tomorrow very easily 55 per cent of your petrol needs and can increase food production because if we take the starch out of the grain then the grain is a much better quality food. So we can improve dramatically our food production by moving to ethanol, which is contrary to what the greenies say. I point out to any greenies listening that their patron saint Mr Al Gore on page 136 of An Inconvenient Truth says that the first solution to the CO2 problem and global warming is ethanol. We might have to build a few dams to get there, but that is not a great problem.
We live in a country where the cost of electricity now is reputed to be the highest in the world. We live in a country where the cost of petrol is 155c a litre while the cost in the United States—one of my friends just came back from there—is 79c a litre. The cost of petrol in Brazil when I was over there was 74c a litre, and I have been told it is still under 80c a litre. Those countries have ethanol. It would appear to me that America is now on about 20 per cent and Brazil is on about 55 per cent, but it is cheaper than petrol. You can buy ethanol much more cheaply than you can buy petrol, hence the cheap price of petrol in those countries.
The cost of a house in this country is the highest in the world. You people who sit in this parliament, who is responsible for this? Maybe penguins from Antarctica are responsible for our having the highest petrol prices in the world, the highest electricity prices on the world? I lie when I say the 'highest housing cost', because Hong Kong has the highest housing cost, but we are No. 2 in the world. Demographia puts out an annual report; anyone can read the report and find that out. How do you solve these problems? With petrol it is quite easy. You simply do what the Americans, the Brazilians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese and every single country in Europe that signed up for 10 per cent ethanol did. We are a gifted nation: we can very easily produce that ethanol from sugar cane, we can very easily produce it from grain. We could do it tomorrow, and we can produce it for around 85c a litre, so we can sell it for under a dollar a litre.
Let me move to electricity. I can speak with great authority on all of these areas, and if I sound confident—sometimes people accuse me of being arrogant—and sometimes it is hard not to be, it is because when I was minister for electricity in the Queensland government, we had the cheapest electricity in the world. That was how we secured the aluminium industry for our country. We heard the last ALP speaker make reference, mockingly, to the Bjelke-Petersen government. Well hey, mate, you have only got a decent wage because of that man, because his government had the perspicacity to take one or two per cent of the coal that was mined in Queensland—they took it for free; they said, 'Thank you, Buster Brown, we're taking it for free'—so our electricity in Queensland was provided by free coal.
The brilliant and clever ALP government gave all of the gas away. I am sure the LNP are very upset because they were not there to give it away to their overseas corporate masters. They most certainly promised before the election there would be 'no gas drilling east of the Condamine'. That is an actual quote from the statement made by the now Premier of Queensland in front of a public meeting that Ray Hopper was also at. Ray could not live with the shame of his people being told a flagrant lie by the government he was associated with. They had not been there two months—no drilling east of the Condamine! You have got to look after your big corporate sponsors. When I played rugby league, we were told, 'You've got to look after your corporate sponsors'. Well that is a lesson that the Queensland parliament has learnt well.
We have some 23 or 25 sugar mills in Queensland. They produce around four megawatts of electricity. The modern sugar mill produces around 100 megawatts of electricity. If you took $1,000 million—I think you could get away with loaning it, but you might have to give it as a grant—and gave it to those sugar mills to convert them to the production of electricity, then you could produce electricity for just about zero. We are burning all of the sugar cane fibre after we have squeezed the sugar juice out, we burn the fibre to get rid of it. Ninety per cent of the energy is just burnt to get rid of it. By spending a little tiny bit of money, we can then get it for free because there is no wage content. The sugar mill with electricity production has the same manning levels as the sugar mill without electricity production.
We can have cheap petrol—America and Brazil have got it now; we can have cheap electricity. We have cheap electricity in Queensland, the cheapest in the world. It is how we got the aluminium industry to Queensland. These things can be done. The cost of housing—I pay the minister at the table, the member for Wentworth, Mr Turnbull, great tribute because he and an Oxford don put out a paper and they said the cost of housing is pretty simple really. Just take out the restrictions, the choke hold of the state and local government laws. Take that choke hold out and you can have cheap housing! Once again, I speak with authority because the local land court clerk of the court and I had control of—and it would be well for the honourable minister, instead of talking to the ALP, to listen to this little anecdote I am going to tell the House.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr KATTER: No, I am not interested in whether he listens or not, but Mr Turnbull should take note that in Charters Towers, where we had no restrictions, every time the land price went over $6,000, we would dump 15 or 20 blocks on the market. So once they removed restrictions—we kept the price at $6,000—when they abolished the mining act, which was a criminal stupidity, we lost control of the land and it went under the restrictive regime of the state government and the local councils. Under that restrictive regime, within six years we were up to $127,000 for a block of land in Charters Towers. We had gone from $6,000—which is absolute proof that what Mr Turnbull and the Oxford don's paper put forward was absolutely dead spot-on, and there was the proof of it.
I would like to speak about foreign ownership, but I do not have time. Suffice to say that some 15 years ago the six great mining companies of Australia were all Australian owned. Last week I had the very great honour of going to Fortescue Metals and looking over their operations for a day. They are still one big mining operation that is Australian owned. But the six great mining companies of Australia that were once all Australian owned are now all foreign owned. They account for 83 per cent of our metals. Almost the entire gas industry, around 90 per cent, is foreign owned. We are taking the water off inland Australia and giving it to the gas industry—what for? There are no jobs in the gas industry. Just build a pipeline and the gas is pumped out to the coast and away it goes.
The Australian flag will fly over a country that cannot make a motor car, that cannot make an electric motor, that cannot make a tyre. It will be a Third World technological backwater. It will fly over a country that is predominantly foreign owned—its resources, its land, its water. We have six rivers that we can develop for water in Australia. Two of them have been put under national parks—a piece of mindless stupidity; two of them have been given to the Chinese; and that leaves just two for Australia, neither of which are being developed, because the government will not allow them to be developed. (Time expired)
WYATT ROY (Longman) (17:01): While Bob is a hard act to follow, I will do my best. In my maiden speech to this House I said, 'The easiest thing in life is to sit on the sidelines and complain. It is much harder to stand up for what you believe in.' While I am sure that many of the class of 2010 would feel that the 43rd Australian Parliament was a baptism of fire, I am proud of what we achieved in the most challenging of circumstances. I am proud of our defence and advocacy of the ideals we hold dear in the pursuit of better government, in the pursuit of government that recognises there is no limit to what Australia can achieve, but only if we respect the limits of government as well as its potential.
I said in this place three years ago, 'Longman is an area not defined, in my mind, by its geographical borders but by the character of its people. They are a hardworking people bound by a common aspirational mindset.' It is incumbent upon us to see government as an enabler. We must seek to unlock the potential of the Australian people. Government cannot always prescribe solutions, but it can help create a society empowered with the sense of its own destiny. Or, as a wise colleague once put it, the best governments will be those that understand and accept the limits of their power, not those that seek to dictate from on high how business should run, how society should be structured, which companies should stand or fall or how individuals should run their own lives.
With the new parliament and a new government comes a new hope. As Her Excellency the Governor-General has recounted, at the opening of the first parliament in Canberra, the Duke of York said that a new parliament marked a new page of history. He said that the opening of the Australian parliament was an opportunity for the rededication of this Commonwealth to the great ideals of liberty, fairness, justice and the cause of peace.
While we stand on the shoulders of giants, modern politics presents new challenges. Many have argued that the politics of today seeks to play to cheap opportunism, a short-term election cycle and an even shorter and more diverse media cycle. We must collectively overcome any retreat to such conditions. We must use the grand opportunity of the nation's parliament to rise above the white noise and replenish its corridors with the dreams of greatness.
As the Prime Minister once said in this chamber, so much of what happens here passes people by; sometimes it even annoys them. But, he said, the parliament must lift people's spirits, make them feel more proud of our country and more conscious of our potential to more often be our best selves. Indeed, in the face of the relentless pressure of modern politics and its threat to drag all of us to cynicism and opportunism, we must respond with the recognition that politics should ultimately be about doing not what is popular but what is right. We are driven by purpose, not the blind pursuit of power for power's sake.
This coalition government is determined to build a robust and prosperous economy founded on prudent economic management. It is only through a strong economy that we can realise a premium social dividend. This government will guarantee Australia's future prosperity by focusing on our national strengths. We will bolster the economy through lower taxes, less regulatory burden and higher productivity. The ultimate policy objective of Australian legislators should be to ensure that the next generation inherits a nation with more opportunities than their own.
While future generations will arguably continue to see Australia as the lucky country, one uniquely placed in the heart of a globalised world between the dominant West and a rising Asia, we will face a myriad of challenges, including that of an ageing population, which will inevitably place a greater burden on government drawing from a smaller tax base. The unstoppable march of this demographic reality will hit home in concert with a potentially significant debt burden and the waning of the mining boom.
In response, our first policy focus should be raising the productive capacity of the economy. If more people are in better jobs earning higher real wages, they pay more tax. So we must build a vibrant, deregulated economy which is part of a liberalised trade environment. I am proud to be part of a government with an ambitious deregulation agenda driven by a whole-of-government approach. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Prime Minister, ably assisted by the member for Kooyong, for taking personal responsibility for deregulating the economy. Increasing our nation's productivity requires us to recognise that it is private enterprise, not the government, that creates wealth and prosperity and employs people.
As well, we need to raise workforce participation by boosting immigration and the birth rate. In areas where the market is not best placed to do it, the government must take the lead in productive investment. That is why the coalition has such a strong infrastructure agenda, it is why we as a government have spoken up about opening up the north of Australia and it is why we should talk more about the possibilities of a sovereign wealth fund.
While the previous generation saw a massive increase in productivity with women entering the workforce, future generations will not enjoy the same demographic advantage. Undoubtedly, women entering the workforce triggered the biggest productivity gain of the past 30 years. For this generation, there is no equivalent labour force stimulus that lies untapped. Generation Y and successive generations will grow up with the majority of women in their number already in the workforce. Instead, we will have to take advantage of new technology and expand into new markets. Future generations will require constant upskilling and further training and will need to be willing to turn themselves into a more creative workforce to achieve productivity gains similar to those of the predecessor generation. In the meantime, landmark policies such as the Abbott government's Paid Parental Leave scheme have been designed to maintain women in the workforce. So, effectively, the Paid Parental Leave scheme is a productivity-increasing measure. As an economic driver, it should be construed as a workforce entitlement, not a welfare payment.
Another area of policy focus should be encouraging Australians wherever possible to secure their own long-term financial security. That is why as a government we need to ensure superannuants are getting the best possible deal, along with certainty. Unlike the previous, Labor, regime, the coalition will not be shifting the goalposts on superannuation. We must also be thinking about ways to support the next generation of Australians to pay for their education and afford a home. We must be inventive with approaches that encourage the social and economic development of the next wave of Australians so that they can secure their own financial security. Wherever possible, this should be done by incentivising the development of individual asset bases rather than relying on income assistance.
The stark fact in terms of Australia's ageing population is that our generation will be paying to support the retirement of the previous one on an unprecedented scale. The percentage of the population aged 75 and over is expected to increase from 6.4 per cent to over 14.4 per cent. While the values, attitudes and choices of baby boomers and generation Y might seem worlds apart, both sides must tackle this issue for our mutual benefit. That is because what we are really looking at is a demographic superbubble. When the baby boomers leave the workforce, they will take away not only their skills but their tax-paying capacity. According to demographer Bernard Salt:
… while the preceding generation produced 2.5 million retirees, we now have 4 million Australians on the brink of retirement about to draw on age pensions, pharmaceutical benefits and other government assistance.
Our current immigration rate is insufficient to compensate for this demographic shift. The annual permanent migrant intake of about 100,000 in the 1990s has increased by merely 90,000—growth nowhere near strong enough to fill the breach caused by the massive ebb to retirement. We cannot put our heads in the sand and postpone the conversation for another 30 years. As Peter Harris, the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, said:
The best time to develop policies that address the inescapable implications of demographic change is while the transition is in its infancy. It is a good time to start a debate and to float creative policy options.
There are very good reasons for making a start now on this key area of public policy. As the Productivity Commission has highlighted, if the pension age is not recalibrated and no other solution is found, taxes will need to rise by 21 per cent to pay for the ageing of the population. In fact, by the turn of the century, Australia will count more 100-year-olds than babies.
While there is no silver bullet, I believe the debate should focus on some key areas. While I have already outlined productivity-increasing measures and securing our own financial security as key drivers of our collective response to these challenges, we must also ask ourselves: what can we reasonably expect taxpayers and the government to provide to individuals? With a smaller revenue base and a greater demand on Treasury, we will have to make difficult decisions about what we as citizens expect our governments to provide. We either accept that they will do less or we anticipate paying significantly higher taxes.
While we respect and value the generations that have preceded us, who have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes, the conundrum is, as the Treasurer has put it, that there is a:
… battle between the fiscal reality of paying for what you spend, set against the expectation of majority public opinion that each generation will receive the same or increased support from the state than their forebears.
We must do everything we can to appropriately prepare for these challenges ahead. As Australians who are living longer, we will retire later. While those currently on the cusp of retirement may not be so impacted, I fully expect that, even if the pension age is not raised in the immediate future, it will have reached 70 by the time my generation reaches retirement. It will also be imperative to do everything in our power to prevent Australians who want to remain in the workforce from being prematurely shut out of economic participation in our society.
Finally, as we look at our toolkit in meeting the challenges facing our nation, we must look to the wider world. As one of the world's leading trading nations, Australia depends on open and transparent international markets for jobs and economic growth. Our unique place between the established West and an ascendant Asia means we must take hold of the opportunities that liberalising trade present.
The coalition will strengthen our trading relationships and boost the national economy by fast-tracking free trade agreements with China, Indonesia, Japan, India, South Korea, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to ensure that Australia fully capitalises on broad export and investment opportunities—and particularly Asia's rapid economic growth and the consumerism of its rising middle class. The coalition will place economic diplomacy among the bedrock of its international policy objectives. This government is establishing a new $100 million Colombo Plan that will give Australian university students an opportunity to study in our region, to deepen our engagement with our neighbours. The Australian government understands our unique position in the world and stands prepared to take hold of the opportunities of a more globalised and interconnected world in the 21st century.
We have often been referred to as the lucky country. I take a different approach, I believe we should be a country prepared to make our own luck, a country not afraid to stand tall and proud of its place in the world. While the challenges that face our nation are significant, the opportunity to meet those challenges is there for the taking. Our greatest asset is not our resources buried in the ground but the Australian people themselves. I see it every day in my own community—the hardworking Australians prepared to take a chance, not afraid of risk and just having a go. It is this intrinsic aspirational mindset that makes our community and our nation great. It is my determination in this place and as part of the Australian government to do all that we can to foster this approach to life.
The electors of Longman have placed in me an enormous amount of trust, and it is my commitment to this great local community that I will continue to work tenaciously in this place and in my community to repay that trust. Each day we will stand in defence of the principles and virtues that have made our society the envy of the world—the principles of freedom of choice, of equality of opportunity and of fair reward for hard work. In my maiden speech in this place I said:
When we make the decision to stand for parliament, we all have some idea of the sort of Australia we want to see. For me, it is a country of high productivity, a modern, enterprise economy where barriers to opportunity are minimised; where small business is valued as much as big business; where taxpayers’ money is valued …
Those words ring as true to me today as they did then. We will build a strong, diversified economy with lower taxes that will deliver more jobs, higher real incomes and better services for Australian families.
While we inherit the challenges of Labor's legacy—a legacy that left 200,000 more unemployed and gross debt projected to rise to $667 billion, or $29,000 for every man, woman and child—we will action the people's mandate to us to clean up Labor's mess. We will be a government that will scrap unnecessary taxes, cut wasteful spending and reduce the tax burden on businesses so that they can prosper and grow. We will be a government that understands that opportunity is always better than subsidy. We will be a government that understands that all Australians should have freedom of choice. And we will be a government that rewards hard work instead of penalising it.
As I said, we are a country that should not see itself as the lucky country but rather be prepared to make our own luck. While we stand on the shoulders of giants, let us use this parliament to reach a little further, to deliver to the next generation of Australians a country with greater opportunity and greater prosperity.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler) (17:19): I congratulate those new members of the parliament who have been elected for the first time, from both sides, including my neighbour the new member for Barton. Whatever your politics, I know that people come here with the best of intentions to act in the national interest, and I look forward to working in this parliament for that national interest.
When politicians move from the government benches into opposition, they normally ask themselves why they lost favour with voters. It is time to consider new policies and new ideas. It is a time which should be used, because it is valuable. If you do not do that, then you come into government without new ideas and without a plan for the nation. I believe that this government certainly had a plan to get into government, but they are showing that they do not have a plan to govern. Indeed, the very lack of legislation that is before this parliament—in its first sitting weeks we are seeing filibustering of debates that would normally take place in the Federation Chamber and no legislation before the parliament—says it all about their failure to use their time in opposition to develop an alternative vision for the nation. What they developed was just opposition.
In government we had developed a plan for infrastructure and transport, and we were continuing to implement it. Properly targeted investment in our ports, roads, railway lines and airports enhances the productive capacity of our economy. It allows exports of goods and services to move quickly, and that helps drive growth. Put simply, infrastructure equals jobs, and inadequate infrastructure is a handbrake on jobs growth and economic development.
I am very proud of Labor's infrastructure legacy. Over six years we made up for the previous coalition government's gross negligence by delivering the biggest and best-targeted infrastructure program in the history of the Commonwealth. We approached this in a planned, methodical manner. In the first weeks of the 2007 parliament, we started with the creation of Infrastructure Australia, an independent organisation that audited the nation's infrastructure needs and created our first infrastructure priority list. From there, we funded all 15 of the projects that were selected by IA for its infrastructure priority list. At the same time, we carefully moved through each of the critical sectors to the portfolio. We produced the nation's first ever aviation white paper. We also delivered the nation's first integrated long-term national port strategy. We delivered the national freight strategy.
Our focus was nation building, delivering the resources to facilitate export growth, to drive prosperity and to boost productivity. Jobs, exports, capacity building—that is the Labor legacy. Much of the legacy was delivered in the face of an obstructionist opposition that was never able to put aside its political interests long enough to consider the national interest.
You can sum up our achievements with a single statistic. When Labor took office, Australia was 20th out of the OECD list of 25 developed nations in terms of investment in infrastructure. Right now we are first, first in the last two years of OECD data for investment in infrastructure—very critical. And that comes off the very low base which we inherited in 2007. Public investment in infrastructure as a proportion of national income had plunged by almost 20 per cent from its level in the Keating era. There had been no investment in public transport in cities, despite the fact that urban congestion was worsening.
Mr Howard and Mr Abbott had also withdrawn $2 billion from the federal roads budget which had been outlined by the previous Keating government. Bulk carriers were forced to line up the days outside Newcastle port and other ports. It was not enough for Mr Howard and Mr Abbott to simply ignore the responsibilities. Their strategy was to blame state governments or previous governments if anyone dared to complain about poor roads, rail lines and ports. On nation building, the former Howard government was negligent. That leads to a reduction in growth.
Australia is one of the world's great trading nations. We depend on the export of oil, gas, coal, iron ore, agricultural products and processed goods for our prosperity. What kind of government ignores this? A coalition government. The negligence of Mr Howard and Mr Abbott sliced almost one percentage point off the economic growth which would have been achieved with adequate investment. The record is even worse when you consider that the Howard government ruled at the height of a mining boom which had driven government tax receipts to their highest levels in decades.
In 2005-06, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP stood at 24.2 per cent, having sat at around 24 per cent of the previous few years off the back of the mining boom. By 2008-09, when Labor was in government, the global financial crisis had reduced government revenues to 21 per cent of GDP and they fell further to 20 per cent in 2010-11. So Mr Howard, despite collecting the highest levels of tax, left an infrastructure deficit.
Labor, on the other hand, faced the biggest economic challenge since the Great Depression. We turned together around, kept Australia with growth and ensured that jobs were protected. Our $60 billion Nation Building Program covering roads, rail and ports, has cleared many bottlenecks and helped Australia maintain export growth, despite the global financial crisis. Almost two-thirds of this investment was in rural and regional communities. Between 2008-09 and 2013-14, federal spending on roads, train lines and public transport infrastructure increased from $132 per person in Australia to $225 for every Australian. Total annual spending on roads, railways, electricity generators and water storage facilities is now 42 per cent higher than in the last full year of the Howard government.
Labor also reformed tax arrangements to make it easier and more attractive for private companies and superannuation funds to invest in infrastructure, changes that we expect will facilitate investment of an extra $25 billion in investment projects in coming years. Critical to this turnaround was the creation of Infrastructure Australia and the national priority list. The 15 projects that were funded and recommended as priorities by Infrastructure Australia included the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane, the Pacific Highway upgrades in New South Wales, Victoria's Regional Rail Link and the Hunter Expressway. In the case of the Brisbane Cross River Rail project, just like the Melbourne Metro, its funding is now under threat.
Labor doubled the roads budget. We invested $46.5 billion to build or upgrade 7,500 kilometres of road, the biggest investment since the creation of the national road network nearly 40 years ago. That is equivalent to rebuilding one kilometre in every four kilometres of the national highway in only two terms.
On the Pacific Highway, we invested $7.9 billion in six years, while the previous coalition government invested $1.3 billion over 12 years. Projects such as the Bulahdelah bypass, the Kempsey bypass and the Ballina bypass were all promised, funded, built and opened by Labor. Further north, on the Bruce Highway, we invested $5.7 billion over six years, more than four times the amount committed by the previous Howard government over a similar period.
When in opposition, the infrastructure minister, Warren Truss, often described the Cooroy to Curra section of the Bruce Highway as the most dangerous section of road in the country: in spite of the fact that it was in his seat and he had been the transport minister. He can thank Labor for the fact that one section of the upgrade has been completed and opened and that in the next section work is under way.
The fact is, we did not just talk; we acted and we invested. We invested in the Hume Highway, finally fulfilling the completion of the road between Australia's largest two cities, Sydney to Melbourne. The Hunter Expressway was talked about for decades. It has been delivered by Labor and is due to be opened. By the time we left office, we had completed 137 major road projects, with 67 under way. We also fixed 1,944 notorious traffic black spots and installed 95 new rest stops and 46 new truck parking bays around the nation.
Labor increased rail funding by 10 times compared to the investment of our predecessors, who, once again, talked a good game about the importance of freight rail but did nothing. We invested $3.4 billion over six years, allowing the rebuilding of more than a third of the national freight network. Our investments included 235 kilometres of new track, plus rebuilding 3,800 kilometres of existing track.
This had a big impact. By 2016, the average transit time between Brisbane and Melbourne will be seven hours shorter than it was in 2005 and the journey from the east coast to the west coast will be nine hours shorter, thanks to our investment. That is already seeing major companies like Australia Post and Woolworths transfer freight from road onto rail, therefore improving productivity and getting a better outcome for the environment and a better outcome for road safety.
In the cities we tackled urban congestion. We committed more to urban public transport than all previous governments combined from federation right through to 2007. Now, the new government have said that they will walk away from any involvement in urban public transport, as they are walking away from engagement with all of our cities. We established the Major Cities Unit, which has already been abolished as one of the first actions of the Abbott government. In Senate estimates just this week, we hear that the Urban Policy Forum—experts in the private sector and in the community brought together to provide advice on urban policy development—has not met since the change of government and is unlikely to ever meet. A government that is a truly national government cannot not engage in our cities. That is a responsibility a national government has.
Labor's deregulation of the aviation industry has delivered lower airfares with prices now five times more affordable than they were two decades ago. In the same period, the number of people travelling each year has tripled. We produced the nation's first aviation white paper, carefully setting the blueprint for the industry's future for decades ahead. People fly more often but they also fly safer. Labor rolled out the latest security technology at the nation's airports. We banned noisy, older aircraft from major airports and strengthened the independent safety regulator's oversight of the industry. Importantly, Labor also invested more than $260 million into regional and remote aviation, including new and upgraded airports. That is five times more than the Howard government invested over the same period.
Regional communities now have better aviation facilities and this has opened them up to domestic tourism as well as international tourism like never before. Labor also progressed the planning for the second Sydney airport, which our predecessors had walked away from after they came to office in 1996. On shipping, Labor reinvigorated our nation's dwindling fleet by creating tax incentives for investment, updating regulations and ensuring the Australian Maritime Safety Authority became the national regulator of all commercial vessels. We strengthened security around the nation's ports as well as at our oil and gas facilities, and legislated to make sure that oil companies are financially accountable for damage caused by spills to the environment. We also ensured that Australian shipping companies could remain competitive with foreign flagged vessels by requiring foreign ships working our coastal domestic trade routes to pay Australian level wages.
I noticed during the election campaign that Mr Abbott included in his platform a claim that he wanted to be known as the infrastructure Prime Minister. Well, you cannot begin by trying to unpick and destroy the National Broadband Network if you are serious about infrastructure. Rather than deliver world-class fibre based broadband to all, Mr Abbott offers a second-rate copper based alternative. Labor's NBN would have revolutionised health and education services in this country. This would have been an economic game-changer, allowing Australian businesses, particularly small business and service providers, to plug into the world. The coalition opposed the NBN and are rolling out a second rate 'fraudband' alternative. Abolishing the NBN is short-sighted and is not in that national interest.
The problem here is that the Prime Minister has no agenda beyond opposing anything that is associated with the previous Labor government. The hard work was not done in developing an alternative policy. Properly targeted spending on infrastructure is not profligate; it is nation building, an investment in the future and a central task of government. The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics has estimated that every single dollar spent on the former government's Nation Building Program returned $2.65 in benefits to the national economy, a critical investment and a major distinction between Labor and the coalition. I believe very clearly that if we are going to continue to prosper, we need to continue to invest in infrastructure in our regions, our cities, our roads, our rail lines and our ports.
Recently, we learnt that Toyota plans to cease manufacturing cars in Australia from 2017. There has been no response about what will happen in terms of an appropriate response from government to that announcement. Here is one response for the government: how about not removing the $3 billion that has been allocated in the 2013 budget for the Melbourne Metro? At its peak, the Regional Rail Link in Victoria was employing 3,500 people as well contributing significant productivity benefits in the future. Better public transport takes cars off the road, makes life easier for commuters and, just as importantly, makes a difference in terms of the movement of freight. That is why we accepted Infrastructure Australia's advice and allocated investment in the budget to the Melbourne Metro and other projects like the Cross River Rail project. Importantly, these two projects would also make a significant contribution to the debate about how to get superannuation funds into infrastructure. The structure of the process that we put up would allow for that to occur.
We also need to defend Infrastructure Australia and its role as an independent adviser to the government. The current legislation before the Senate would allow for classes of infrastructure like public transport to be ruled out of examination by Infrastructure Australia and would also allow the minister to intervene to prevent business cases being presented. Given the failure to present business cases for some of the big-ticket items that the coalition say they will fund, it is not surprising that they are removing the transparency that is so critical.
If we are going to support jobs we need to invest in infrastructure, both large and small. The decision by the new government to remove funding for community infrastructure through the Regional Development Australia Fund is short-sighted and will cost jobs and infrastructure in local communities. This approach suggests that if Labor were for it, it must be bad. They have said some investment decisions that were fully included in the budget were not decisions but promises of a political party, but that is not correct. I believe that as members of the opposition we need to make sure that we continue to hold the government to account. We will be developing alternative policies because we need to do something other than just oppose.
We need to build a nation for the good of all. We need to make sure that we get serious about infrastructure and continue to work on those issues. We cannot allow negativity and partisan politics to undermine our nation's future. We cannot allow the shrill, rationalist economists to hector this parliament into ignoring the national interest. I believe this is critical. The government need to start acting like a government and not just as an opposition, as we saw yet again today. Today the government attempted to disrupt the parliament as if they had not changed their actions from two years ago. From my side, I will continue to play a constructive role and put forward policies. I believe we can be proud of our record. It is important that the government not undermine that record by short-sighted policies.
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (17:39): First, I would like to thank all those who so diligently helped me during the election campaign. I will not name those who helped me, because inevitably someone will be forgotten and that is not my desire. I thank everyone who helped me, particularly the people of Tangney for electing me with a record margin for the seat of Tangney. I see that not only as testament to the amount of work I have put in to the electorate but also as testament to the standing of the Liberal Party more generally.
Tonight I will talk about our science crisis, climate change and energy including—horror of horrors—the N-word: nuclear, as in power. You could say I have a unique background in this parliament. In this chamber and the other chamber I am the only research scientist who has worked in the research industry. This gives me a different mindset, a different way of thinking. This way of thinking gets back to analysis of data and trend analysis. I have led in debates on subjects such as climate change, carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme when they were not popular. I have led on nuclear debates. If you look at the Hansard, prior to my speech in March 2005 there was no mention of the word 'nuclear'. I have also been highly critical of the joint strike fighter since 2005. We would have joint strike fighters in service, right now, if Defence had been believed back in 2005.
In Australia science is in crisis. We need to look at a holistic solution. Professor Geoff Masters, chief executive of the Australian Council for Educational Research, in a media release describes the PISA results as 'disappointing'. Indeed, the trends in the International Mathematics and Science Study of 2011 show that between 1995 and 2011, with the exception of an improvement in year 4 mathematics performances, Australian students' performances in mathematics and science stagnated. During the same period, a number of other countries either dramatically improved their performances—including Singapore, Hong Kong and Chinese Taipei—or showed steady improvements in performance—including Korea and the United States. Professor Masters said:
It is difficult to see how Australia will be in the top five countries by 2025 if we continue on our current path. We need to look carefully at what improving countries are doing to see what lessons there are for Australia.
I have been looking at this issue and consulting widely. For secondary schools, I very much support the review of the curriculum as announced by Minister Pyne.
I would like to broach a few issues concerning improving science. Some of them will probably prove quite controversial, including the first one I mention—that is, subject-matter expertise is more important than a teaching diploma. In other words, if we have the option of having people who have worked in the field as engineers or in the hard sciences wanting to teach, we should not bog them down by saying they need to do a full year's teacher-training diploma in order to teach. We should expedite the process and make it very quick. Perhaps we should have mentors, but we should get those people teaching. In other words, we need to fast-track them.
We need to pay hard sciences and maths teachers more, simply reflecting market reality. There is a greater demand for people in the hard sciences and maths, so we need to pay them more to get good students to do teaching. This is even, potentially, at the expense of class size. I would rather see an expert teacher teaching a larger class than a teacher who is struggling with the subject matter themselves teaching a smaller class.
In terms of tertiary education, we have got to stop student feedback being a metric of teacher quality. Difficult courses will be much harder to make popular with students than easier ones. We need to make sure that the quality of the teaching is actually reflected by measuring the output—the quality of students' results—rather than a popularity contest. Students in the hard sciences and maths should also take courses in entrepreneurship, intellectual property and patents.
In tertiary research we need to get rid of an act enacted just last year, and that is the Defence Trade Controls Act, or the DTCA, and put in a much less onerous agenda around the alignment of our legislation with the US ITARs, or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. With it the way it is at the moment we are going to punish our research sector when this act takes effect next year. We must not make Defence the arbiters of what can and what cannot be independently researched in Australia.
I believe we should also be looking to the research sector, and this includes restrictive contracts that are drawn up between CSIRO and the universities. Indeed, I was on the advisory board of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Antimatter Matter Studies, and we really wanted to bring CSIRO in as one of the partners without research. But the provisions that CSIRO sought to put on us as far as IP was concerned was so onerous that it was far better just to leave CSIRO out, which is a tragedy.
We need to ensure that the Australian Research Council, the ARC, provides more funding for risky research rather than what I would call 'backfill' research, which is research that is far less risky, where you put in a bid for your research proposal knowing what you are going to get at the end.
We need to increase the diversity of the research undertaken under the ARC by having overseas experts act as referees for some research proposals where there is inadequate expertise to do this in Australia. At the moment there are subject areas where we have got one or two researchers doing very good work but we are unable to get people to referee research proposals from these people because we lack that expertise in Australia. We need to ensure that those research areas do not completely wither and die simply for lack of available referees in Australia.
We also need to fund more cross- and multidisciplinary research. I would put it to you that the ARC centres of excellence are an excellent model for this. The ARC centres of excellence are about multiple organisations working together in a multidisciplinary sense. It also enables funding to be granted for longer periods of time so scientists are not madly filling out research proposal after research proposal, which is a waste of time and of the scientists' expertise. Rather, get rid of that bureaucratese, if you will.
In my view, we need to remove any research priority on politically hot topics such as, for example, climate change. The reason I say this is that I had a very senior scientist admit to me in discussions—I am not going to say who it was or what the organisation was; I do not want to identify this person—that a certain area of research was nonsense and was never going to work, and he said, 'But I couldn't have said that 12 months ago because we had research that we were undertaking in that area.' Science is not supposed to be about convenient definitions and conveniences as far as funding is concerned; science is supposed to be about a search for truth.
The research proposals that get through the ARC at the moment are only funded to about 80 per cent of the level requested. There is a huge problem, obviously, with this, because if you are funded to 80 per cent of what you requested, to do a piece of work straight away, it changes the bounds of the work that you are going to undertake, because you can only undertake 80 per cent of it. We need to fully fund the proposals that are approved and, preferably, like the United States, not only fully fund but also actually provide contingency funding as well. This would enable that research to be done as agreed, so there are no excuses after the fact for research that is not undertaken.
We should also specify what I call 'linkage' grants, which are grants that are there specifically to link industry with science. We should specify a minimum percentage of linkage grants that need to be new linkages with industry, which would then force further outreach between research and industry. The problem at the moment is that it is all too convenient just to go back to the industry partners you are familiar with.
In my view, we need to gradually remove the outside funding requirement for the CSIRO. I remember when the so-called 30 per centers came in in the late eighties. It was done for a very good reason: to make CSIRO more responsive and more applicable to industry. The problem is that it actually distorted things, where far more than 30 per cent of the effort went into chasing that 30 per cent of funding. In addition to that, the level of research done in those 30 per centers equated very often to what was equivalent to Mr Fixit jobs rather than real research. We need to introduce a scheme similar to the United States' Small Business Innovation Research program to encourage innovation. This will allow a lot of spinoff companies to begin very easily. We need to expedite IP processes, and we need to ensure that the CSIRO and the universities are aware that intellectual property is a perishable commodity and that it becomes less valuable over time. Rather than trying to squeeze absolutely the nth degree out of it with lengthy processes to try and maximise that IP—in which time people are less likely to pay for it anyway because there will be alternatives out there—expedite the process and get the IP signed off as quickly as possible.
As far as climate change and the carbon tax is concerned, the carbon tax is a $9 billion a year hit on jobs. Unemployment already is 110,000 higher now than it was in July 2012, when the carbon tax was introduced. The carbon tax, even by the former government's own figures, is a giant handbrake on the economy. Labor's own figures state that by mid-century our economy will be cumulatively $1 trillion smaller with the carbon tax than without it—and all of this with no defined reduction in global average temperatures. There is a complete disconnect with the whole mechanism with carbon dioxide and global average temperatures—which is what it is supposed to be all about.
I welcome the review of the Renewable Energy Target that was announced by the Minister for Industry and the Minister for the Environment. Judith Sloane has pointed out that the RET by 2020 will increase electricity prices by 40 to 45 per cent. In my view, get rid of the RET, honour the contracts that have already been signed and let the market decide on a completely level playing field. The show stopper for renewables, quite frankly, in terms of baseload power, is storage. So, we should look at the cheap end of the innovation pipeline—that is, research. Instead of forcing uneconomic energy solutions on the market, we should try to get a solution where we can gain benefit from the IP. RETs and their equivalent damage economies. You only need look at Spain where they embarked on a massive renewable program to see the effects of this.
In terms of climate change we have cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. Indeed, we saw Professor Chris Turney get stuck in his own experiment, yet he still has no doubts about 'the science'. There is no 'the science': science is a process; it is not a noun. The simple fact is: if, back in 1995, I had made a prediction of future global average temperatures and I had said, 'Next year and every year afterwards is going to be the same as this year,' I would have been far closer to what has eventuated than the IPCC projections and predictions of that time. There has been a lack of warming for well over 10 years, contrary to model projections. Quite frankly, there is a lot of bad science that goes on in this. For instance, you have people with a certain paradigm that they accept; when you give them contrary data and evidence they look at ways to explain that data and evidence in terms of the paradigm they accept, rather than questioning that paradigm.
Appeals to authority and consensus show weakness in argument. For instance, when was the last time you heard 'The consensus of the world's scientists is that the earth orbits the sun'? Indeed, Newton's equations of motion were seen as a complete solution to mechanics for a period of nearly 200 years, until Lorentz transformed it and Einstein's theory of relativity. It is ironic that the Bureau of Meteorology said that last year was the hottest year on record. They do not talk about any sort of adjustments that they make to the data—and that is something I will be asking questions on. Furthermore, what about the 1890s and early 1900s where it was very warm and in all probability quite a bit warmer than last year. The Bureau of Met says, 'Well, that temperature data is unreliable.' But here is the catch: the IPCC has temperature data going back to 1850. Even if you accept that the rest of the world's temperature measurements were reliable, and it is a big call considering it was 1871 when you had Stanley saying, 'Dr Livingstone, I presume.' You can imagine the temperature measurements in Africa at that time. Even if all of those other measurements were accurate, you have this massive section of the globe called Australasia where, by the Bureau of Met's own acknowledgement, the records are unreliable.
In terms of nuclear power, we talk about baseload solutions. Japan is in the process of re-opening many nuclear power stations. Germany has failed comprehensively with renewables, but it has refused to expand its nuclear power industry. Guess where it is going? It is going back to more coal fired power. At present the only way to generate baseload in Australia, apart from coal and gas, is nuclear. Renewables do not cut it—sorry, they just don't. They do not cut it economically and they do not cut it in terms of reliability. Nuclear is economically competitive; it was marginally uncompetitive when Switkowsky did his review back in 2006-7, but we have seen electricity prices rise to reflect the reality of the market as far as gas and coal fired power is concerned. Nuclear is very much in the picture. It is in the picture in the US; in fact, it is the cheapest method of generating power in the US and similarly in South Africa. Quite frankly, in Australia we need to seize that opportunity. Burying our heads in the sand and saying, 'No nuclear. Terrible technology,' et cetera does not help. It is the safest method of generating power out there by far and, obviously, for Australia there would be scientific benefits as well in terms of training more nuclear engineers, more nuclear physicists. There are areas where we are screaming out for more engineers. Particularly with the car industry going, where are engineers going to be employed? Nuclear energy is a very good start.
Mr CHAMPION (Wakefield) (17:59): It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate. I begin just by thanking electors for returning me here. It is always good to be re-elected, I have got to say. I have all the people of Salisbury, Elizabeth, the Adelaide Plains, Clare and Gilbert valleys, Barossa and all the wheat-belt towns like Kapunda, where I grew up, Balaclava, Owen and Hamley Bridge and a whole lot in between to thank for that, and I thank them sincerely. I also want to put on the record my thanks to Eamon Burke and Glenn Armstrong who managed my campaign, and of course my long-suffering electorate staff members: Mat Werfel, Rob Klose, Nimfa Farrell, and Caleb Flight—who has just become a father for the first time—Susan Cunningham and Awar Chibikwa. It is terrific to have all of my staff continuing with me and helping me along what it is a difficult path in political life. I would also like to thank all the volunteers that assisted me during the campaign. There are always too many to thank in one speech and it is, of course, easier to give a blanket thank you for fear of missing anybody out.
I have also got to thank my opponent Tom Zorich. Tom and I do go a way back, both as supporters of the Central District footy club. Tom was a former president of the Central District footy club and I know that he will be active in the local area and is always concerned with the local area. While we had our political differences, I wish him all the best.
The big issue in the campaign and in my electorate at the moment is of course the exit of Holden from car manufacturing in Australia and with them the exit of the components industry and the jobs crisis that will eventually hit South Australia. It is a slow-motion wrecking ball. You can be tempted to think that Holden has made their announcement and there does not seem to be much impact yet. But that is because we are yet to feel the true impact of the redundancies, the loss of economic activity and the slow wind-down. We see that not just in Elizabeth but also in Geelong and Altona and in places like that—anywhere where there is a components industry. Fifty thousand jobs are going, all intimately connected with one another.
We have seen this government abandon SPC. Fortunately, the Victorian government took up the role that would normally be played by federal government. And we now see that Qantas, in order to get any assistance at all, are basically being told to declare war yet again on their workforce, as they have done once before. It always startles me to see the government take this approach. My theory is that we will see the end of the national carrier, and of course it is the people in the regions who will suffer most of all from the process.
The economy of northern Adelaide is the manufacturing heartland traditionally, where both the jobs and the export driver of the whole of Adelaide have been located. I fear for that economy's integrity as we go forward, particularly from 2017 when a lot of the construction that is currently happening around South Australia will stop. We have the spectre of both a state and federal Liberal government potentially and I think that would bring a startling halt to infrastructure development in South Australia. We would have a jobs crisis in Holden, in infrastructure and in our shipbuilding as well, potentially dumping a lot of good, hardworking blue-collar workers out into the labour market all at one time and really changing the economic circumstances that South Australia has fought so hard to get—that is, economic diversification.
Clearly, we do need to be very careful about assessing the fears and the circumstances that we are in and there is the issue of confidence. I do not want to alarm people. We need people to be aware and we need action because of that awareness, but as Mr Stanley Chapley who owns the Munno Para shopping centres where my office is based has warned, talking down the north's economy could lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. We do need to be very careful of that. The north has weathered many storms in the past and it is interesting when we look at this debate whether we have clear analysis, awareness and action or whether we have hysteria.
I notice that there is an advertisement in the Bunyip today targeting Tony Piccolo. It is quoting a youth unemployment rate for northern Adelaide with the sorts of hysterics that the Liberal Party threw at me during the election, and recently threw at me with Senator Sean Edwards in the Senate making speeches there and releasing press releases about what I might do about youth unemployment, forgetting entirely that Tony Abbott is the Prime Minister, that the Liberal Party are in government, that they have chased Holden out of the country and, with that a whole components industry. One would not think that that is a good way of going about things.
We know that in the northern areas we have had a problem with youth unemployment going back at least to my childhood and probably beyond, possibly going right back to the 1970s when the textiles industry and the car industry began to shrink. So throwing numbers around and using political advertisements and pointing the finger at one another, is not particularly productive. It is a sort of game you can play, I suppose, but I do not think that it helps anybody. If people care to do a search, there are press releases from ministers and shadow ministers of both parties where basically you could transpose the scripts or the figures.
What we really need is less finger-pointing, particularly by the government, and more action. That is my great fear: we have had this terrible crisis and we have had a government that is issuing ultimatums to companies—playing chicken with multinational companies—basically daring them to leave. These are matters that I have brought up many times in this House. But where is the replacement plan for the regions that are devastated by these big economic shifts that have been brought on by the government—brought on by the government, accelerated by the government and cheered on by the government? Where is the replacement plan?
It disturbs me, frankly, that when I talk to people around the place—important people who have ideas about what we might do with our local economy and how we might diversify and transform it—that the government is only just starting to take hearings on this. You would have thought that if they had had some advice about the car industry or if they had had an intention about the car industry—and they have been in government for six months now, so they have had plenty of time to think about it—there should have been, one would imagine, in an incoming government brief, something for them to have a bit of a think about what kind of jobs plan they were going to have to fix this up. You would have thought they would have started having preliminary discussions with councils about economic diversification to strengthen local economies in the anticipation of this crisis that they, the government, have brought on.
To help the government, I am happy to outline some projects in the local area which may assist them. The City of Playford has a number of them, the first being the Playford Regional Sports Precinct. This incorporates the Central Districts Football Club, which I mentioned before, and also, potentially, a school oval for Kaurna Plains and the Fremont-Elizabeth City High School. It also incorporates a number of playing fields stretching all the way from the Philip Highway up to Main North Road.
This sports precinct would be all about encouraging youth and other people to get involved in sports and recreation, not just as a leisure pursuit but, of course, as a career and a job as well. It is not just a big infrastructure spend, in terms of jobs—and that is a direct spinoff from that—but there are plans for ongoing traineeships and bringing sports organisations to headquarter in Elizabeth and the like, with the relocation of netball and tennis there. They are all important things; it is an important local infrastructure project. The council has done all the planning and it is ready to go, so there should be no barrier to the government getting on board with that project.
The important thing about the tennis courts now is that the Lyell McEwin Hospital is in the electorate—and it is probably one of the biggest employers outside of Defence and automotive. That hospital was, of course, named after Sir Lyell McEwin, a minister in the Playford government, back in the good old days when you could name a hospital after yourself. The tennis courts are directly behind the Lyell McEwin Hospital. If we can relocate the tennis courts then all of that land can be used for a health precinct. I think there is a great opportunity there to have medical training, research institutes and a health economy built at Lyell McEwin Hospital. That would trigger development in an adjacent shopping centre and in the local area. So you would have a big jobs spinoff by the creation of a sports precinct and a health precinct.
I think that one of the good things that we could do—and I hope that there would be some bipartisan support for this—would be to put a soldier recovery centre at that health precinct. I think we will have in the future many veterans dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues, and they should know that there is a place that is friendly with the military and open to their experience as veterans, but somewhere they can access as civilians. I think that would be a very good thing to pursue and to think about. I notice Minister Robert busily looking at his briefs at the table, but he may get a letter from me about such matters and I hope he would treat it seriously.
I have had a number of dealings with Mr Craig Hampson, who is a veteran, a survivor of an IED blast. He has now been discharged from the military and is getting on with his life. We want to make sure that people like Craig Hampson, who have served our country diligently and with bravery, get the best possible treatment. Despite the events of today, I think that we do have to be mindful that the ADF has had a very busy time, operationally, and we have many veterans who have served in Iraq, East Timor or Afghanistan on multiple deployments. We need to be serious about their treatment when they get home.
In terms of economic development, we also need to put back in place some of the projects that have been lost for one reason or another. Again, it is one of those areas where we can probably point the finger at one another, but in my opinion bringing back on the Adelaide to Gawler rail line electrification is a very important project for jobs and a very important project for South Australia. We hope that the government would consider it. Even if they do not want to be in public transport and rail, the state government has indicated that they are prepared to take it to Salisbury. It does not make much sense to have electric trains going to Salisbury and not then to Gawler. That federal funding that was ripped away by this government needs to be put back into the system.
The South Australian government, of course, delayed the project, and I think that was unfortunate. But we need to get that project back on track. It makes sense, because it would create hundreds of construction jobs at a time when South Australia will need construction jobs. We should also look, I think, in parallel at building the Northern Connector. It is a very important road that will connect the Northern Expressway up with the South Road Superway. That is very important to get freight to the port and to the Barossa Valley quickly. It would be a major economic contributor and obviously would have a big impact in terms of the infrastructure spend. Most importantly, it would get the freight trains out of Salisbury—the very fast moving trains that go through the centre of Salisbury now would be diverted and would be able to go through at great speed on tracks that are not in urban areas.
I think there are great opportunities there and great opportunities for synergy. It would also allow intermodal projects to develop around the Penfield area. When we were last in government we provided a $7 million grant to SCT to build the Penfield rail freight centre. It is going to create between 300 and 350 jobs, and about 50 jobs in construction on top of that. I got a project update from SCT the other day. There is really important work going on out there. Electrical conduits have now been installed. For the container pad the civil works have commenced. There are rail track activities. They have purchased the necessary rail componentry for the project. There is early work to facilitate the construction of the container park and the stormwater infrastructure has largely been put in.
That is a very important project. We gave funding for that probably nine months ago now and you can see it now developing. Those jobs will start to come online and compensate for some of the job losses. That is a very important project. If we have the Northern Connector going, we will see the development of intermodals up and down that line. There is another one at Balco at Bowmans up near Balaclava. That is a very important project that I give my support to. It is important to create some safe places to store hazardous goods, like fertiliser, far away from urban centres where they are now stored. The state government is supporting that project and has given them a grant to facilitate the growth of that idea.
There are also a lot of opportunities in horticulture development. That requires basically two things: water and power infrastructure to the Adelaide Plains. When in government we began important projects in water, particularly waterproofing Gawler and creating similar aquifer projects to those that exist in Salisbury and Elizabeth. Basically, it is water for industrial and council use and linking in with the Barossa irrigation scheme. It is particularly important to get all the schemes linked. If we can do that, that will provide water security up and down the whole of northern Adelaide, into the Barossa Valley and potentially for horticultural development on the Adelaide Plains. Developing the Adelaide Plains and bringing Bolivar water to those areas are critical for the creation of wealth. That will create a lot of jobs that can be utilised by school leavers, mature-age workers, migrants and the like. Actually very large numbers of jobs can be created in the horticulture industry, particularly in modern, sophisticated glasshouses.
So there is tremendous opportunity there. It does not have to be a partisan thing. When we come to developing the economic diversification plans to overcome some of the unfortunate and terrible actions regarding the automotive industry we should be bipartisan in the creation of jobs. I hope South Australia does not face a jobs cliff in 2017, 2018 or 2019. I hope the government acts with some urgency and starts to plan for jobs growth for northern Adelaide, knowing that it is the jobs, exports and economic wealth generator for the whole state of South Australia.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (18:19): I would like to begin my address-in-reply speech by thanking the people of Forrest for re-electing me as their local member. I will continue to work with them and for them both here in Canberra and within the electorate itself. I would like to thank those who did so much to help me throughout the campaign. I would also like to congratulate and welcome all of my fellow coalition members, especially those new to this place. I see the member for Hume is here, and I welcome him. The coalition has come to government at a critical time for Australia's future when a safe pair of hands is essential for our long-term sustainability. The shifting of world economics is far from over and this will occupy much of the government's time over the next few years.
I want to touch on a particular issue. As well as working on various standing and parliamentary committees, I am co-convener of the Parliamentary Friends of Primary Producers and co-convener of the Parliamentary End of Life Care Friends Group, which I want to talk about today. This is a really sensitive issue that is very difficult to talk about. Every single one of us over the age of 18 needs to plan ahead. Planning ahead involves thinking about your future and putting things in place so that your choices will be known and acted on if you cannot express those choices yourself at some time in the future. I know this is incredibly sensitive and is really difficult to bring up in conversation, particularly with those you love the most. They find it difficult as well as you. I hope that over time this conversation we have with our families will become a normal part of life. I encourage members to think about this.
We actually need to talk about planning ahead with our families and we need to talk about our own advanced care planning. Advanced care planning is not euthanasia. It is about you and me making decisions about our future and about our personal choices. It is actually about taking control of our own healthcare wishes and choices. It is the process of individuals discussing and making decisions about future health care, medical treatment options, lifestyle and even finances. You need to think about these things. Why? Just think what you would do if you became very sick, had a dreadful major accident or developed dementia and you simply could not express your choices—you could not talk to your doctor or your family—and you could not manage your own treatment, health care, lifestyle or finances. Now we all know that, unfortunately, accidents happen every day in one form or another and so this is for that particular day when you cannot talk about your choice of where you want to be, who you want around you and you cannot make people aware of just what it is you want and how you want it.
Advanced care planning and planning ahead is the process to help you have your say in how decisions are made for you when you can no longer speak for yourself, to plan your medical and personal care well ahead of the time that you might actually need it—you hope that you won't need it until a very advanced age, but you just do not know—so that, if at any time throughout your life you become too unwell or unable to make decisions for yourself, your wishes, as far as it is practicable, can still be respected by your healthcare team, your family and your carers. This gives both you and them the chance to prepare for the future. With an advanced care plan you can actually stay in control of the decisions that affect your care, even when you are not well enough to say so. I think we should all have an advanced care plan once we are over 18 years of age, because none of us knows what is ahead. Accident and illness can strike at any time throughout our lives, and no-one is guaranteed tomorrow.
I met in this place a wonderful young woman with dementia who is 28 years of age, which really brought it home to me how important planning ahead is and how it will give you and your family peace of mind now and throughout your life. There will be a process in place. You will have told your family what your wishes are. This is really especially important, and I encourage people who might find themselves in this position to do it now. It is important for people who have a chronic or life-limiting health condition, for people who are entering residential care facilities, and for people who have a condition that may lead to a loss of capacity to make decisions in the future, such as dementia. It is also important for those who believe their family may have different views or beliefs to their own, and that is something that happens throughout your life. This type of plan gives you control and immense confidence that your wishes will be respected. It takes the pressure off you, it takes the pressure off your family, and it gives your family and carers a very clear direction. They know what you want, how you want it and they understand why you want it.
If for whatever reason you are unable to understand or communicate your wishes and decisions about medical treatment and end-of-life care, remember that if you do not do it, then others will and that it is often your family members. They will decide things for you. They will have no choice but to make decisions on your behalf and hope that they get it right. For those of you who have been through this with your own loved ones, you will know how hard it is for families to make decisions following a major accident or after the diagnosis of serious or debilitating illness. It is incredibly stressful, and I know it well, and it hurts those involved. It is actually an emotional rollercoaster trying to decide what is the right decision, what is the best decision. What would your loved one want? What is possible and what is the right thing for the person that you need to provide that care for? What I do know is that often the guilt and grief from making these decisions stay with family members for the rest of their lives. They will worry constantly that they may not be doing what you really want done. So if you have not discussed your wishes and decisions with your family, your friends or others, and have not written down something to guide them, they will not know what you want them to do. This is the reason to have the conversation with your family and those involved in your health care; this is the reason to write down your wishes in an advanced care plan—that is, to save your family the stress and pressure if there is an emergency or a debilitating illness. It enables you to stay in control of your care. You can revise or change your plan whenever you choose. It is only going to be used if you are unable to make decisions or to communicate on your own behalf. So as you move throughout your life, you can just change it. It would be a practical plan that your family, your doctor and your healthcare team are guided by when the time comes—if it comes—and hopefully not for a long time.
When I looked at this I drew on some information funded by the department of health and ageing, Palliative Care Australia and Alzheimer's Australia for information on how to plan ahead and write an advanced care plan. If it was me, I would start with it as a work in progress. I think we really need to think about this, and it is a tough one to do. I would put a piece of paper on my fridge or on my benchtop and I would think about the plan as I went along throughout the days, and I would add to it as I thought about it over time. Alzheimer's Australia's Start2Talk plan focuses on these six simple steps. No 1: start to think about your future; get an understanding of your health conditions and how these might affect you in the future. No. 2: sort out your financial issues and organise someone who can manage your affairs if you cannot do this at some time. No. 3: choose who will speak for you. Make sure it is someone of your choice who will make decisions about your lifestyle and health care if you cannot do it. No. 4: express your health and care wishes. Consider writing down your values and wishes in an advanced care plan, and make sure you give copies to your GP and to anyone who may be called on to make a decision on your behalf in the future. No 5: just talk about this. Discuss your plans and talk to the people who may end up making decisions for you, about your values and wishes regarding the types of care and interventions you would want for yourself towards the end of your life whenever that is. And No. 6: review these wishes and plans by discussing these over time because your wishes may change as your health and lifestyle change.
There are worksheets and resources available on Alzheimer's Australia's Start2Talk website, but when I look at the Department of Health's and Palliative Care Australia's information, the advice is similar on how to write an advanced care plan. This can often be referred to in other states as an advanced care directive or a statement of choices. Again, it is important to check the name given to this document in your own state or territory, and the procedures you need to follow in your state. The general information provided said the same thing: think about the values and beliefs that are important to your life; think about your current health, possible future health issues and possible kinds of outcomes—quite a similar process; talk to your family, your friends, your doctor and the people you trust about your wishes, and choose someone to be your substitute decision maker, general or enduring power of attorney, or enduring guardian, depending on your state's legal requirements. Check these legal requirements where you live. The Public Trustee or Office of the Public Advocate can help with this information. But you need to ask yourself when you do this for yourself: am I confident that this person will make decisions based on what I would want? Make sure this person is one you can trust; a person who will listen very carefully to what you want your values and your future care to be, and who will follow your wishes to the very best of their ability. Make sure this person will take the process and your wishes as seriously as if they were their own wishes. And write them down. There are specific documents you can use, and I know there are some people who also include things like whether they want to be an organ donor or not. One important piece of advice is: once you have thought about it, discussed it and written it down, give copies to your family as well as to your doctor, and your local hospital perhaps, and to anyone you think needs to have one—so that they know what to do. There is no point in having a plan and going through all of that process, if people do not know about. You need to let them know. Don't leave it locked away somewhere 'safe'—because they will never find it. These plans are in addition to your will.
I know how difficult it is to have these kinds of conversations. I know that when I first said to my daughter: 'I need to have a talk to you about what I want, when either I cannot speak myself or I am at the end of my life', her first reaction was, 'Hey, mum, I don't want to think about that yet.' But when I explained why, she understood that this was important for her as well, and that this would give her peace of mind, because wherever possible she would be doing the things that she knew I wanted done—no guesswork, no agonising over the where or the how. What was even more interesting was when I then turned around and asked her—she is over 18—what she would want me to do if she was not well enough to speak for herself. I said that she needs to make the same sort of plan. Up until then, it was something she had never thought about. She is young, and none of us think we are going to need to deal with this until we are really old—but that is not how it is. Accidents and illnesses happen daily, and we all hope it is not us. But it is somebody. We all need to be prepared. So please, think about planning ahead. Think about an advanced care plan or directive. Take the pressure off yourself and your family.
I want to talk briefly about the fact that the coalition led the world in prioritising dementia. Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, then health minister, committed $320 million to help fund the dementia initiative, making dementia a national health priority. The coalition's fight against dementia involves a commitment of $200 million over five years. Already, we have some of the world's best neurologists and scientists committed to improving treatment, providing early interventions and ultimately, we hope, arresting dementia. This commitment will greatly enhance those efforts. This dementia funding will prioritise additional funding for research and projects in health and aged care, working with the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council, and boosting the numbers of Early Career Research Fellowships, Postgraduate Scholarships, Career Development Scholarships, and future fellowships for dementia researchers. These are great opportunities for our future scientists to improve the capacity and dementia research. The funding is there.
Now, in a sense, why dementia? I lost my own mother to complications caused by Alzheimer's dementia. It is a dreadful disease for the person and for their family—as it was for that great young woman I met. There is, as I said, the shock and horror of the diagnosis. For my mother, there were her desperate efforts to retain her dignity despite what was happening to her, and her confusion—despite what this disease did to such a capable and intelligent person. One of the other things that I would encourage others to do is something like what my sister and I did: we went to a workshop to understand how to deal with this disease and how best to help our mother We needed to know what she wanted. So, when she was able to talk, I asked her: 'Tell us what you want; tell us how best we can help you at this time.' And she certainly did that.
This is probably the toughest discussion you will have, and it is the toughest discussion your family will have—but, as I said earlier, please have the conversation. Please start the conversation about what you would want. I will be encouraging as many people as I can, irrespective of their age or their stage of life. It is so important to make these sorts of plans. And irrespective of the situation in which we find ourselves, we all owe it to our families and friends to make it easy for them. If you do have a major accident, or if you are diagnosed with a terrible illness or condition, sometimes—and we know this is the case with some of the cancers—the diagnosis comes not long before you pass away. There is so much to deal with, and so much emotion, it is really difficult for the person to think straight at that time. But if they have this sort of plan in place, it takes the pressure off. They can concentrate on dealing with the illness itself, on dealing with how they are feeling, and on dealing with their family's feelings. All of us—if it were us at that time—would agree: the one thing we would want to do is take the pressure off those whom we love most. We will know what we are going through ourselves, and we will see it is having the same impact on them. And often, families will feel helpless; they will know they cannot help in practical terms; and they may know it is a terminal condition. In that situation, this type of plan helps everybody. You will know that your family will do the things you want done. It certainly will help them—even after you have gone—because they will know that everything they have done is what you had wanted. They will have done their very best for you: they will know what it was you wanted, and they will have done their best to deliver that. That could well be the most important reason of all. I welcome all of the new members to this place.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:37): I am pleased to rise and speak in this place in the address-in-reply. I thank the people of the electorate of Kingston for returning me to this parliament for a third term. I am truly humbled by the confidence and trust that the residents of the southern suburbs have placed in me. The seat of Kingston is in outer metropolitan Adelaide, a wonderful location to live, work and raise a family, with beautiful beaches and some of the best wineries on our doorstep and with a strongly connected community. I am truly honoured to be their representative here in Canberra and will continue to work hard and fight for them in this place. Over the last six years as the member for Kingston I have fought to improve the quality of life of people living in the southern Adelaide region, and I will continue to fiercely do this.
As in many outer metro areas throughout Australia, services and infrastructure in Kingston are stretched and in need of improving. People look to government to help with those challenges. One area which is extremely important to the residents in my electorate is access to fast, affordable broadband. Australia's copper network has been outdated for some time, and it no longer caters for the needs of the community. Indeed, in some areas in my electorate, people cannot access any form of broadband due to insufficient infrastructure.
Areas in southern Adelaide were some of the first to be connected to the National Broadband Network. People in those areas are enjoying the economic and social benefits that a decent internet connection facilitates. I get regular endorsement of Labor's fibre-to-the-home NBN from people in my electorate, including older people, younger people, students, small business owners, and mums and dads. However, with the election of the Abbott government and the cancellation of the NBN, the government is creating a digital divide in our community between those who have access to 21st century infrastructure and those who do not. In some places, one side of the street has a fibre connection installed while the other side does not. This is not equitable and is incredibly short-sighted.
The coalition is creating so much uncertainty amongst local residents and small businesses when it comes to internet connection. Uncertainty around this access is affecting those who live in my electorate, including Imelda and Peter, who are in the process of establishing their business from their home in Silver Sands. This area was earmarked for the next stage of construction of fibre to the home, and they were excited about the opportunities that this would bring. Imelda stated that she has had experience of speeds in the nearby town of Willunga, which has already been connected to the NBN, and she was looking forward to establishing her business at home. However, it seems that Silver Sands has disappeared from the NBN map with no explanation. No solution has been offered by this government to the connection problems experienced by people such as Imelda and Peter. This not an isolated story; it is repeated right across my electorate. Unfortunately, under the previous coalition government, my electors had to put up with 18 failed broadband plans. It is time for a solution from this government. I will be fighting and calling for a solution every time I am in here, because people in my electorate need accessible broadband.
Accessible, affordable health care is also of incredible importance to those in my community. During the six years of the previous government, the Labor government, we saw an enormous investment in health in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. The Labor government understood the growing needs and challenges of the healthcare system, particularly in outer metropolitan areas. I am proud of the investments in expanded GP practices and after-hours GP access programs; the extensions to training programs; the investment in the Noarlunga GP superclinic; the investment in mental health initiatives, such as the headspace at Noarlunga; and, importantly, the investments in primary healthcare organisations such as the southern Medicare local.
It is, therefore, extremely concerning that, where we saw bulk-billing increase to 83 per cent under the previous Labor government, those investments are under threat. A $6 co-payment is hanging over the heads of all my electors. That has not been ruled out by the Liberal Party. It would put further cost-of-living pressures on families in my electorate and would put primary health care out of reach for many people. Decent health care is a human right, and there is a responsibility on government to ensure that people right around the country, including in my electorate, can access affordable health care when they need it, not just when they can afford it.
I am concerned about the Liberal government's plans to cut in the area of health care. Unfortunately, the Treasurer is hiding behind his Commission of Audit report, which is on his desk but has not been released to the people of Australia. It is time to for the Treasurer to come clean. What cuts are on the table when it comes to health? How will the report affect my local electors? They were not told this before the election. The bad news from this government seems to only be coming after the election.
I am also very passionate about Australia's health workforce—about ensuring that our nation is prepared to meet the challenges of providing a skilled workforce for the future. The previous Labor government worked hard to undo the damage of the Howard government. We invested in clinical training and uncapped GP training places to help ensure we were addressing the challenges of an ageing population and the complexities around chronic illnesses. Investing in prevention—about which there has been some debate in this place—is the only way that we can decrease the cost burden on the healthcare system. Stopping people from getting sick is our big challenge. It is now, more than ever, time to train and prepare our health workforce—whether that be our doctors, our nurses, our allied health professionals or our care workers. The government must not take their hands off the wheel like they did the last time they were in government. They must follow Labor's groundwork when it comes to training our health workforce.
I am also really proud that over the last six years the Labor government invested in infrastructure, including the Seaford rail extension in my electorate. This now means that southern Adelaide is home to one of the longest rail bridges in the world. But that is not the only good thing about this important project. The Labor government understood the importance of supporting and investing in both road and rail infrastructure in outer metropolitan areas such as southern Adelaide. After 30 years of this rail corridor being earmarked for an extension, we now have it built and, as of last Sunday, electric trains are running on it, connecting the Seaford area to the wider Adelaide region with fast, affordable public transport. With the electrification of the line, locals will be able to get into the CBD faster than they would if they were to get into their car and drive through peak hour traffic. The construction, as I said, is now complete and supported 400 jobs.
This was one of the projects that the then opposition said was a waste of money. Well, it is not a waste money to my electorate. I will be fighting for an extension to Aldinga as the important next step, and I am so pleased that the state Labor government has announced that it will buy the land to make sure that that corridor to Aldinga is there. I will certainly be calling on this government, as well as whoever forms government in the state, to fund this rail extension further, to Aldinga. It is critically important to my electorate.
It is disappointing that we have a Prime Minister who says he is an infrastructure Prime Minister but who, from my electorate's perspective, has only cut money from infrastructure. The Tonsley rail duplication and transport hub was already going ahead. Workers were already on the ground. The money that was provided under Labor's May budget has been cut, because the Prime Minister does not believe in investing in urban rail. This project will have significant benefits for people in the northern part of my electorate, giving them the ability to park and ride into the city on a faster, efficient service so that they can access the CBD and wider Adelaide. It is a travesty that this has been cut, and it shows a short-sighted government who will not commit to rail infrastructure and who seem to dismiss urban rail as something that they are not to get involved in. In fact, I think the Prime Minister likened it to knitting. I am not sure why he did that, but it is infrastructure that is desperately needed in communities, and I will fight for it in this place.
Before this government was elected, they did not tell the people of Australia about the many cuts of programs they were going to make. It is not just cuts in infrastructure; it is also cuts to smaller investments, in local sporting clubs and organisations, investments that would build healthier, more connected communities. In my electorate, already we have seen a cut of money to the Sammy D Foundation, who are looking at prevention of alcohol fuelled violence. We have seen cuts to clean tech grants which were supporting industry to move to cleaner energy. We have seen a cut to the upgrade to Bice oval, an important local sporting area, and a cut to the money that was going to facilitate planning for the Aldinga town square. These cuts will have a negative impact on both the social fabric of our community and the productivity of our local economy. Once again, I will be in here fighting to get these cuts reversed. I call on the Prime Minister and the government to reverse these cuts.
Families in my electorate support—and have regularly communicated this to me—the fundamental concept that, no matter where your child attends school, they deserve an excellent education. Everyone that I speak to knows how important it is to invest in our children's future. Therefore, providing funding to the students who need it the most is a critically important value. This is a strongly held belief in my community, and I agree it is the right thing to do—to ensure that we have an equitable society but, more importantly, that all our children are given the opportunity to succeed. I think even the Liberal Party and the National Party recognise the overwhelming support for that. Indeed, at the election they promised that they were on a unity ticket with Labor. Now we see them breaking their promise. Even the member for Boothby had signs up saying, 'We will match, dollar for dollar, the funding for every school; no school will miss out.' They knew it was a belief that was held by the community very strongly that we should invest in education and in a needs based system. Unfortunately we see the coalition walking away from this promise, saying one thing before the election and doing a very different thing after the election. I will be watching with great interest to ensure that the coalition keep their promise of matching, dollar for dollar, the funding for every school that was promised under Labor.
I was proud to go to the election with the position that Labor believed in co-investing with private enterprise to spur innovation and protect jobs. The news about Holden and Toyota leaving this country will impact the local manufacturing base in my electorate in a serious way. Significant components manufacturing exists in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. As a result of this news, it is extremely vulnerable. We need a government who will act and not sit on their hands. Where is their plan for jobs? We see nothing. Day after day Labor is in here calling the Prime Minister for a plan. We have seen some money announced for Holden. It is not enough. It is not enough to restructure South Australia's economy and Adelaide's economy. Sixty million dollars just does not cut it. We do not know where that money is. I call on the government. We need to support workers who have lost their jobs and we need to support the components manufacturers to diversify their businesses and connect with global supply chains. And we need regional readjustment. I will continue to fight for jobs for my constituents in this place, to demand action from this government to ensure that this very bad news about Holden and Toyota—and a number of other announcements—will not destroy economic productivity and economic benefit in my local electorate. Voters in my electorate are rightly concerned about their future, their jobs and their families. They want access to good education and services, and I will hold this government to account.
I offer my congratulations to my fellow South Australian Labor team, both those who were successful and those who were not at the most recent general election. It is wonderful to have returning with me to the 44th Parliament the member for Wakefield, the member for Adelaide, the member for Makin, the member for Port Adelaide and Senator Penny Wong. It is great to have South Australians back in this parliament fighting for Labor values and for South Australia.
It was unfortunate that two candidates were not successfully returned. Steve Georganas, former member for Hindmarsh, was an extremely hard-working member who was always standing up for his constituents in this place. His work in the health and ageing policy space demonstrated the focus on the issues that mattered to his constituents and he will be missed from this place. I also want to place on record my sadness and disappointment that Senator Don Farrell will not be returning to this place after June. I have known Don for many years and he is a decent person, a skilled advocate, a thoughtful and considered parliamentarian and a consensus builder. His passion for South Australia is boundless and his achievements in government are considerable. His exit will be a huge loss for the Senate and it is extremely unfortunate for South Australia that he will not be able to make a contribution in the South Australian parliament.
The result in Kingston that Labor received was an endorsement of our investment in health, education, jobs, infrastructure and the NDIS and a rejection of Tony Abbott's negative scare campaign. However, communicating our message and our vision takes a lot of work and there are many people I would like to thank for lending a hand. I would like to thank all the Labor Party supporters, as well as the community supporters who worked so hard standing at the polling booths all day. Without you we would not have had this result. For the first time since the seat was created, it did it not change hands with a change of government.
I would like to thank the Kingston FEC, including Phil and Jo Giles, John Gauci, Andrew and Lorrae Clarke, Vicki Williams, Thad Taylor, Peter Kitson, Ella Keegan-Treloar, Joy Parry, John Drew, as well as the many others branch member who have worked hard continuously to support me since becoming a candidate in 2006. I would like to thank my campaign team, including Tom Carrick-Smith, Peter Bouzalas, Sarah Huy, Jayson Bailey, Dustin Platt, Guy Wilcock, Gemma Paech and Micheal Bezuidenhout, all who volunteered their time, often while working or studying as well.
A big thank you also goes to my staff, who put so much work in at the election and continuously over the last six years. They never lose sight of what is important, and that is representing and delivering for people who need us. Thanks to Emmanuel Cusack, who has worked for me since 2007, and to Ellen Calam, since 2009. Thanks also to Daniel Nikoloski, Rebekah Huppatz, Connie Blefari, Sam Hamilton and Antony Coles, who went above and beyond what they needed to do during the election. They were great support.
I would like to make special mention of Mary Portsmouth, who retired after this election having worked for me for the last six years. Mary has been a stalwart of the Labor movement, has worked on shop floors, in factories, and in retail and aged care, always standing up for others in her workplace. She will be missed by many constituents. I wish her well in her extensive travel plans. Replacing her is Ethne Lange, who has joined our team and is able to step into Mary's big shoes.
I would like to thank my crack campaign manager, Josh Peak, for his energy, passion, drive, ideas and vision. He ensured that our campaign was run extremely well, stayed on message and was very well organised. The Labor Party and the Labor movement is and will be extremely well served with people like Josh at its heart. I have no doubt he will be in this place some day.
To those in the union movement who supported me, including Peter Malanalskis, Bob Donnelly and John Camillo, thank you so much for your support. To both the national and state ALP offices, including George Wright and Reggie Martin and their teams, thank you so much, as well as all the hard-working Labor staffers throughout our organisation.
I would like to thank my mum and dad, who help every election getting posters up and pulling them down and setting up booths, and to my in-laws, Wendy and David Walker, who have been roped in to help out as well. Thanks to my wonderful husband, Tim. Tim is a conscript to political activism, but despite that, he stayed up for 48 hours before polling day, setting up booths and pulling down corflutes.
Finally to the voters of Kingston, I will endeavour to serve you whether or not you voted for me. I will be a strong voice here in this parliament or whenever you need me to be your advocate. For those voters who did put their faith in me, I will not let you down.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (18:57): It is a pleasure to be back here representing the electorate of Swan for the third time. Back in 2007, with a startling victory in Western Australia where we thought we might have reached a high-water mark, I managed to win the seat by the enormous number of 164 votes. At the time it took three weeks to decide. That particular vote was increased to just over 4,000 in the 2010 election and now we are up to over 10,000 votes—confirmation that the people of Swan have confidence in me and in the Abbott government and a display of displeasure toward the previous Labor government who had affected voters' capacity and lifestyle.
The desire to change the government was obvious. In Western Australia we had 12 out of 15 seats. To the people of Western Australia I say you have made a wise choice. You have finally put a government back in which would have loved to have come in like the Rudd government in 2007 with a $20 billion surplus on the books. But I fear we have been left with a very large anchor and it is going to take some time for this government to right the wrongs, which we are determined to do.
Representing the seat of Swan is an honour and a privilege. Over the past six years it has been fantastic to mix in with a group of diverse people in the electorate. I have enjoyed representing their needs and desires in this place and being out and about in the electorate, learning what it is about and seeing their hopes and dreams for a better government come to fruition in 2013.
I would like to comment on the campaign. Since 1998, the seat of Swan has been an anti-bellwether seat, and this is the first time since 1998 it has been held by the government of the day. I can only put that down to the hard work by the people in my electorate and the motivation of my campaign team, the division, the over 600 people who manned the booths on election day, the over 300 people who put yard signs on properties and all the people who helped arrange that. I make special mention of Jesse Jacobs, who helped arrange all those yard signs throughout the electorate. He did a fantastic job along with all the other volunteers. There are many people I could thank. They are all appreciated and I will thank them when I see them. Most of them have come to meetings since the election and have been thanked for the amount of work they put in to make sure we kept Swan and brought in the Abbott government.
There is one particular person I would like to thank—my campaign manager, my wife. She had never run a campaign before. She did a fantastic job. Cheryle probably worked harder than the candidate and did a great job in putting together templates for future use—
Mr Brendan O'Connor: Maybe she should be the candidate.
Mr IRONS: Yes, I am sure I am going to get a reward when I get home for mentioning her in this speech. The professionalism, organisation and dedication that she brought to the campaign from her previous working life was second to none. Senator Alan Eggleston, who helped us on the campaign, also said he had not seen a more professional campaign than what Cheryle put together. It looks as though we are in for it again in close to a month's time. The WA Senate election has been announced and Western Australia will go back to the polls. I am sure that the division of Swan will be up for the fight and we will make sure that we return the same result that we had in the 2013 election.
We put forward positive local plans during the election. One of the main differences between our campaign and the campaigns of our opponents is that we outlined a positive plan for the future of the electorate of Swan. Others engaged in negative advertising and negative campaigning, with flyers being dropped into areas where they thought they could get a swing. The flyers were negative about me and my family. We made sure that we did not stoop down into the gutter and the match that negative campaigning. We ran a positive campaign and let the people of Swan know that that was what we were about. We wanted to win the election based on positivity not negativity.
I was keen to make sure that we provided a positive plan for people and that they understood it, because that is what the people of Swan deserve. To be elected as a member of parliament is to be elected as a leader in the community in which you serve. In my view, in this position you must have a plan for the area—not a headline, not a vision or an intangible dream that can never be achieved but a plan that can be delivered. At this election as in 2007 and in 2010, I saw it as my job to put forward a plan, articulate it to my community and seek their endorsement for its implementation over the next three years.
My plan for Swan is a five-point plan. The first part has a focus on delivering community infrastructure to meet our future needs. In particular, we focused on two areas: providing $45,000 for a feasibility study for a new regional aquatic centre in the Manning-Karawara precinct, and bringing the West Coast Eagles to the Lathlain oval in order to secure world-class sporting infrastructure for our community. Members from the 42nd and 43rd Parliaments will be aware of the importance which I place, as a member of parliament, on community infrastructure, facilities that not only provide important services—whether they be health, childcare or sporting facilities—but provide spaces where people in the local area can come together and interact. This is the basis of a strong community.
I publicly proposed the relocation of the West Coast Eagles AFL club to Lathlain oval three years ago, prior to the 2010 election, following the Liberal-National state government's announcement of its intention to build Perth's new stadium in the suburb of Burswood, adjacent to Lathlain in my electorate of Swan. I felt at the time the benefits from the creation of a wold-class sporting facility in the heart of the electorate of Swan would be enormous. Lathlain oval is home to the Perth Football Club, a WAFL club I have had a long involvement with, having run their junior development program whilst I was a director on the board. I am currently still a patron of the club.
I have seen my son Jarrad go through the ranks from under-14 development squads to playing in the AFL in 2011 and 2012, and now back to the Perth Football Club as a senior player. Many of his mates from the district have shared the PFC journey with him. The PFC is now ably led by Vince Pendal, who has over the years steadfastly protected the large tract of land at Lathlain oval from attempts at subdivision and attempts at pinching car-park space. The PFC has been keen to see the land retained for sporting use for the benefit of the community. I have been a keen advocate of the land being used to its full potential, to create a centre for sporting development for the whole community to use. I saw that the new stadium at Burswood provided this possibility, which was one of the reasons I was such a strong supporter of the Barnett plan.
After proposing this idea, I worked carefully behind the scenes with the West Coast Eagles to further develop and advocate for the idea. Over time, it went from a proposal to five options to a preferred option and then to a detailed concept plan, announced the day before the federal election. This will be a $60 million development, a world-class precinct with a David Wirrpanda Foundation, a cafe, a museum and an indoor swimming pool, with the community not shut out but welcomed in. The Eagles want to ensure they are inclusive of the community and not exclusive. There are many opportunities for schools from all suburbs of Perth to visit this fantastic development. The Eagles plan to make sure they involve as many people from the community of Lathlain, in my electorate.
The coalition has been a great supporter of the proposal. I will continue to work behind the scenes to bring this project to fruition for the benefit of the community. As I mentioned, it would not have been possible without the state government's bold move to relocate football to a multipurpose stadium at Burswood. There was a hiccup at the last state election, as the then member for Victoria Park and the Labor Party said that if they won the election they would keep the existing stadium, which is probably not suitable and not up to current AFL standards. After having numerous photos taken with the Premier and the local parliamentary secretary in charge of stadium procedures, the then member for Victoria Park back-flipped at the election and supported his leader by saying we should keep the stadium at Subiaco, despite saying for the previous six months that the stadium would be moved to Burswood. Again, we saw politics of opportunity being used by the Labor Party. We still had to seize the moment as a community and I was pleased to help bring to fruition this plan for the Eagles to come to Lathlain.
The second piece of community infrastructure we included in our positive plan for the electorate was a Liberal commitment of $45,000 for a feasibility study for a new regional aquatic centre in the Manning-Karawara precinct. This commitment is part of a local issues campaign I started in 2011 after hearing about the issue from one of my constituents. We ran a survey in the area and had responses from more than 1,000 people, with 98.7 per cent in favour of an aquatic centre. It was a local campaign worth pursuing. The local council did not have it in the corporate plan. One response I received from the town office was that to proceed with the centre a feasibility study would need to be done. The coalition came to the fore and committed $45,000 for the study. Last night the council had a meeting and the motion to accept the $45,000 was carried five to three, with some initial proponents who had objected to the idea of this community facility voting to accept the coalition's money. We look forward to having the study done.
The Manning-Karawara part of my electorate of Swan is a burgeoning area within the City of South Perth, adjacent to Curtin University, WA's largest university, yet neither Curtin University nor the City of South Perth operates public aquatic facilities. We ran a community survey, and so did the City of South Perth. Both demonstrated that an aquatic centre was a priority for the community and a year later I held a public meeting with the member for Bennelong. The member for Bennelong was good enough to present to the people of my electorate the successful sports mall model he had used prior to entering parliament. This model uses public-private partnerships, permitted under WA law. Strong interest was indicated by Curtin University, Western Australia Water Polo and a host of other organisations. In the meantime, the City of Canning had closed its aquatic facilities in Bentley and opened a brand-new complex in Cannington, increasing the need for facilities in the area surrounding South Perth. The $45,000 commitment by the coalition will provide an opportunity for the community to take this proposal to the next level.
This type of community infrastructure fits the present and future growth needs of this area and will complement the exciting Curtin proposal along with the planned medical school, which I fully support. The member for Pearce spoke last night in the adjournment debate about his support for the medical school and I know the member for Hasluck has also spoken in this place on his support for that school. Along with the Eagles' move to Lathlain, this has the potential to provide a new axis for sporting excellence in the electorate of Swan. I am proud that the Liberal Party made a commitment at the election that will help take this to the next level. I have made sure this funding has been offered to the City of South Perth on behalf of my constituents.
The electorate of Swan, as I mentioned in my maiden speech, takes its name from the rivers which form its boundary on virtually three sides. There was a redistribution in 2008 which added three suburbs to the south of the Canning River, yet the river and the wetlands it feeds remain the dominant environmental features of the electorate. As a result, the continuous improvement of our river system is an environmental imperative in the electorate of Swan, one I have spent much time working on during the previous six years, particularly with the environmental groups in the Canning River Regional Park—the Wilson Wetlands Action Group, the CRRP Volunteers and, of course, SERCUL.
I am proud that, through consultation with the groups and active engagement of coalition ministers with the wetlands and the river, we managed to secure a unique commitment from the coalition. That commitment is $1 million for the Swan-Canning River Recovery Program focused on the Canning Wetlands. This is a recommitment of the 2010 funding. The funding is to be targeted at the management of weeds, specifically hydrocotyle. Revegetation and education programs will also be targeted, and will be directed by a group of volunteers. There has been recent press coverage in the electorate about the expansion of hydrocotyle. It needs to be dealt with, and I am glad we have made that commitment and will support volunteer groups.
The commitment is about local action on the ground to improve the environment in the electorate of Swan. It is not a grand scheme to overhaul river management, as some academics have mistaken it to be. It is about getting real results by tapping into the expertise of our local environmental volunteers who know how to build on the excellent work they have already started. I would particularly like to thank the Minister for the Environment and the Assistant Minister for the Environment, who are great believers in this project having visited the wetlands in my electorate and backed this commitment twice, in 2010 and 2013. I further note that for the last two federal elections the Liberal Party has been the only party to commit to a project in the Canning River Wetlands. The Greens and Labor have been silent. Now, with a coalition government, it finally can be delivered and I look forward to being a part of the process, along with the volunteer groups.
Part 3 of the local plan we put forward covers support for the delivery of local road upgrades including the $1 billion Gateway WA project, to be delivered without a mining tax which destroys jobs and raises very little revenue. Gateway WA is about securing the future of industry and jobs in my electorate of Swan, particularly within the Kewdale-Welshpool transport hub, the area where I first started my own business 26 years ago. The road upgrades at key intersections will improve the links between the hub and the major roads—the Tonkin, Roe and Great Eastern highways—and the airport. Specifically, this includes: the Tonkin-Leach highways intersection upgrade; the provision of a diamond type interchange at Horrie Miller Drive-Kewdale Road-Tonkin Highway; the upgrade of the Roe Highway-Tonkin Highway interchange; and grade separation of the Leach Highway-Abernethy Road intersection.
I take the view that no industry's future is guaranteed and if we want great sectors like the transport and freight hub in my electorate to continue connecting Western Australia and producing jobs, we need to create the conditions under which it can thrive. That is why I was proud to be able to announce in 2010, and again in 2013, that the coalition would deliver the Gateway WA project, in partnership with the WA government, without the mining tax. Removing the link to the mining tax is particularly important to secure the delivery of this project. The Labor Party's disastrous decision to link Gateway WA to mining tax revenue put the project at significant risk of non-delivery because the mining tax did not raise any money.
With the election of a coalition government I am confident we can deliver Gateway WA and with this build on our successful upgrade of the Great Eastern Highway and a number of local roads in Welshpool, Lathlain and Carlisle, which have been done in recent times.
The fourth part of my local plan was crime prevention, a major issue for the electorate of Swan, specifically through a commitment to continue the work I have been undertaking to improve security at shopping centres with funding to be made available for the installation of CCTV cameras around the perimeter of Belmont Forum and Belmont Village. My community expects to be able to live in a safe and secure environment, and I am working all the time on local crime prevention initiatives in my electorate of Swan. I have had a particular focus on Belmont with the CCTV commitments secured in 2007 from John Howard. I see the member for Gorton is here. The Labor Party, I must admit, did continue that commitment that John Howard had made and the member for Gorton came and announced the opening of that commitment on CCTVs. Our 2013 $100,000 commitment at Belmont forum builds on that legacy. I believe in the targeted roll-out of CCTV in the electorate of Swan because, quite simply, it gets results.
In the short time I have left I will explain that since January 2013 48 incidents involving closed-circuit television have been given to the police. There have been 20 positive results where offenders have been identified and prosecuted, 24 have been filed pending further information coming to light and four are still under investigation.
It is a privilege to be elected again and I look forward to finishing the rest of my speech sometime in the future. Thank you to the people of Swan and Western Australia for re-electing me.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:14): I start my contribution by recording my gratitude to the electors of Gorton for returning me so emphatically in September last year. This is my fifth term, and my fourth term as the member for Gorton. It is a great honour and privilege to represent this most vibrant and growing north-west constituency in what I would argue is the best city in this country.
I would also like to record my thanks to the many Labor Party members and supporters who undertook the work of doorknocking, letterboxing, staffing polling booths on election day and pre-poll. Without their help, without their support, the result may not have been fundamentally different but certainly the margin of the result would have been. I thank them very much for their assistance.
I would also like to thank my campaign manager, Colin Robertson, who has been my campaign manager for a number of elections and has been a staff member. He has moved on to new things. He did a great job and I would acknowledge his efforts not only in that role but in his role in my electorate office for 10 years. While I am doing that I would also like to pay tribute to Mr Sean Payne, who spent almost as much time in my office. He has also recently departed the office. I wish them both the very best for the future.
While I am on my feet thanking people I would like to also acknowledge those who contributed to my efforts as minister for six years—all of my staff. There are too many to mention but I would like to pay particular tribute to my chiefs of staff, Julie Ligeti and Yvette Nash and all of the others who did such great work to assist me for the government and, of course, ultimately for this nation. I thank them one and all.
I thank again my partner, Jodi. The last 18 months has been a very difficult time for us. Any time I found the going tough in my role as a minister or in government—and indeed there were some times—I only had to think about Jodi's indefatigable fight against a debilitating illness to be inspired and motivated. So I thank her for that and, of course, I continued to, with her, hope to ensure that she will recover fully from that challenge.
The address by the Governor-General on behalf of the government spoke of 'more jobs, higher wages and the funding of better services'. Let us look at jobs. That speech did contain the government's commitment to deliver one million new jobs in five years. So almost six months after the election we should really consider how this commitment is travelling. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that in that time there has been a net job loss of 63,000 full-time jobs. When compared with the net addition of part-time jobs growth, there is a net loss overall of 7,000 jobs. In other words, instead of being 100,000 additional jobs, we have fewer jobs than when this government was elected, and the jobs that are emerging are part-time jobs, substantiating the concerns of many economists and others that underemployment is growing.
We should also consider the participation rate. The participation rate—that is, eligible workers looking for work—has fallen to its lowest since April 2006. That means that this government is presiding over a lower participation rate than at any time during or after the global financial crisis. That is a concern, and it should be a concern to the government. The other thing to note is that these results have yet to factor in the decisions by Holden and Toyota to leave Australia for good. They do not take into account the closure of Forge Group and the huge job losses at Alcoa, Rio Tinto, Qantas and other big companies. We have yet to hear from Qantas about the further job losses—and I am advised that may well happen tomorrow morning—on top of the 1,000 job losses they already foreshadowed some weeks ago, but the prospects are bleak. The unemployment rate of six per cent is the highest for 10 years and has also not taken into account the thousands of job losses that will follow the end of the car manufacturing industry, particularly in the car component parts sector, with approximately 55,000 jobs. So it is an inauspicious start for this government and its so-called promises to deliver on jobs.
I want to make it very clear that it is not the case that the opposition is of the view that every job lost under the Abbott government is the government's fault. But there is no excuse for not having a considered plan—not having a plan to mitigate job losses, not having a plan to save jobs and not having a plan to transition workers from those jobs that are going into emerging jobs or new jobs. That is the question the opposition has put time and time again to this government: where is the jobs plan for Holden workers? Where is the jobs plan for Alcoa workers, Toyota workers, Electrolux workers or the workers who were employed in alumina plants at Gove? What effort, energy or industry of this government is being deployed to look after these hardworking Australians?
The Prime Minister talks of liberating these workers from assembly lines for better jobs, but where are these better jobs and what are the government doing to put in place a transition from old to new, a pathway from joblessness to jobs? The opposition has yet to see where the government are fighting hard for these workers. The government have given up too easily on these companies. We saw the Treasurer goad Holden into leaving our shores. The government have given up too easily on these companies, they have given up too easily on this work and they have given up too easily on these workers.
I note that today, finally, the government has responded to the opposition's call to improve support for our farmers who are confronted with a very bad drought. We await the detail, but we are pleased the government has finally decided to respond to that challenge. I know you, Deputy Speaker Scott, would be one of many in this House who would welcome that decision. But it begs the question: why is there so little support for our manufacturing workers? The misery of joblessness, of the sense that you have been thrown on the scrap heap, is as devastating for our fellow Australians in Melbourne's west, in North Adelaide or indeed in Nullumbuy as the plight of farmers struggling with drought. The fluctuations in the weather that the Minister for Agriculture refers to are no more devastating to farmers than the fluctuations of our dollar value, which has led to the pressure on the manufacturing sector, which has led also to or contributed to job losses in that sector. This is of concern to me and to the opposition and I think we should do everything we can to help those workers.
Debate interrupted.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Special Minister of State
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (19:26): on indulgence—This afternoon I referred to the Special Minister of State. At the time I had been advised that the minister had made the remark I attributed to him. Tonight at 7.20 pm, I received a letter from the Special Minister of State advising that he has no recollection of making that remark. Therefore, I wish to correct the record and I apologise to the Special Minister of State.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Address be agreed to.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (19:27): It is absolutely correct that the government respond to the challenges besetting our farmers, and the opposition totally supports the response, although we make the point that it was later than it should have been. But the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector is as devastating for those individuals as being confronted with drought is for farmers. We need a government that will represent all Australians that need a hand. We need a government that will not favour one group over another. We need a government that will engage fully with those Australians who are doing it tough. There is no doubt in my mind that farmers are doing it tough and they deserve the federal government's support. But the little support I have seen from the government to date to assist the manufacturing-sector workers in this country suggests to me that this government does not support evenly, fairly or without favour different groups in our society. That is a shame and it is something that the government can redress. The government can respond with a jobs plan for sectors that are struggling, and that is something I ask the government to consider.
The other concern I have in relation to the government's efforts to date is that it seems to be distracted from its main role of looking after those people that I have just mentioned. It seems to be focused more on using the resources and powers of the state to attack those it perceives to be its political enemies rather than on fighting for Australian jobs.
The opposition have said we will support the royal commission into the Home Insulation Program, and we do; but we do not support its terms of reference because they do not seem to be crafted in a manner that focuses on what we can do to prevent tragedies such as those that arose out of that program from happening again. We are also concerned that the government has torn up a century-old convention by disclosing government documents to the royal commissioner, which we would say is a fundamental breach of the Westminster tradition.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:29): Order! I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Banjo Paterson: 150th Anniversary
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (19:30): I rise to speak to speak about the celebrations that took place in my electorate of Calare to mark the 150th birthday of Australia's best-known poet and, indeed, Australia's greatest writer. Of course I am talking about Andrew Barton Paterson, most fondly known as Banjo Paterson. On a personal level, I grew up in awe of him, I guess, because if I listened to any prose it would have been his, and it was. I would argue that he was and continues to be the most skilled person of anyone I have ever heard at making words sound like they were meant to run together. We all know his famous ones: Waltzing Matilda, The Man From Snowy River, Clancy of the Overflow, Mulga Bill's Bicycle, and my personal favourite, the Geebung Polo Club—'For they waddied one another till the plain was strewn with dead'—that is sport at its best; that is Rugby League!
However many people are unaware of his other pursuits and achievements. Banjo studied law, was a journalist with the Melbourne Age, was a war correspondent in the Boer War, managed the horses in the Middle East for the Light Horse infantry in World War I, played all sports, and had strong social and political views—but you would notice that he never pushed them at you in his writing.
On a regional level, we have a particular affinity to Banjo. He was born at the property 'Narrambla', which is now considered part of Orange, the largest town in Calare. He then spent much of his early childhood in the small town of Yeoval which is about an hour's drive north-west of Orange on his family's leased property, Buckinbah, before the family moved away from the district.
Given this connection to our region, we have just wrapped up a week-long festival in honour of Banjo and his 150th birthday on 17 February. While there were many and varied events during this time, I will mention the unveiling of a new museum—and if I am correct—the only museum dedicated to Banjo. I joined with former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer who is also a great fan to officially open the new museum in Yeoval, named More Than a Poet.
Yeoval locals, Alf and Sharon Cantrell, have done a mountain of work, as has the town generally, transforming the old Masonic Hall into an exhibition that tells the story of the life and times of this great Australian. The vast collection within the museum began about 10 years ago with a book on Banjo's work that was passed down from Alf's grandmother. The land on which the hall now stands was once part of Buckinbah and, no doubt, was part of the land on which the young Banjo sat as he herded his father's sheep on land he described as 'dingo infested'—hard to believe now. I can highly recommend the museum to anyone interested in learning a bit more about Banjo.
Aside from the festival, I was thrilled to assist the Rotary Club of Orange and in particular Len Banks obtain a commemorative stamp celebrating the life of our great poet. I have been advised that the stamp in tribute to this iconic Australian was released last week. Just think about it. As you would well remember, Madam Speaker, we did all have the chance once to have the truly unique national anthem, but we failed the test. It would have been a national anthem like no other. However, I do congratulate all who were involved in celebrating and remembering the life of the greatest poet, I believe, in Australia's history.
General Pinochet
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:34): I rise today to speak on behalf the people in the Latin American community in my community, who have contacted me in relation to a specific incident that occurred at the end of last year. They contacted me out of concern, concern that one of this nation's elected representatives had make careless and offensive remarks in the New South Wales Parliament that would forever be on the public record. They were concerned that the history of one of the most brutal military juntas was being rewritten and that that their own stories and experiences were being forgotten. I speak of course about the remarks made by Dr Peter Phelps, member of the New South Wales Legislative Council in relation to the Pinochet dictatorship. He made these comments on 11 September last year, the 40th anniversary of General Augusto Pinochet's military coup that deposed the elected Allende government.
In his speech to the parliament Dr Phelps said that he was there to argue the case for General Pinochet. This was a man, he said, who many believed was a 'reluctant hero, a morally courageous man'. He also defended the overthrow of President Allende, saying:
We have to accept that sometimes it is necessary to do bad things to prevent terrible things—
It was a callous and cold-hearted comment to make. After all, those who appreciate the truly deplorable actions of the Pinochet dictatorship could not say such things. They would never seek to 'make the case' for a man who imprisoned and tortured his own people, who killed those who opposed him and who tore Chile apart bit by bit.
In speaking to those members of our Latin American community about this issue, it was clear that their memories of this time were as vivid as ever. Even if Dr Phelps had successfully forgotten this violence, they could not. They had no such luxury, because what they had seen, what they had heard and the people they had lost would be with them forever. The trauma experienced by parents, siblings, partners and friends was theirs too. And it always would be. Those I spoke to lived this history and felt incredibly disrespected to have that history rewritten for political pointscoring in their new home.
In response I feel compelled to call Dr Phelps to task on the public record in this place. In the days after his speech and following the outcry from the Chilean community, his fellow state parliamentarians and the wider population, Dr Phelps then tried to diminish the impact of his remarks. He said that he had not sought to defend the Pinochet regime but merely highlight the criticisms of the Allende government.
I think that what Dr Phelps was really trying to do was to whitewash history to score some kind of point about ideology, that his attempt to recast Pinochet as merely doing what was necessary is really an attempt to cast stones at those on the opposite end of the political spectrum.
While I understand that Dr Phelps has personal ideological objections to the Allende government and its philosophy, I would suggest that all he has managed to do is hurt innocent people. His attempt to score a political point comes at the cost of creating further trauma to already traumatised people. This cost is far too high, because to dismiss the experiences of these people as somehow the benign lesser of two evils is to deny these people basic justice. To insist that murder is necessary to overthrow a government is to belittle the memories of those who lost their lives, and to declare that many believe Pinochet to be some sort of hero is to obliterate the concerns of those who knew him as a villain. There is, after all, nothing 'morally courageous' about violence and oppression.
This is a man whose actions have been condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Chilean parliament, as well as the broader international community. No matter how many times Dr Phelps denies this, he cannot change the reality. He cannot equate his own opinions as being equal to facts and expect to get away with it; and he cannot make these kinds of statements and then seek to dismiss them as merely a misunderstanding, with no damage done. All he has really done is to deny the people of Chile their truth—truth, that most basic of justices.
It shows, I believe, a callousness and contempt which I find appalling, and so I would like to use this opportunity to ask Dr Phelps to apologise for his comments and to suggest that rather than using Chilean history as a political pawn that he acknowledges the truth of the situation: regardless of your personal politics, the Pinochet dictatorship committed unconscionable harm. I thank the House.
Moore Electorate: Neerabup Industrial Area
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (19:39): Local employment self-sufficiency is one of the most important issues in my suburban electorate of Moore. The majority of the working population is faced with commuting long distances to work each day on congested roads, at considerable expense and loss of productivity.
Within the electorate is a 1,000-hectare site known as the Neerabup Industrial Area which represents the second-largest industrial complex in the Perth metropolitan area, second only to the Kwinana Industrial Area. When fully developed, the site is expected to create 20,000 new jobs, add $7.9 billion to the gross state product and generate a further 24,000 jobs off-site, for a total economic impact of $13.3 billion.
This area has the potential to meet the local employment needs for the steadily-growing populations within the cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup for many years to come. I make mention of City of Wanneroo mayor, Tracey Roberts, who has been a strong advocate for economic development within the city, along with the local Wanneroo Business Association and the Joondalup Business Association. Although there has been some significant investment since 2008, including the $436 million NewGen gas-fired power station and the $110 million Wesbeam manufacturing plant, development in the Neerabup Industrial Area has been delayed due to a bureaucratic environmental approvals process and the need to provide infrastructure, such as road access, scheme water and telecommunications.
Extension of the Mitchell Freeway to Hester Avenue and construction of the Neerabup Road to Flynn Drive are to be funded by the state government at a cost of $315 million. The Neaves Road upgrade to connect the Perth-Darwin highway is being investigated by the WA planning commission as part of its Economic and Employment Land Strategy. In addition, the state government is investigating a north-south route, linking with the Swan Valley bypass, just south of Gnangara Road.
The City of Wanneroo recently approved a tender for the construction of a new section of Flynn Drive to align and link with the Neerabup Road connection to the future Mitchell Freeway extension, due to be constructed in 2016-17. This project is being funded by the City of Wanneroo at a cost of approximately $5 million. However, a 1.35 kilometres stretch of Flynn Drive to the east of the new section also requires upgrading. This is critical for improving traffic movement within the industrial area and facilitating 50,000 visitors during the Perth round of the V8 Supercars held at the Barbagallo Raceway to the north. The City of Wanneroo seeks federal funding to complete the second stage of upgrade of Flynn Drive at a cost of $4.7 million, to allow for intersection improvements, new street lighting, swale drainage and service relocations.
An application was lodged by the Western Australian land authority—LandCorp—under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act in June 2012 and determined a controlled action on 10 July 2012, due to potential impacts on listed threatened species, namely, the Carnaby's Black Cockatoo and the Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoo. The clearing of up to 202 hectares of bushland is required to enable construction. On 11 October 2012, the delegate of the minister determined that the proposed action would be assessed through preliminary documentation and requested further information, including how the proponent proposed to mitigate impacts prior to and during construction, and the proposed offsets.
In summary, timely development of the Neerabup Industrial Area is a priority in the Moore electorate. This will only be achieved through an efficient approvals process, with less bureaucracy and less green and red tape. Additional infrastructure funding is urgently required to upgrade road access. This industrial development represents the most significant economic development project in the electorate, and will assist in achieving the goal of a higher level of local employment self-sufficiency.
Tasmanian Election
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (19:44): One hundred years ago, my great-uncle left Tasmania to serve in the Great War. He never returned. But when he left Tasmania he did it in a spirit of service—to serve the community so that he could protect the way of life and prosperity of all Tasmanians. One hundred years later, our party is standing in the Tasmanian state election, because Palmer United has the same strong commitment to protect Tasmania, to recapture its prosperity, so that all Tasmanians can have a good and prosperous future.
My family has had a long-term commitment to Tasmania. My mother was born in Penguin and my father established Radio 7UV at Ulverstone. Today Tasmania endures hardship. Tasmania has been cast on a sea of despair. Labor and the Greens have locked up 51 per cent of the state, destroying opportunities, creating uncertainty and turning away investment. Leadership, not complacency, is our need today. The ability to lead and lead vigorously is the only way we can bring Tasmania back to a proper and prosperous economy.
Only Palmer United is fearless. We can do what has to be done to restore Tasmania to prosperity. Labor and the Greens have had a go—a go at destroying the state and a go at destroying the livelihoods of Tasmanians—taking from all Tasmanians their children's future. Urgent action is needed to change all that. Tasmania needs investment and it needs growth. Tasmania needs enterprise. Tasmania needs jobs, jobs and more jobs.
Tasmanians need a future for their children—not in Victoria, New South Wales or Queensland but in Tasmania. Tasmanians can do it with the support of all Australians, with encouragement and with initiative. Tasmanians should realise that they are not alone but are part of the Commonwealth. The more we can interact with other states the more the Commonwealth of Australia can be shared for the prosperity of all Tasmanians. Section 92 of the Constitution says that trade between the states shall be free. How can it be when access across Bass Strait is done in a costly manner that destroys Tasmania's ability to interact with the rest of the states in Australia?
Many people say they care about the people of Tasmania and about the state. So many politicians say they care but do not act decisively to produce results. For 16 years the Leader of the Opposition in Tasmania has been the bridesmaid and not the bride. His time has gone. He proposed more no-confidence motions that did not pass than any other opposition leader in the Western world.
Australians need to act now and make Tasmanians' lives better. That is why Palmer United is standing in every seat in the Tasmanian election. Palmer United seeks no reward except its role in history of providing a better and secure future for people who have been long neglected in a part of Australia which was once very vital and very important to the nation. Tasmanians know that this election is important to make a difference for their future. They can stay with it provided the course is set. They can stay the course and persevere. They need to conquer and prevail for a better future.
Tasmania needs to claim a spot in the nation's history and reclaim the wealth that it once had. Australians and all Tasmanians must put a stronger emphasis on what Tasmania has achieved over its long history. Once Tasmania produced in the 1980s $1 billion more than it consumed. Tasmania's problems have been made by Tasmanians and can be solved by Tasmanians—and I am sure they will at the next election. I thank the House.
Drought
Ethanol
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (19:48): I wish to speak on two critical issues: the drought and an issue engulfing the Central Queensland ethanol production industry. Firstly, this morning the Prime Minister announced a $320 million drought relief package. This vital package will help people who are suffering from a crippling natural weather disaster. I commend the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture for overseeing this package.
Part of the package relates to the important area of mental health and recognises that this drought is having a significant impact on the mental health and wellbeing of farmers, farm families and communities. The Australian government is providing $10.7 million to support social services in this area. Depression is rife on the land, but many blokes do not admit they are depressed. I encourage farmers who are under enormous pressure to make use of this latest government help. You are not a wuss if you get help for depression. It could save your life and help your family.
The second major issue I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the production of bioethanol in my electorate of Capricornia. In the sugar town of Sarina there is great fear that jobs are under threat because the local ethanol plant could be forced to close its doors prematurely. Recently the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics suggested Australian bioethanol producers should no longer receive an excise rebate. This would save over $100 million. BREE claims the rebate to date has produced little economic, environmental or consumer benefits. It suggests we should simply import cheap foreign ethanol.
Scrapping this rebate would be a huge blow to the Australian ethanol industry. When the ethanol scheme was first implemented there was no intention of reviewing it until 2021, because it would take that long for the industry to be fully established. Australia has three key ethanol producers. The only plant in Central Queensland is Wilmar Sugar's Sarina distillery. Last week I travelled to Sarina to learn more about the plant and the impact that scrapping this rebate would have on the local economy. I spoke to management, sugarcane farmers and the fantastic staff who run the plant. Here they use a by-product from sugar cane to produce world-class ethanol. Any unwanted by-product in the ethanol process is used to make liquid fertiliser that local canegrowers use as an economic source of crop food. These two industries are symbiotic; they rely on each other to exist.
While many believe Australian ethanol is simply used in fuel, 50 per cent of the ethanol produced in Sarina is used in industrial, household and medical products. Vanilla essence, Colgate mouthwash, sunscreen, oral products for babies, Vodka Cruisers, insect spray, detergents and various hair products all contain Sarina ethanol. Sarina ethanol is used in medications and even cancer treatments. Sarina ethanol is also used to provide a cleaner and greener fuel blend for vehicles. This innovative local industry cannot be allowed to go to the wall at the behest of economic bureaucrats.
The Sarina distillery creates 65 local full-time jobs. Its associated liquid fertiliser plant supplies 20 mum-and-dad fertiliser contractors, who in turn employ 80 other local people. Together the two plants provide Sarina with an economic boost of $10.5 billion annually in wages alone. If there is no ethanol plant, there is no fertiliser by-product to distribute to the canegrowers. Cane farmers say the loss of this nutritious crop food would increase their production costs. Meanwhile, Wilmar indicates that distillery jobs would go because its $23 million ethanol processing procedure would no longer have a use.
The Sarina distillery requires continued government policy stability to allow the ethanol industry to continue to develop. We must fight the axe-wielding bureaucrats to keep the excise rebate in place as it was intended until 2021. Previously, in Queensland and New South Wales, mandates were set in place to ensure a percentage of ethanol was blended with fossils fuels to promote a cleaner source of fuel to drive our cars. I am told by industry that these mandates were never rigorously enforced. If the mandate is enforced, the company believes it can become a viable, self-sufficient industry because it will have a guaranteed market. We must also consider support for a national 10 per cent ethanol mandate, where future vehicle fuels would need to contain a 10 per cent ethanol component. Such a mandate would create demand for Australian ethanol, allowing the industry to stand on its own two feet.
Fowler Electorate
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (19:52): As the member for Fowler, I have the honour of representing one of the largest Asian communities in Australia. This has given me the opportunity to learn much about the rich customs and traditions of the Vietnamese and Chinese communities. Lunar new year, which officially fell on 31 January this year, is celebrated over a number of weeks and is truly a very special time in my electorate. The local Chinese and Vietnamese communities organise numerous events, ranging from quite spiritual observations paying respect to ancestors through to large community celebrations welcoming the new year with much singing and activities and vibrant food.
One of the largest events I had the opportunity to attend in the lunar new year was the Tet festival, which is celebrating new year with the Vietnamese. It attracted more than 20,000 people to Fairfield Showground this year. The festival was organised by the Vietnamese Community in Australia, and I pay regard to the organisation, conducted by its president of VCA, New South Wales chapter, Dr Thang Ha, and his executive committee, along with all the various volunteers who combined to make this a very, very successful community celebration.
The Tet festival brings families and communities together to remember the past while looking forward to a bright and vibrant future. Tet is a community celebration that showcases the very best of Vietnamese culture and tradition. This is my fourth year of attending the Tet festival with the Vietnamese community. I was happy that my wife, Bernadette, and my four grandchildren were also able to participate. They were wearing traditional ao dai dress. In addition to attending the Tet festival, I participated in the tradition of visiting 10 temples on the second day of the new year. This gave me the opportunity to spend time with the venerable monks and nuns and talk about issues with them.
My local Chinese community was also very active in celebrating the lunar new year and showcasing some of the rich, centuries-old traditions of the Chinese community. The Australian Chinese Buddhist Society management committee—consisting of chairman, James Chan; president, Vincent Kong; vice president and treasurer, Jensen Tran; and secretary, Tony Trinh—did a great job in making sure the Chinese community celebrated lunar new year in considerable style. I am always impressed by the deep-seeded respect this community has for the elderly and for those who came before. By the way, this seems to be observed consistently across the Asian community. During the lunar new year celebration period, the Chinese community hosted many lunches and dinners for the elderly in our community as a way of paying their respect to elderly members and recognising the contributions they have made.
The New South Wales Indo-China Chinese Association with Mr To Ha Huynh OAM, the Australian Chinese Teo Chew Association with Hung Ly and Frank Chou OAM, the Australian Chin Lien Chinese Association with its president Michael Chan, and the Australian Cambodian Chinese Association with Bou Lien should all be very proud of the observances and the respectful celebrations they organised for the community. I am honoured to have been invited to each of their celebrations. I am also very grateful to a number of young people—Kenrick Cheah, Emily Trinh, Alex Chan and Stephen Tran—who are doing much as young Chinese Australians to promote and retain the culture of past generations. Many of these young people visited the various temples with me, as well as attending the various elderly celebrations at various aged care centres and nursing homes throughout my area.
The Vietnamese and Chinese communities in my area, and quite frankly across the country, truly demonstrate the success and strength of our multicultural Australia. The colour, the vibrancy and the diversity of my community combine to produce an overall richness of spirit, which we, particularly in Western Sydney, are very, very proud of. I feel extremely honoured to represent such a multicultural community in this parliament, and I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about their cultures and experience the richness of their traditions and cultures. This is important, in my opinion, in shaping the modern Australia.
Australian Natural Disasters
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (19:58): It is with great pleasure that I rise to report on the activities of surf-lifesaving in the electorate of Hinkler, and in particular the actions of the chief instructor of the Bundaberg club, Martin Cole, during the 2013 natural disasters. In quite incredible circumstances, Mr Cole and two Queensland Fire and Rescue Service volunteers pulled off a dramatic rescue at night in the raging torrent of the Kolan River.
It is very important that I note how difficult these circumstances were. The rescue was conducted in the dark in an inshore rescue boat, which is designed for use in the surf. It contained the driver and the two QFRS operators. At the time they spent at least an hour searching for a family who were reported to be stranded on the roof of their home. This used to be on the banks of the Kolan River; however, at the time that they were discovered the water was lapping at the gutters and rising rapidly. Given that it was a night-time rescue, they had no support. They were on the northern side of the Bundaberg city, which was completely cut off. They had no support from mobile phone networks and all of the batteries had drained in the devices that they did have.
Once they loaded up the inshore rescue boat, which was low on fuel, they discovered that the additional load against the raging torrent of the Kolan River would not allow them to return to the area that they launched the vessel from. Consequently, they had to turn with the flow of the river—in the dark, with no moon, surrounded by floating containers, cows and lots of other debris—and head out to sea. Unfortunately, they found the Kolan River had broken its banks in two places to create three additional river mouths. This then allowed them to move into the surf and take the patients—one of whom was injured quite severely—onto the beach.
The SPEAKER: It being eight o'clock, the debate is interrupted. No doubt, you will have another opportunity to finish that very moving story.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Truss to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Governor-General Act 1974, and for related purposes.
Mr Pyne to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011, and for other purposes.
Mr Pyne to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for other purposes.
Mr Hartsuyker to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, and for related purposes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ) took the chair at 09:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Automotive Industry
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (09:30): Labor has always supported the dignity of workers and the capacity of work to give people that dignity. Today I will speak on behalf of my constituents about the failure of this government to secure their futures. The conversation about jobs thus far has focused on the big players. We have heard a lot about Holden in Elizabeth and Fishermans Bend and Toyota in Altona, but I want to bring the focus of the House today to how the people in my electorate of Hotham will be affected.
Hotham is a place of industry and enterprise. Cheltenham, lying on our western boundary, is home to many factories producing textiles, food and machinery. Moorabbin, Clarinda, Clayton and Westall are filled with industry—factories small and large. Within all these areas lie hundreds of businesses supporting the car industry, manufacturing components, and those industrial sites support the cafes, laundries, logistics companies and the 5,000 small businesses in my electorate that rely in whole or part on automotive industry.
The collapse of the auto industry is going to have real consequences for the people of Hotham. It is predicted that there are 1,000 jobs on the line in my electorate. Looking with a regional focus at the state seats, we know that in the state seat of Lyndhurst 862 jobs directly related to the automotive industry will be on the line. In Bentleigh we will face losses of up to 177 jobs; in Oakleigh it is 176 and in Clayton 372. That is more than 1,000 families that are going to potentially lose a worker due to the failure of this government to protect the automotive industry.
I refer to some of the businesses that are going to see massive changes without an auto industry in Australia. I want to talk about a company called MTM, a components company in Hotham that employs 95 workers. It received a significant grant from Labor. This company is a world leader in research and development for door checks and automated gear sticks. It is a very successful company and very export focused. Companies like this are those that rather resent the inference of our Treasurer that the auto industry in Australia is lazy and inefficient. These are companies that are right at the cutting edge of production all over the world, but that does not mean that they do not need our support.
I want to talk about Mackay Rubber which I visited during the election campaign. I talked with management very frankly about some of the issues they face. I talked to their union delegates and visited the factory floor. It is a great business, a family business, and I believe they have strong future. But of course they are going to be affected. I talked to the workers; these are smart people. They are skilled. Many are recent migrants to Australia but, because of this government, their jobs are now on the line.
Tony Abbott says it is not his fault—that it is not the government's responsibility—but when this government campaigned they promised to keep jobs and create 1 million more. They cannot be responsible for jobs created but not jobs lost. That is not fair to the people of Hotham.
Ogaden Community Association of Western Australia
Mr KEENAN (Stirling—Minister for Justice) (09:33): I recently met with several members of the Ogaden Community Association of Western Australia, including the chairman, Asad Omar. The meeting served as an update concerning the human rights situation within their homeland. The Ogaden region in Ethiopia has been, and continues to be, subject to serious internal conflict. The Ogaden community representatives contacted me on this occasion as they are deeply concerned and, while they believe a number of atrocities have occurred in the Ogaden region, the region does not appear to receive an adequate amount of international scrutiny when compared to other conflict zones around the world.
The representatives raised very serious allegations of rape, torture, genocide and kidnapping, most of which have allegedly been committed by the Ethiopian military. Unfortunately, the allegations are hard to prove as international media and human rights groups have been refused access to the Ogaden region since 2007. However, I am aware that international organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Genocide Watch have been collecting large amounts of testimony which indicates that the claims of war crimes and crimes against humanity to have some veracity.
During the meeting, I was presented with a short video that contained satellite footage of a village in remote Ogaden which disappeared after the military swept through the region. Whilst it is impossible for me to authenticate this footage, if proven to be true it would be a significantly major deterioration in the situation in Ethiopia, and it would also provide evidence of a horrendous act.
The Ogaden community are also concerned with the level of assistance provided by developed nations including Australia through governmental and non-governmental financial assistance. They believe that aid from the developed world assists the authoritarian regime by providing it with financial injections. Following these concerns, I have raised the issue with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop. She was able to provide me with the assurance that Australia's aid money to Ethiopia is being used to assist those most in need.
Australia has raised the issue of human rights within the Ogaden region directly with the government of Ethiopia, including through representations made by Australia's ambassador there as recently as 15 January this year. Ethiopia is scheduled to appear before the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review in May this year. This will provide another opportunity for Australia to raise human rights concerns directly with the Ethiopian government in the UN forum. I am pleased that the information that the Ogaden community has provided to the Minister for Foreign Affairs will now be used in informing Australia's participation in Ethiopia's review later on this year.
I congratulate the Ogaden community in Western Australia, who are a very important community within my electorate of Stirling, for their persistence and efforts. I appreciate the efforts that they are making to preserve and recognise human rights within the Ogaden region in Ethiopia.
Indi Electorate: Melrose Primary School
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (09:36): I rise to acknowledge the work of the staff, students and community of Melrose Primary School in building and sustaining a culture of strong emotional health and emotional intelligence. I had the pleasure of visiting Melrose Primary School last week and am honoured to report to this parliament on the work and impact of this school community.
Melrose Primary School is in Wodonga, a wonderful community in north-east Victoria nestled against the Murray River. Wodonga is a sister city to Albury, in southern New South Wales. Beginning with a significant commitment to the professional development of staff in 2004, in January 2005 staff began teaching EQ as part of their core program. It is now the key focus of all activities within the school. There are EQ buddies; EQ journals and newsletters; an EQ story wall; EQ executives, awards and leaders; EQ reports to parents; and much more.
For those of you unfamiliar with EQ, it is based on three goals: to know yourself, to choose yourself and to give yourself. These goals are reinforced by five pillars: self-awareness, self-control, self-motivation, empathy and handling relationships. The benefits of a whole-school approach to emotional intelligence are many. For example, students, teachers and families gain skills in recognising and naming emotions. Students are better able to understand their feelings and recognise the difference between feelings and actions. In the area of self-motivation, there is evidence of more responsibility and less impulsive action, and students are better able to focus on the tasks at hand.
In all the research on mental health, early intervention is nominated as the No. 1 most effective action that can be taken. We know that 14 per cent of Australian children aged between four and 17 have been identified with mental health issues, so it is really important that we start work in our schools. Dr Helen Street, in the School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Western Australia, conducted a formal evaluation of this program. She said that the EQ program at Melrose Primary School showed immediate improvements in social behaviour and improvements in wellbeing.
A key element of EQ is making this type of learning relevant and fun. Melrose runs parent workshops and information nights. The school council embraces EQ as part of its culture. What I was most impressed about when I was at Melrose Primary School was the student handbook. It includes all this information in pictures, cartoons, words and stories—a truly impressive action. I would like to congratulate all the team at Melrose Primary School; Wilson McCaskill, for getting it going; and the leadership team, Shane, Kellie and Maree.
Parkes Electorate: Clontarf Foundation
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (09:39): I rise to speak once again about the great work of the Clontarf Foundation. The Clontarf Foundation was first established in 2000 in Western Australia by Gerard Neesham, a former coach of the West Coast Eagles. It is an academy for Aboriginal boys in high school. From those beginnings with just 25 boys in 2000 it has now grown to having in excess of 2,900 boys in 54 schools across the country. The original concept was based around AFL using teenage boys' love of the football as a carrot to get them to go to school. In New South Wales it has now morphed into rugby league. In my electorate we have four Clontarf academies at Bourke, Brewarrina, Moree and Coonamble.
I had the privilege on the weekend to spend a couple of days water-skiing with the Clontarf boys from three of the academies. It was a great privilege for my wife and I to be part of this movement. Over the years a lot of money has been spent and a lot of effort put into trying to improve the lot of our Aboriginal people in our communities.
Clontarf seems to be getting results more than anything I have ever seen. It is quite intensive. The secret to Clontarf is the wonderful staff that are employed to manage it. The academies are within the school. They attend training early a couple of mornings a week. They attend regular lessons and they cannot undertake any of the Clontarf excursions unless it is signed off by the headmaster, so school attendance is going up. One boy in Moree had not attended school one day the previous year and now has attendance of over 80 per cent. We are getting results. Eight boys in Coonamble got their HSC last year. Three boys from Coonamble have now got traineeships in construction with Leightons Contractors in Sydney. They started two weeks ago. Clontarf are helping them with accommodation, and with mentoring to keep them in the job and to manage their income. Later I met a man in his 30s who was an original Clontarf boy and even though he has a partner, a couple of children and a good job, Clontarf was still helping him out by advising him in saving for a deposit for a home and things like that.
Clontarf is a wonderful academy. I believe there is a possibility we are going to see more in New South Wales rolled out and they have my full support.
Perth Electorate: Meningococcal Disease
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (09:42): Today in parliament there are two extraordinary West Australians, Lorraine and Barry Young. They are here to support the work of Meningococcal Australia, a national organisation which is designed to draw attention to a disease which in its swiftness has proven to be a very lethal disease although one that if diagnosed early is capable of being treated. If not diagnosed within hours, it can lead to death in as little as 12 hours or lead to life-changing physical consequences such as amputation, kidney disease. It is a disease that we must ensure parents are well aware of.
I met Lorraine and Barry Young some 15 years ago shortly after their gorgeous young daughter, the 18-year-old Amanda, had died in tragic circumstances. Amanda was a fit and talented young woman who had been representing Western Australia at a rowing championship in Penrith. When the team returned to Perth the male members of the squad were given penicillin because a female of an East Coast team had been diagnosed with Meningococcal Disease. Amazingly the squad's management appeared to believe that West Australian females would somehow or other be not exposed.
Shortly after, Amanda fell ill. Her mother took her immediately down to the Armadale hospital. Lorraine alerted them to Amanda's contact with the meningococcal bacteria but, nevertheless, the treatment was not given to her. A whole sequence of really unfortunate events then followed. Within two days Amanda died. I worked with Lorraine and Barry through the state parliament to get a coronial inquiry. As a result of that, we saw the Department of Health becoming much more active in their approach to educating health professionals to recognise this disease.
Lorraine and Barry, as you can imagine, when they lost their only child—this beautiful child who was the centre of their lives—were devastated. But they have rebuilt their lives and dedicated themselves to creating the Amanda Young Foundation, which focuses on ensuring that parents, caregivers and health professionals are able to diagnose this disease. I really want to commend them for their work. (Time expired)
Scott, Ms Bianca
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (09:46): I rise to speak today about a young girl, 17 years of age, who is very ill. Bianca Scott graduated from All Saints Anglican School in my electorate of McPherson in December last year. Two weeks later she became very ill. Bianca has been diagnosed with Atypical Haemolytic Uraemic Syndrome—aHUS—and remains as an outpatient at Gold Coast University Hospital. This is a rare, life-threatening disease that can damage vital organs such as the kidneys, heart and brain. There is no cure. This hideous disease has affected Bianca's kidneys and her heart.
There are two treatment options available for this disease. The first option is plasma exchange, plasma infusion and dialysis. I understand that this slows the deterioration, but plasma exchange and dialysis are lengthy and expensive processes. Bianca's mother, Tammy, has told me that Bianca has spent up to nine hours per day undergoing dialysis and plasma transfer and that she needs high doses of antihistamines and steroids to counter the effects of plasma and dialysis. This, in turn, further taxes Bianca's kidneys. In aHUS, long-term plasma and dialysis will not mitigate against kidney failure. Should Bianca's kidneys fail, her aHUS strain makes her a poor candidate for kidney transplant.
The second option is a drug, Soliris, that has side effects but is indicated for the treatment of aHUS. Soliris is available through the Life Saving Drugs Program for treatment of PNH but not aHUS. Bianca's mother has advised me that she has been quoted by the drug company between $300,000 and $385,000 for a six-month supply of Soliris. Appeals to the drug company to include Bianca on their compassionate access program have been rejected. Bianca's family, with the support of so many generous people in the community, have purchased some initial supplies of Soliris. Treatment has commenced, and I understand there are promising early signs of improvement in Bianca's health.
There has been a lot of media attention concerning Bianca's plight, and I really do commend the efforts of everyone involved in raising community awareness of this terrible disease. An online petition has been set up which can be found at www.change.org, and I am advised that as of yesterday there were 27,669 signatures on that petition. This is clearly an issue that has tremendous community support. I will be doing everything that I can to have that petition tabled in the parliament. Bianca Scott needs immediate assistance, and I call on Alexion Pharmaceuticals Australasia to urgently reconsider its position and allow Bianca to be included on its compassionate access program.
Murphy, Ms Allison
Mr MARLES (Corio) (09:49): I met Allison Murphy in 2006 after I had won ALP preselection in the electorate of Corio. We were at the opening of a park and she made a point of introducing herself to me. Within a second of meeting Ally you knew that here was a person who was bright and warm and engaging. It was an interaction that I did not expect to have at that event but, years later, is the interaction which made that event memorable.
Ally spent a number of years working in this building, albeit on the Senate side as a Liberal staffer for Senator Judith Troeth. She loved Judith, and I know that that was a feeling which was very reciprocal. If Judith were still in the Senate she would be making this speech.
Using her experience with Judith, in 2004 Ally established RedStick Strategic Communications, a public affairs consultancy that particularly catered to clients in Geelong. RedStick has been, in a professional sense, Ally's life work. And Geelong is so much the better for it. RedStick was a platform for Ally, behind the scenes, to play a huge role in the public life of Geelong.
To any situation, to any set of circumstances, to any cause, Ally brought her formidable array of skills. Ally was intelligent, Ally was sensitive, Ally was funny. She had judgement and she was full of class. Our world here is based on human relations. Ally wasn't just good at human relations—she defined excellence.
For me, I turned to Ally when it was important for Geelong that matters be handled right, and when matters in Geelong had me confused and I needed the right counsel. Through Ally's professionalism and personality, RedStick grew and grew. Before long she seemed to be at the centre of all that was important in Geelong. At many an event I can remember welcoming people to the City of Greater RedStick and introducing Ally as its Mayor. In short, she ran the joint, and it is hard to imagine how the joint will run without her.
The day I first had a coffee with Ally I returned home to my wife, Rachel, and told her I had just met her new best friend. New to Geelong, Rachel was missing her friends from Melbourne and pursuing the difficult task of building a new social circle. My prediction was right, and Rachel and Ally became very close, sharing the experiences of running a business with a young family and husbands who travelled. They also shared the joy of brightly coloured nail polish, the value of a good coffee with a girlfriend, and the pressure of a bake sale, in a way that a bloke like me will never really understand.
For Rachel and I, Ally was special, because uniquely she lived in both our worlds and as such probably understood our lives as much as anyone. But I stray into the personal, and this contribution is about a person who was not just a friend to me but dearly loved by the community I represent in this place.
On Monday, aged in her early forties, Ally suffered a catastrophic stroke. She died yesterday.
That Ally, just two days ago, awoke on Monday morning, at the beginning of this very week, just like all of us did here, and now is gone, seems preposterous. It makes no sense. It feels deeply unfair. It is quite literally unbelievable.
She leaves behind a large family, many of whom I met last night: her husband Peter, aka Stevo; her step-son, Tom; and her two beautiful twin children, Charlie and Lucy, who started at the same school as our kids just a few weeks ago. That Ally was able to witness Charlie and Lucy's first day at school carries with it a measure of comfort.
And it is to Charlie and Lucy that I want to finally speak: when you are wondering why you make friends easily, it is your mum by your side; when you are wondering why you laugh more than others, it is your mum animating your joy; and when you feel overcome with love, it is your mum who is in your heart.
Ally Murphy, you will be missed.
Dobell Electorate: Merchant Navy
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (09:53): Late last year I had the honour of attending the 19th annual Merchant Mariners Memorial Service at Norah Head. The service pays tribute to merchant mariners who made the ultimate sacrifice during times of war, in particular during World War II where the coastline of Dobell witnessed the devastating impact of war. The merchant navy is often described as the 'unseen' or 'silent' service, yet in the last millennium there were periods where the merchant navy had the largest fleet in the world. We should never forget the role the merchant navy plays during times of war and the sacrifice made by merchant seaman.
During the Second World War, merchant navy ships carrying valuable cargo were at just as much risk as Royal Australian Navy warships. Approximately 14,000 Australian merchant mariners served during World War II. Contrary to popular belief, during the war merchant seamen were not well paid and did not have comfortable working hours, and their living conditions were often poor.
It is believed that the overall fatality rate amongst merchant seamen during the Second World War was 8.5 per cent—a rate higher than that sustained by Australia's fighting services. Merchant ships often sailed unescorted unless carrying troops, making them easy targets for enemy attacks.
Merchant mariners were amongst some of the first Australians captures by enemy forces during World War II. Merchant routes between North America and Britain faced some of the highest casualties of war. German submarines waged a determined campaign against merchant shipping that reached its peak between 1942 and 1943.
The coastline of Dobell at Norah Head and Bird Island played a pivotal part in Australia's defence during World War II. Unfortunately, the beautiful coastline of Dobell witnessed the tragedy of war with the sinking of two merchant vessels: the Nimbin and the Iron Chieftain. One was struck a German mine and the other was torpedoed by a Japanese submarine. It is important that we take time to pause and remember seafarers lost over the years—both in times of war and in times of peace.
I would like to pay tribute to the local Nimbin Committee, who work to ensure the memories of these seafarers are preserved and honoured each and every year. I would also like to acknowledge the school captains of Gorokan High School, whose presence at the ceremony means that these memories will be passed on to future generations.
I also acknowledge and thank Joe Deakin from the Maritime Union of Australia for providing me with an insight into the maritime industry and the working conditions of past and present seafarers. I commend Joe on his commitment and dedication to the safety and wellbeing of current seafarers, by raising awareness to improve conditions on board ships and in the docks visited by merchant ships.
Scullin Electorate: Employment
Mr GILES (Scullin) (09:56): On 24 October last year, the workers at the Golden Circle factory in Mill Park received the news that no employee wants to hear: their positions were to be made redundant.
The news that the plant would close came as something of a surprise, given that two years ago, Heinz Australia, which owns Golden Circle, announced that it planned to invest over $10 million over four years in the Mill Park factory to install robotic palletisations to improve efficiency. It is unclear what has changed in two years such that all of a sudden the factory was being described as too small and no longer commercially viable.
Over the last few days, workers have been involved in industrial action as they seek to negotiate with Heinz regarding their redundancy packages. I call on Heinz to sit down with their employees and their representatives and negotiate in good faith to give these workers a fair acknowledgement of their commitment to the Mill Park plant.
Since the Golden Circle closure announcement, the northern suburbs of Melbourne have had further bad news with the announced closures of Toyota and Holden. The manufacturing industry employs 9,300 people in Scullin, and over 39,400 people across the northern suburbs of Melbourne. In light of this I was keen to identify what jobs plan for people in Scullin these announced closures would elicit from the Victorian and federal governments. Predictably, there has been none. This is in keeping with the coalition's policy of having no policy or plan when it comes to jobs.
The people of Australia—the people of Scullin—are quickly seeing a coalition unprepared, even unwilling, to assume the role and responsibilities of government. Despite what the Assistant Minister for Employment might believe, it is clear that you cannot run a country on three-word slogans, and you certainly cannot run a country on negativity.
Too often we see skilled and secure jobs replaced with low-skilled, low-paid, insecure jobs. This does not have to be the fate of these workers at Mill Park. An innovative, dynamic and sustainable manufacturing industry is possible. And, as Labor has shown, there is a role for government in facilitating and leading this process.
I want to thank local state members, Lily D'Ambrosio, the member for Mill Park; and Bronwyn Halfpenny, the member for Thomastown, for their hard work in this area. Both Lily and Bronwyn recognise the need to work with the federal government to achieve shared outcomes for Melbourne's north. And they recognise the need to work with workers and their unions, such as the AMWU. I acknowledge the union's work, and particularly the work of Tom Hale, in standing up for the food sector more generally and drawing attention to the impact on suppliers in regional communities.
The workers at the Golden Circle factory have until March to find alternative employment. It is not too late for this government to do more than just say no. I urge the government to adopt, in full, Labor's $1 billion jobs package. I am in this place to stand up, and speak up for the workers at Golden Circle, and workers like them. I know the community is on side.
But this government of 'grown ups', and 'no surprises and no excuses', has had nothing to say on jobs for these workers and their families. They deserve a plan.
Newton Moore Senior High School
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (09:59): I rise to congratulate the principal, staff and students of Newton Moore Senior High School in Bunbury, Western Australia. The reason I am doing that is because that school has been approved by the Western Australian Department of Education and Training to deliver an engineering specialist program to high school students. That is fantastic for a school in Bunbury, in my electorate. The engineering program is designed to attract budding engineers from around the south-west, to address the shortage of engineers that we see both in Western Australia and throughout the entire nation. And we know, with Western Australia's pipeline of mining projects, the importance of engineers in general.
However, I hope and I think we all would reasonably expect that increasing the number of engineering students who are actually taught in the south-west will have a significant impact on the number who actually remain in our part of the world as well. The approved engineering specialist program is for high-achieving students and provides a strong foundation for successful completion of upper school engineering, science and maths courses. Obviously, the ultimate aim of such a program is to enhance students' acceptance into university-level engineering courses. To enhance the program the Newton Moore Senior High School is seeking sponsors of academic scholarships and donations for equipment and consumables, as you would expect with an engineering course. Scholarships of $500 will assist not only in training the engineers of the future coming out of the south-west but also give those same south-west students the same or similar opportunities provided to metropolitan students, something that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would well understand the importance of. Donations of $500 for equipment would also be very gratefully accepted by the school.
I am so pleased to see Newton Moore Senior High School achieve this. I really support what they have done in achieving this engineers program. I encourage the businesses in the south-west community to also support them in whatever way they can. It is a real feather in the cap of Newton Moore Senior High School, which is an independent public school in South Bunbury. I congratulate the principal, the school, the staff and the students ahead on, I hope, their great achievements.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ 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.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (10:02): I thank the opposition for their assistance in this matter. In this discussion on Aboriginal disadvantage, I would like to acquaint the House with the Noongar people of the south-west of Western Australia. At the time of European settlement of the area there were between 6,000 and 10,000 Noongar people living in the south-west, in a region roughly south and west of a line from Jurien Bay, about 200 kilometres north of Perth to Esperance, which is 800 kilometres south-east of Perth. This includes the Perth metropolitan region, an entire south-west land division. Evidence suggests that they have been living in that area for at least 45,000 years. Today around 30,000 people living in the region claim Noongar heritage, making this grouping the largest Aboriginal language group in Australia. Around 10 per cent of these live in my electorate.
In the Forrest electorate the Noongar language grouping is split into two groups, in geographical terms by the Capel River. North of this is the traditional home of the Pindjarup and, south, predominantly the Wardandi. It is also one of the most urbanised areas, with the majority living in the Perth metropolitan region. As we know, the Noongar community has produced some of AFL's best footballers, such as the Matera brothers from the West Coast Eagles and Stephen Hill from the Dockers.
Today around a third of the AFL's Indigenous players across Australia are Noongar. This is a group of Australians with a proud history and a strong culture. It is also a group that works to encourage and support their people. For example, the South West Aboriginal Medical Service, based in Bunbury, also provides an outreach service in regional centres like Collie. It is really critical that the AMS get out to these small communities.
The Noongar community have actively targeted education as a key priority and I commend them for that. They have seen marked improvements in graduation rates at both the secondary and tertiary levels. That is exactly what we need to see and that is their intention. Of course, there is still much more to do in terms of closing the gap for the Noongar community, but I am really encouraged, as they would be, by what is in place.
Members should note that the term 'Noongar', although often seen spelled in different ways, means 'the people'—or, perhaps more literally, human being. This is similar to many other Indigenous populations around the globe whose name for themselves means the equivalent of 'the people'. The Noongar community is a great reminder to us all that we are not dealing with a language group; we are talking about human beings. Too often in discussions we can fall into the trap of generalisation and we can talk about them as a group rather than individuals with dreams, hope and aspirations.
It is not difficult to understand why, as so many Australians do not even know an Aboriginal person. So perhaps they have no individual experience to call upon. For many, the only experience they have of an individual Aboriginal person is on television, where they sometimes see and hear messages that are not always a positive experience. So it is most appropriate that the word 'Noongar' be remembered in this debate and that the focus should be on providing opportunities for individuals and families. In doing so, we can raise the level of the debate and focus on improving health, education and employment opportunities for individual Aboriginal people throughout this nation through their individual empowerment—for it is these three things that will drive the future of the next generation of Aboriginal and Noongar communities.
Of these, for me perhaps the greatest need is education. The rate of Aboriginal students attending and graduating not only high school but also tertiary education has to be lifted yet again. I was at an ECU graduation in my electorate recently and one of the teachers came and saw me afterwards and said, 'We need to make sure we have more young Aboriginal people graduating as well,' and I support that. We know that through education come greater job choice, greater job satisfaction and greater job security. This rule applies to us all, including Aboriginal people—and, like us all, having meaningful employment is ultimately tied to our self-esteem and self-worth.
We have seen the government engaging with leaders of the Aboriginal community, like Warren Mundine, who want to step away from welfare and sit-down money and instead focus on step-up money—stepping up to education and employment and self-empowerment and self-determination. On these issues, the Prime Minister is to be congratulated for his leadership and his genuine and heartfelt commitment to the Aboriginal community. Surely even his fiercest critics have no choice but to endorse this.
The Prime Minister has also moved away from a range of issues in the Aboriginal engagement. By personal demonstration, Tony Abbott has demonstrated his long-term commitment to improving outcomes for Aboriginal people. I am looking forward to seeing what the Prime Minister will do in this area over the coming years, because this new focus on personal empowerment has so much potential. It was good to hear in his statement that Australia is on track to achieve some of the Closing the Gap targets. It is a good thing that the target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met.
On a personal level, I was pleased to be informed that we are already close to meeting the target to have 95 per cent of remote children enrolled for preschool. In this, as in so many other areas, the work continues. Surely the first step is to know what percentage is actually attending as well as just enrolled. Again, this knowledge should soon become available. Of course, getting Aboriginal children to start their education journey is important—but, surely, our target is to get them to the end of it. To this end, to be told that the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is also on track to be met is great and welcome news.
I, like I am sure all members, am saddened that Indigenous employment has not progressed and may, in fact, have worsened. This needs to change, but surely education is the key to better employment outcomes. So it is my fervent hope that the small but stepped changes we are seeing in education will bear fruit in employment. It may well be a slow process and perhaps a generational change, but we start by getting children into school and we address the outcomes of schooling. To date, there has been very little improvement towards halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy and this needs to change as quickly as possible. In his address, the Prime Minister said:
We are all passionate to close the gap, but we may, I fear, be doomed to fail until we achieve the most basic target of all: the expectation that every child will attend school every day.
These are wise words, but we need to go further. School attendance is not enough by itself because it is the outcome of learning that is the key. This is the true measure, as the Prime Minister has said: how many Aboriginal people graduate from high school and tertiary courses as individuals with high levels of literacy and numeracy skills, because this will lead to employment and from employment should stem a range of other benefits.
To date there has been almost no progress in closing the life-expectancy gap between Aboriginal and other Australians, which is still about a decade. In my view education outcomes lead to employment outcomes, which lead to self-esteem outcomes, which lead to health outcomes. As the report on Closing the Gap shows, there is no quick fix by jumping straight to health without addressing the things that impact on it.
The coalition government proposes to add a new target to Closing the Gap targets to end the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years. Right around the country, it should be possible to be proudly Aboriginal and a full participant in modern Australia. I want to commend a little school in my electorate, Harvey Primary School, that has really made an improvement in its attendance, in the past 12 months in particular, through its own resources.
Every state and territory has agreed with the Commonwealth on the need to publish attendance data for every school. At 40 remote schools, the Commonwealth is already funding new anti-truancy measures that, on day one of the 2014 school year in some communities, seem to have boosted attendance from under 60 per cent to over 90 per cent.
It has often been repeated that history judges a nation by how it treats its most vulnerable members, and history is watching our actions closely. Let us let self-empowerment through education be the legacy we leave on this issue.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:12): I would like to begin by acknowledge the first Australians as the traditional custodians of this land and pay my respects to their elders, past and present. I would also like to particularly acknowledge the Woiwurung and Wathawurung people, the traditional owners of the land that encompasses the electorate of Lalor, and I acknowledge the presence of the member for Hasluck this morning.
The last time this parliament sat, I was pleased to be in the House and see the bipartisan recognition of the importance of the sixth Closing the Gap report. To see both sides of parliament commit to better outcomes for Indigenous people, not only in terms of numbers on a page but in terms of real and tangible improvements, shows how far we have come when these sorts of aims are shared and are no longer a source of conflict or debate.
When we established the Closing the Gap targets in 2008, we did so with a long-term view: to end the disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We pledged this not only on behalf of ourselves but also on behalf of those who would come after us—years and decades after us—because this is not a problem that can be fixed in an instant. It requires our time, resources and, most importantly, our commitment. So, while I am pleased to see this new era of bipartisan support, I am at the same time worried that some of the former Labor government's policies and reforms in this area are being undone—in health, in justice and in education.
For example, the reduction in funding to health programs and infrastructure, particularly in rural and remote areas, can only hurt Indigenous people. Same, too, with the $13.4 million cut to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal aid, an incredibly short-sighted move, in my humble opinion, and one which I know is already causing great concern in my community. As a former educator, it concerns me that one of the first acts of the Abbott government was to cut all funding to the First Peoples Education Advisory Group. The group, a cross-sector expert panel that sought to provide education advice to the government, was working on the very issues we are addressing here today—closing the gap. It is therefore very disappointing that the Abbott government has walked away from continuing this important work.
It is also very concerning that the government has refused to fully commit to additional financial loadings for students under the Better Schools plan. The loadings seek to address disadvantage head-on and, importantly, recognise the continuing disparity by providing extra assistance for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. It is about targeting funding to targeted needs.
These cuts to health, justice and education services are short-sighted and raise questions about the government's real commitment to closing the gap, because, as the report shows, while we certainly have had some success, we still have such a long way to go in ending the gulf between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We are not there. In abolishing the gap in employment outcomes, we are not there. In terms of halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy for Indigenous children, we are not even close. The most recent NAPLAN results support this finding and show that, despite some encouraging gains in literacy, Indigenous students continue to be left behind. This is not good enough. As my colleague Senator Peris said in her speech on closing the gap, equality in education is essential. It is the great equaliser. And it is the government's responsibility to ensure that every Australian child has access to a quality education regardless of background or bank balance.
Without adequate commitment from government to improving outcomes in education, in health, in employment and in justice, we will not meet the most important target of all: life expectancy. This gap is estimated to be about a decade between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and represents the years of inequality in services, in health and in education that Indigenous communities have faced and continue to face. I think there is always a risk that when we talk about these sorts of things in such dry and removed language we can forget what we are really talking about. We need to remind ourselves that, when we are talking about life expectancy gaps, what we are really talking about is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people being denied the chance to grow old. It is unfair. It is appalling. It is heartbreaking. So, when we say we need to do better and we need to do more, let us not forget what we are really talking about here. Real people in real communities have been left too far behind for too long. By being better, by doing more, we can create better outcomes and create more opportunities. We can change lives.
While it is so important that we acknowledge the work still to be done, we do need to acknowledge and celebrate some of the successes in the report. We need to recognise that we are on track to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five. If improvements continue at the same rate, this will be achieved by 2018. We need to recognise that we are on track to ensure access to early childhood education for every Indigenous child living in a remote community, with 88 per cent of Indigenous children in 2012 enrolled in preschool. This is an encouraging result. And we need to recognise that we are on track to halve the gap in the number of Indigenous kids completing year 12.
The Victorian Aboriginal Education Association recently celebrated the achievements of the 384 Koori students who completed their VCE, VCAL or VET in 2013. This is up from 257 students just three years before. And not only are more Indigenous students completing year 12 studies in Victoria but more are going on to tertiary studies. The percentage of Aboriginal students going from year 12 to university has increased from 22 per cent to 40 per cent over the past five years. This is a momentous leap and a profoundly life-changing outcome for these students.
In acknowledging these successes, we also need to recognise the people whose work, day by day, is closing that gap inch by inch: the teachers, the nurses, the doctors, the community workers, those in the not-for-profit sector and, most importantly, people in Indigenous communities themselves. In my own community, I would like to recognise the work of the Gathering Place; the South Western Melbourne Medicare Local; the Western Region Health Centre; the schools that have embraced the Wannik individual education plans for Indigenous students, which have led to such great outcomes; and other local agencies who are deeply committed to closing the gap within our community. Without the efforts of these people, without their dedication, we would not have much to celebrate.
But they do need our support. In particular, they need those things I mentioned earlier: our time, our resources and our commitment. So I would like to take this opportunity to ask of the government, the opposition and every single parliamentarian in this place that we continue to hold ourselves to account, that we continue to always aim high and that we never forget our role in ensuring that every Australian gets a fair go.
That is why I am particularly proud to be a member of a party and a member of a parliament that is committed to ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a place of honour in the Australian Constitution. It is the next important step in a long road of reconciliation for our parliament. In 1963, Indigenous Australians were able to vote in a national election for the first time. In 1975, Prime Minister Whitlam acknowledged the rights of Vincent Lingiari and the Gurindji people and poured that profound handful of sand.
As Mr Abbott noted some weeks ago, it was 1992 when Prime Minister Keating made the Redfern speech, a watershed moment which acknowledged the pain of our past and committed our nation to doing better. It was 2007 when Prime Minister Rudd said sorry and reminded us that both symbolism and actions have a role to play in achieving true reconciliation. It was in 2013 that under Prime Minister Gillard parliament passed the act of recognition, the fruition of years of work that have in turn led us to our next step.
The next step of constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is more than words on a page. It is about acknowledgement and recognition and it serves as a permanent reminder as to what has been and what should be. The referendum is our next opportunity to bring every Australian with us on that long road to true reconciliation.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (10:20): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Lalor in this debate. I am sure she will make as great an impact on public life as the woman she succeeded in that seat. I also acknowledge the member for Hasluck, who is in the chamber today, and the work that he is doing on the important select committee dealing with constitutional recognition. That is a matter that I will have something more to say about throughout the course of my remarks.
It is important that we acknowledge the traditional owners of this land—the Ngambri people and the Ngunnawal people—and I pay my respects to elders past and present. As a representative of the Throsby electorate, I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Dharawal people of the Illawarra and the Gundungurra people of the Southern Highlands.
On 13 February 2008, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations. I suspect everybody in this chamber would be able to recite exactly where they were on that morning when the Prime Minister delivered that historic address. I was with a group of friends in Federation Square in Victoria. It was broadcast on a large television screen. I was not alone; there were several thousand people who turned out in Melbourne's streets that morning to come together and share as one that important acknowledgement from the parliament, from the leader of the parliament and from the leader of the Australian people.
Prime Minister Rudd also outlined a new future for Australia, one where:
… we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
He then went on to lead COAG to agree with Indigenous communities to achieve the target of closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage and, notably, the 17-year gap in life expectancy within one generation.
I will now talk about some of the other closing-the-gap targets. In the area of health, it is an unfortunate reality that a high proportion of Aboriginal Australians still live below the poverty line and suffer from preventable chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease, at a greater rate than the rest of the population. Since 2006, Australia's peak Indigenous and non-Indigenous health bodies, NGOs and human rights organisations have been working together to achieve health and life expectation equality for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It cannot happen overnight. As the member for Lalor has observed, once chronic diseases like diabetes, liver disease and kidney disease take hold, they can be managed but not cured. So the challenge is to ensure that we do not continuously increase the stock of the population who suffer from these diseases.
In my electorate, there are many community organisations that are already working to address Indigenous health epidemics such as I have mentioned. They work in public health. One such organisation is the Koori Men's Support Group. It is a non-profit organisation led by a dynamic and charismatic individual who everyone knows as Uncle G or Uncle Gerald. As an Aboriginal elder within his community, he focuses on young men and ensures that they are provided with the sort of mentorship, leadership and healthy life examples that perhaps were not available to him. They are making a difference in many, many ways.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that Uncle G and his men's group do out at Albion Park. Much of their discussions revolve around getting kids to make responsible lifestyle decisions—to eat healthy, to get moving and to steer clear of drugs, alcohol and smoking. The goal is to intervene at a young age to try to address the soaring hospitalisation rates of local Indigenous people, which is much higher than the non-Indigenous population. It is especially about those choices that contribute to alcohol abuse and injury, respiratory disease and kidney disease. A staggering one-third or more of Aboriginal hospitalisation admissions in the Illawarra are for dialysis, which is more than double the non-Indigenous rates. So, if we are going to make a difference, we have got a pretty clear understanding of some of the areas which we have to focus on. You would associate these health crises with an impoverished nation but it is actually happening in a very wealthy nation—one of the most wealthy nations in the world. So we have got a lot of work to do and, as a nation, we can do much better in this area.
When we talk about education, we are still way off the pace in achieving the majority of our Closing the Gap education targets. We have not yet halved the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Aboriginal children and we have not yet halved the gap for Aboriginal students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates. I am pleased to say—and there was a little bit of celebration throughout the chamber—that the Prime Minister has advised us that we have met our first Closing the Gap target in that every preschooler living in a remote community now has access to early childhood education. We are set to have 95 per cent of children in remote areas enrolled in preschool within a decade.
This is important. There have been Nobel Prize winning economists that have demonstrated that every $1 invested in early childhood in nought to six-year-old education has a return of between $6 and $10 over the lifetime. We should do it because it is the right thing to do, but if we need to make an economic argument then an economic argument can be made. A $1 investment with a $10 return is a good investment in anybody's language, and it comes in many forms like sources of tax revenue, reduced remedial help and health costs and lower criminal justice costs. Getting this right is very important. I think it will have a flow-on effect to other education target areas—obviously literacy and numeracy rates, but also completion of year 12 or equivalent attainment. Without early childhood education opportunities, Aboriginal children start their very first day of school socially and intellectually behind non-Indigenous kids who have engaged in early learning programs. So it is clearly an area where we know that we can make a difference.
I now turn to employment. It is a national shame that Aboriginal people in the Illawarra and right across the country continue to experience higher rates of unemployment than non-Aboriginal people. Employment rates for Indigenous people in Wollongong is at 46.1 per cent. This is well below the average rates for the rest of the population, which is hovering at around 66 per cent. So we know what we have got to do in this area. There are some terrific programs that are making a difference in this area, but I have to say that some of these programs are currently labouring under funding uncertainty. We know that we have got to invest the money to get the return and we know that a number of the programs have a big axe over their head. So I call upon people of good will all across the parliament to ensure, as the member for Lalor has set out, that these programs continue to be funded. There are programs like Better Futures, which I am very pleased to say that the Shellharbour LGA is one of only 10 areas throughout the country that was identified by the previous government for special attention. We knew that if we were going to get high at-risk groups back into the workforce then we had to make an investment.
Focusing on the Aboriginal unemployed population or at-risk population in Shellharbour was a key objective of the money that has been spent in the Illawarra. As an example, the Illawarra Aboriginal Corporation is running the What a Man project, which engages Aboriginal fathers from jobless families and develops the skills that many of us take for granted, to ensure they get their lives back on track and that they can also provide leadership to the young boys and kids within their care.
I want to say something about constitutional recognition before I sit down. Our national anthem includes the words:
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share …
The plains were not empty when the white people got here. They were occupied for over 30,000 years. That is something we should be proud of and which we are proud of. We acknowledge it at every civic ceremony and at many more ceremonies throughout the country. We have one more step to take. We have to remove the last vestiges of racism from our Constitution. That should be the work of this parliament, as well.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (10:30): I rise to speak on the Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's Report 2014. I enjoyed listening to the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition because the bipartisan commitment is strong and is aimed towards the targets that have been established through the Closing the Gap COAG work. But there were two lines in the Prime Minister's speech that resonated and stuck with me. One was:
Many of us have been on a long journey.
If we look at the context of that long journey then, depending on which side you stand, that journey is very different—particular for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities over that period of time.
The second sentence that stayed with me was:
The challenge is to turn good intentions into better outcomes.
That is the challenge in this process. I have always been of the view that we will not close the gap unless we focus on the total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia—that is, urban communities, rural, remote and regional centres. That is because three-quarters—75 per cent—of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people live in major cities or regional areas, with the remaining 25 per cent living in remote and very remote areas. So whilst the targets apply equally, the challenge is in the programs and the types of initiatives that you put into place that will be effective within those locations.
The challenges faced in these different environments are very similar. We make assumptions about the overarching issues of high Indigenous infant mortality rates, the extraordinary prevalence rates of otitis media and the other health problems that prevail and the need to address the social determinants which impact on every facet of the goals that we have set ourselves. And we need to look at appropriately negotiated services, because they remain critical in the way that we achieve an outcome.
All of us, when we are involved in determining our own destinies—we look at what it is that we should improve or how to add to the quality of our lives—generally expect and want to have the capacity to participate in those negotiations. It does not matter whether those negotiations are with our GP or whether they are with the local shopkeeper. Transcend that model into the way in which governments deliver services to Aboriginal communities: we should be doing exactly the same there. Because if we are doing to people the things that we want to implement then they will not be effective unless they are owned.
Leaders of change must ensure that the status quo is not retained or justified, because we will not see the shift in the outcomes that we seek. We know that change is inevitable and that there is a need to take strong action to eliminate the high levels of disparity that prevail within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. In the new and emerging directions, Indigenous affairs will experience unprecedented change. Those working in the area will be required to adapt, adjust and work to achieve the directions set out by all levels in government. That includes doing things in concert with Aboriginal people—working with them to determine what is an achievable outcome.
In the forward of a book I read recently, the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, wrote:
Recent governments have failed to consult closely with Indigenous communities in various parts of Australia. Two or three years ago when I was travelling through the Kimberley, I spoke with Indigenous people and asked them how they saw this consultation. In simple terms they said: "Well, Canberra makes up its mind what is good for us, and consultation consists of trying to persuade us what Canberra has decided is indeed good for us."
Above all, Australian governments must learn to treat Indigenous Australians with respect and work on programs with Indigenous leadership, but equally we need to be mindful that there are people within the Aboriginal industry who rely on the incomes that they receive for the work that they do—and sometimes change is not advantageous. It is interesting when I walk into a community and the CEO of an organisation says. 'We have achieved our goals; we have achieved the targets that the Commonwealth and the state have set for us.' When I walk around that community I see the reality of what impacts on a family. I see a family that is troubled by health problems, a house that I do not consider habitable, or a family that does not benefit from the food availability we take for granted in capital cities. But I see the same in capital cities. In my own electorate, Aboriginal families do not access mainstream services—we should not use the term 'mainstream services', because they are government services for all Australians. That is the challenge we have to get our mind around. If we shape the services then we have to link with those who are affected, and the immediate beneficiaries of that are families.
In my 60 years of living I have noticed that every layer of government picks identified leadership that it negotiates with only. Each and every state, territory and Commonwealth government tends to hand pick leaders that they consult with to give them the solutions for families on the ground, yet their connection is not with those families. Even I as an Indigenous Australian do not connect with every Nyungar family in the south-west, so I cannot and never will represent them all. That is why I have said in this chamber on many occasions that every federal member should get out and meet every Aboriginal organisation to find out what the gap is in their electorate. It is through that process that we can collectively bring about the change that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Greens have committed to—set aside the politics; we are leaders in our communities and electorates so let us go out there and demonstrate practically how we can engage, how we can acknowledge. We might not agree with the views presented to us; we may not agree that a community wants to bury the guidelines because it would better suit them, but let us try it. Often I hear from Indigenous leaders at the community level, including urban, who say they want to do something this way but the bureaucrat they deal with is insisting they have to continue doing it another way. They take the view that Malcolm Fraser expressed to the Kimberley people—they are being told how to do things.
I remain optimistic that the changes that we have in mind collectively out of both chambers of this parliament will make a difference, but they will only make a difference when we walk with people. There are individuals from the past like Fred Chaney and Ian Viner who started the journey long ago and then were joined certainly by Kevin Rudd, and I was there for Paul Keating's famous address in Redfern. It was a powerful delivery of a commitment but the trouble is that commitments have to be implemented; change has to occur in concert with the very communities we talk about. The aggregation of national data should not be seen as a mark of improvement if we have families that live in abject poverty and struggle. Even the truancy program has merit, but if you bring kids back into a classroom—I know this as a former teacher—who have not been engaged then you have to re-teach. You have to teach them to catch up, and that is challenging. Every idea on merit is good; what we have to do is think about how we implement those ideas. I have been critical recently of the public service, and they have to change the way they engage. That is not to say there are not good people working in those agencies.
I would also encourage us, with current employment and incarceration rates, to undertake a concerted effort to close the gap and reduce the number of kids in incarceration. Let us build a pathway that gives the hope and aspirations that we expect and provide to all Australians. But sometimes we need to nurture pathways for people who come out of disadvantaged families—and I am talking of all families in this instance—and give them that level of intervention and support that will enable them to be people who will make a difference in the future for this nation, for this country and for the people who live here.
I have always said that the capability that we have as parliamentarians to make a difference is there, but it is whether we have the will and desire to do it at the tangible level, at the electorate level, and by meeting Aboriginal organisations and communities. It is my intention to start talking to all Aboriginal organisations and communities and asking them if they have invited their local member, including senators, to come to their communities and to come to their organisations and see what the gaps are and then champion for them on their behalf within government, government agencies and within this House.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:40): I start my contribution by acknowledging the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, the traditional owners of this land, and pay my respects to their elders past and present. It was a great privilege to be in the parliament when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition made their contributions in this debate. It is also my privilege to have been here for almost all of the contribution of the member for Hasluck, which I found inspiring. I hope that I, as a local member, can rise to some of the challenges he has posed for all of us in this place.
Although the electorate of Scullin has a relatively small Indigenous population, I believe that closing the gap is an important matter for all Australians—and I know that it is an important matter for many of my non-Indigenous constituents. I want to thank all of those who have spoken already on this motion and those yet to speak. That our parliament continues to recognise the need to act in a bipartisan manner on this matter is very, very important.
I am pleased at a local level that, in October 2009, the then Minister for Early Childhood Education, Child Care and Youth, the member for Adelaide, was able to announce with my predecessor, Harry Jenkins, funding for the Bubup Wilam Early Learning Aboriginal Children and Family Centre. 'Bubup Wilam' means 'children's place' in Woi Wurrung language and was opened in February 2012. It is the first and, for now, only Aboriginal early years centre in the City of Whittlesea. I am pleased to say—continuing the broad spirit of bipartisanship that I touched on earlier—that every level of government contributed something to this project—with the federal government contributing $8.2 million; the former state Labor government contributing half a million dollars; and the City of Whittlesea providing the land itself. It is a beautiful as well as functional space.
I am very, very indebted to Marcus Stewart, the former CEO, for taking the time to lend to me a deep understanding of the work that is done there and its status as a focus for community activity. I was particularly taken by its connection to primary schooling in bridging the gap from the early years into formal education for Aboriginal children in Melbourne's northern suburbs. The ethos of this centre is one that seeks to instil and strengthen children's strong sense of Aboriginal identity and personal self-esteem as their foundation for lifelong learning, health and wellbeing. It seems to me that it is doing a tremendous job in that job. This equates to children, and with the support of their parents and extended family, taking the lead responsibility in owning and developing their play, their space, their interaction, their learning and their engagement with others in a confident but supported way.
I just mentioned the contribution by the City of Whittlesea to the Bubup Wilam project, and I should also mention their other ongoing efforts in this area. In particular, I draw the parliament's attention to the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group. The Whittlesea Reconciliation Group is a community-based committee that meets regularly to discuss issues, opportunities, initiatives and programs that impact Aboriginal people living in the City of Whittlesea. The Whittlesea Reconciliation Group is a key reference group to council and in 2012 the council and the group adopted a reconciliation action plan outlining 18 measurable outcomes that will be implemented in our community over three years.
This is reconciliation in action. It shows that the criticisms of reconciliation that used to be so prevalent have faded away in the face of the practical steps at a community level that have been taken once real steps to reconciliation had been taken.
The now famous apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples by former Prime Minister Rudd in 2008 set the bar high. I am glad it did so, because there is much to do. We must aim high. The former Prime Minister invoked:
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
Arising out of this, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to six ambitious targets to address the disadvantage faced by Indigenous Australians in life expectancy, child mortality, education and employment: to close the gap in life expectancy within a generation, by 2031; to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018; to ensure access to early childhood education, such as through centres like Bubup Wilam, for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013; to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for children by 2018; to halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020; and to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and other Australians by 2018.
The recently released Closing the Gap report shows that there is still much work to be done. Disturbingly, the report found: 'no improvement in Indigenous school attendance over five years,' and that 'existing strategies are having no overall impact on school attendance.' The report also found no progress on the employment target, and that, while Indigenous life expectancy has improved, the pace of change is far too slow to close the gap by 2031.
As it stands, in 2010 to 2012 Indigenous life expectancy was estimated to be 69.1 years for males and 73.7 years for females. The gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people was 10.6 years for males and 9.5 years for females.
There were signs of hope amongst this gloom, including that the target of halving the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met, as is the target to halve the gap for Indigenous people aged 20 to 24 in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020. The NAPLAN results indicated that progress is being made in the area of education, although the lack of progress in remote areas remains concerning.
We know how important the early years are in childhood education, and, to the extent that early learning centres like Bubup Wilam in the Scullin electorate contribute to advancing the worthy goals of the original COAG targets, I welcome them and urge this and future governments to emulate their success around Australia.
As I started my contribution I said that closing the gap is important for all Australians. This is because the true test of whether we have in fact closed the gap is whether we, non-Indigenous Australians, would accept the conditions and standards currently experienced by so many Indigenous Australians for ourselves and our loved ones. Clearly, much has to change before we could honestly say that we would. And, while the statistical measures are all important, as an echo of the contribution of the member for Hasluck, our ability to empathise and act purposefully on these sentiments is the real marker of our progress as a nation.
Closing the gap is all of our business, but those of us here have a great opportunity to effect change. We also have an obligation to lead. I pledge to do all that I can to make a difference to closing the gap in my community and more generally, and I hope that I can be seen as taking up the challenge posed so eloquently by the member for Hasluck a few moments ago.
Mr RANDALL (Canning) (10:48): I wish to also speak on closing the gap today—something important, obviously, to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, as a strong advocate of Indigenous issues, hoping to be known as the Prime Minister for Indigenous affairs. It is also an issue which is very important to me.
Recently, the Prime Minister spoke about three key areas in his speech on closing the gap. They are: school attendance and educational results, employment opportunities, and justice and a fair go for all. The Clontarf Academy led by Gerard Neesham addresses all of these three target and key areas that the Prime Minister has outlined. As a former school teacher like the member for Hasluck, I understand that kids in difficult circumstances or in low socioeconomic areas need and deserve opportunities to be supported to excel and to be the very best that they can and wish to be. This is why I have always fully supported the Clontarf Foundation and its academy program seems its inception in 2000. To quote from the foundation's website:
The Clontarf Foundation exists to improve the education, discipline, life skills, self-esteem and employment prospects of young Aboriginal men and by doing so equips them to participate meaningfully in society.
The work of the Clontarf Foundation and its academies fit the three key areas that the Prime Minister has outlined. With the backing of then Prime Minister John Howard and then Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, the first Clontarf academy opened in Western Australia in 2000, with 25 boys participating. In 2002, when I first spoke of Clontarf and its vision in this place, the academy had 171 students. The academy has now grown to in excess of 3,000 students in 54 schools across four states—Western Australia, the Northern Territory, Victoria and New South Wales—and I am proud to say that Coodanup Community College in my electorate of Canning is one of these schools. I understand that Cecil Andrews Senior High School is about to become one. Clontarf would like to expand from 3,000 students across these states and territories to 9,000, and this is why I am supporting this initiative today.
Dr Southcott: A good initiative.
Mr RANDALL: Thank you, member for Boothby. More recently, the Clontarf Foundation and its academies have continued to be supported by all sides of politics—under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard and now under our Prime Minister Tony Abbott, with funding for the foundation's program. This program receives its funding in three equal parts: one-third from the federal government, one-third from the state or territory government and one-third from the private sector. The cost of sustaining the program is $7,000 per boy, a small amount of money when you consider the outcomes achieved and the ongoing contribution students make to our society. Compare that with the $250,000 a year that boy costs if he is incarcerated in one of our prisons.
Boys are first attracted to the academies through the Australian rules and, now, the Rugby League programs in partnerships with local schools. But it then becomes much more. Last year, 250 boys completed year 12 through these academies. Eighty per cent of them will be in jobs, assisted by the Clontarf Foundation as part of its charter. Next year, 480 boys will complete year 12 with no new academies having been created—all within the current program framework. They too will gain a pathway to employment. Year-to-year retention is not less than 90 per cent and school attendance rates are greater than 80 per cent. That needs to be understood when we are talking about retaining these young Aboriginal boys in school: not less than 90 per cent and greater than 80 per cent. School attendance and performance is key to Clontarf's success. Nationwide statistics tell us that between 2011 and 2018, approximately 122,000 young Indigenous people will leave school. The 55,000 will leave before year 10 and another 26,000 will leave before completing year 11. While at school, most will have attended less than 60 per cent of the time.
In areas where Clontarf academies exist there has been evidence of a decrease in crime. For example, in Carnarvon in Western Australia, which is located in the Coral Coast region of our state, in the short time that the Carnarvon Clontarf Academy has been running, the community of Carnarvon has witnessed significant reductions in serious criminal offences such as burglary and theft. This information is provided not by Clontarf but by the detectives in Carnarvon. The police say that, against the five-year average in Carnarvon for these offences, they have seen an 83 per cent reduction in burglaries and an 80 per cent reduction in motor vehicle theft. These reductions in criminal activity are directly in line with the commencement of the Carnarvon Clontarf Academy.
The Clontarf academy program's performance and success is measurable and I have detailed the attendance rates, graduate employability and the reduction in crime rates today. It has also been recognised that the academies play a role in the reconciliation process by providing real football skills. That is the hook that gets the kids to school: they think they are going there to play football but they actually get educated and get a job. The academies have produced some of the top footballing talent in the nation including Hawthorn star Mark Williams, Richmond's goal sneak Andrew Krakouer, former Docker Dion Woods, Fremantle defender Michael Johnson and Essendon ruckman Paddy Ryder. At the 2006 AFL draft, the academy produced a stunning six AFL draft picks: Leroy Jetta, Nathan Krakouer, Calib Mourish, Brennan Stack, Brad Dick and Carl Peterson. This year's Australian of the year, Sydney footballer Adam Goodes, should also serve as an inspiration for antiracism advocacy and youth work.
The academy is in its 15th year of existence and would not continue to be around today if it were not genuinely beneficial to young Indigenous men. Relatively short-term mentoring programs do not address the majority of reasons for Aboriginal people not completing or furthering their education, or remaining unemployed. I have spoken about this before. Money thrown at short-term, casual programs are a waste when you have a template like this, which works. That is why Clontarf's academies and programs are so effective and work so well.
The academy believes the main problem is supply, not demand. There are not enough job-ready Aboriginal people to fill vacancies that have been created or identified for them. Most Aboriginal people who are qualified and want a job can get a job, but there is a lack of the support networks which are needed to sustain them in employment, particularly during the initial stages. Again, this is where Clontarf excels. They do not just say goodbye at the end of year 12; they continued to mentor students and see them into a job.
However, there is still more to do. That is the important message that I have for this House today. There is a need for the program to continue to grow and for more kids to be involved. The gap is now 10 per cent wider than it was in 2006. Indigenous unemployment is up 1.2 per cent and Indigenous participation—it is lack of participation, really—is up 1.8 per cent. I have raised the success of the Clontarf Foundation in this House before a number of times and I will continue to do so. As the Prime Minister said, closing the gap is no less serious than stopping the boats, fixing the budget or building the roads of the 21st century. I reiterate that Clontarf does provide a proven template towards successful outcomes in the closing of the gap and the targets that not only the Prime Minister but all those who serve in this House wish to achieve. To do so, we need to continue to ensure that it is properly funded through our federal government.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:56): In beginning my remarks on this important statement, I think it is appropriate to first acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay my respects to their elders, past and present. I also want to do something which is probably quite unusual of late in commencing speeches in this parliament—that is, to commend the government. I do, however, commend the government for keeping these annual statements going. It is incredibly important that we make real progress in this area and I know that real progress is best made when we have accountability, when we have clear targets and when we have transparency about the progress we are making. I commend the government both for continuing these annual statements, which commenced under our Labor government, and also for not dismissing the targets that have been set and for ensuring that as a parliament we strive to do much, much better and indeed close the gap in all of these areas.
As the shadow minister for education and for early childhood, I am incredibly well aware of the unacceptable gaps in early childhood education and care and, particularly, in education results. Whilst, when we have these annual statements, we see the areas where we still have so very far to go, we do also see the areas where there is progress, and I think it is important to note this progress—to note that it is not all hopeless and that real changes and real progress can be achieved. I am incredibly proud that when we look at the targets that have been set in this parliament, which we are getting towards meeting, we can see that huge progress has been achieved, particularly when it comes to access to early childhood education. I am also really aware of the fact that early childhood is the key time when we can make a huge impact in closing the gap, and I would urge the Prime Minister to keep his bipartisan commitment and to continue the programs and the funding that were established by the previous, Labor government to close this gap.
Importantly, we know that we cannot use progress as a reason for complacency. We cannot take our foot off the pedal. We need to recognise that there is so much more to do. In the very first sitting week of parliament for 2014, many members and senators met with members of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. We attended a moving breakfast meeting, where we heard firsthand about the absolutely huge difference that proper funding of early childhood education and care can make in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
We know that these Children and Family Centres not only provide a safe and loving environment where qualified educators provide a culturally appropriate education. The centres have also become a community hub for parents and carers who want to access services and advice for their family. When a parent is dropping off their child, they can feel comfortable talking about the family situation or about where they might be able to find suitable health services, get counselling for the family or maybe just get some great parenting ideas. So not only are the children getting a quality early childhood education to set them up for their school years, to set them up for their futures, but the families are getting extra support that they may need to make sure that these children thrive. This is the key to closing the gap in education and to making sure that every child has the best start in life.
We know that the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development is due to expire in June this year and that this just compounds the uncertainty that is being felt by Indigenous childcare services. Responsibility for this agreement now sits with the Prime Minister and his department. We know that this national partnership was established under Labor to fund 38 Indigenous Children and Family Centres; antenatal, sexual and reproductive health services; and maternal and child health programs. The 38 Indigenous Children and Family Centres provide practical and daily support to parents, as well as working in partnership with communities to provide high-quality preschool in a trusted environment.
We know that these have been significant in improving access to early childhood education for Indigenous children across the country. We know that closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage means keeping open the doors of childcare centres, preschools and health services that provide support to children and families. And closing the gap is not just about continuing what we started. It is also about starting new services, more services, and opening more doors. We need to keep funding the Budget Based Funded Program, which looks at providing childcare services in communities where they may not be otherwise financially viable.
As minister, I initiated a review of the BBF services to look at how the funding had changed and how the needs for funding had changed and to ensure that we could make sure that there is support across the board where it is needed the most. I would urge the government to quickly complete this review and respond to this review and to ensure that they roll out more funding for Budget Based Funded Program services.
We know that it is really important that the BBF Program continue and that the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development with states and territories needs to be upheld to ensure efficient delivery of services. Finally, it is essential that the coalition respect the individuality of each community, that they respect the decision making of community members and that they continue to provide these essential early learning services and provide certainty about them to these communities, who are incredibly anxious, as soon as possible. This national partnership must continue.
We know that education is the silver bullet of society. Evidence shows that high-standard early childhood education and school education lead to better outcomes in life: greater job opportunities, health and life expectancy. Yet we also know, when we look at our Indigenous population, that we have been letting them down when it comes to education and that there are still far too many dismal statistics. That is why it is no coincidence that three of the six Closing the Gap targets relate to education.
This year's Closing the gap report shows our progress against the targets. It shows that, in 2012, 88 per cent of Indigenous children in remote areas were enrolled in a preschool program. Data for 2013 to show whether the 95 per cent benchmark for this target has been met will be available later this year. We also know that progress against the target to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy within a decade has been disappointing. I welcome the addition of a new target relating to school attendance. Whilst in itself it will not guarantee a world-class learning environment or huge improvements in outcomes, it is of course an important step in ensuring that these students receive a good education.
In government, Labor made significant improvements. From the 2006 census to the 2011 census, we saw an increase in year 12 attainment for Indigenous students. It improved from 6.5 per cent to 53.9 per cent. The proportion of total Indigenous population aged 15 years and over who had attained a year 12 or certificate II or higher qualification increased from 30 per cent to 37 per cent between 2006 and 2011.
There are a range of new initiatives and bright solutions in Indigenous education. But significantly we know that Labor's Gonski plan, which is now in jeopardy, includes clauses that prevent cuts to education budgets by state governments. This would mean cuts like that made by the Northern Territory government in their 2013-14 budget of $47 million in real terms would be a thing of the past. On the ground, that meant a cut of 130 teachers, increasing class sizes and a cut of total pay for teachers and support staff by $34 million.
Labor's Gonski plan also includes additional funding for loading for Indigenous students to make sure that every school can provide dedicated and focused programs to make sure that no child slips through the gap. Gonski provides up to 100 per cent of the funding for Indigenous schools that have been established outside the state sector, such as community schools. I was very pleased when the Prime Minister committed in the parliament last year to the continuation of that Indigenous Gonski loading when he said on 3 December:
We are delivering the money that will enable the loading to be delivered.
Stability is the key. Just weeks away from the budget, we look forward to seeing this funding being presented so that the Prime Minister does not break yet another promise when it comes to education and we can see this loading delivered in full. It is very hard to see how that is possible now that they have opened the door for cuts in state budgets and have said goodbye to state co-contributions, but we hope that the Prime Minister will live up to his promise to the parliament and the Australian public and that we can make real strides ahead when it comes to advancing the cause of Indigenous education.
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (11:07): I am pleased to speak on the Closing the Gap statement. It has now been six years since Prime Minister Rudd made the apology and began the Closing the Gap program. It is a good time to do a stock take to see how we are doing on the goals that were set at that time. I think it is well known that, for Prime Minister Abbott, Indigenous affairs is something that is very close to his heart. He has said that he wants to spend a week each year in a remote community. He will be doing that in Arnhem Land this year. He has taken time off to work in communities in Cape York to get a real sense of what sort of problems those communities are dealing with.
I want to speak specifically about the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. While it is true that it is improving in many areas, there is still a long way to go. One of the goals of Closing the Gap is improving the health of Indigenous Australians. One area where for limited cost we could see large improvements that will last over lifetimes is making sure that all Indigenous Australians get the type of antenatal care that every Australian should expect. We know that problems later in life, such as the higher prevalence of diabetes and problems with general health, relate very much to the antenatal environment that people had before they were born. If we do not address having good antenatal care for Indigenous Australians then these problems will continue throughout their lives.
The government is working with the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, and state and territory governments to create a 10-year National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan. A comprehensive approach to chronic disease management is being undertaken through local health services, encouraging people in communities to undergo health checks and ensuring systematic follow-ups.
One of the parts of Closing the Gap which was good was the recognition that you had to do a lot through primary care, to do it through general practices, because while a lot of Indigenous people use the NACCHOs, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, something like 50 per cent will go to a GP who is not a NACCHO. There were incentives on the MBS for people to give Indigenous health checks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.
On the most recent figures, the life expectancy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders is 10.6 years lower than that of the non-Indigenous population for males. That is, an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander born between 2010 and 2012 can expect to live to 69.1 years. For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women it is 73.7 years. Life expectancy is about a decade less than the non-Indigenous population. One of the goals of Closing the Gap was to reduce the gap in life expectancy within a decade. The report card shows that only the Northern Territory is on track to meet this target.
Since 2005-2007, Indigenous life expectancy at birth for boys has increased by 1.6 years and by 0.6 years for girls. Over the same period, the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous life expectancy narrowed by 0.8 years for males and 0.1 years for females. So there have been small improvements in Indigenous life expectancy, but a lot more needs to be done for the future of Indigenous Australia.
It is clear that we are failing to make progress in many areas. Twice as many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander infants as non-Indigenous infants are born of low birth weight. Only one per cent of people working in the health workforce are Indigenous. Indigenous death rates are highest, compared with non-Indigenous rates, between the ages 25 and 64. The causes of death with the largest contribution to excess mortality are circulatory diseases, external causes, neoplasms, respiratory diseases and endocrine, metabolic and nutritional disorders such as diabetes. There are a lot of risk factors that lead to excess Indigenous mortality. They have much higher rates of tobacco smoking, much higher rates of excessive alcohol consumption and higher rates of overweight and obesity. They have poor nutrition and they use health services less.
There is encouraging news on mortality rates for Indigenous children. One of the goals was to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade. If the trend over the last 15 years continues we should achieve that target by 2018.
This Closing the Gap statement is an interim report card. It shows that the Northern Territory, for example, is doing very well in closing the gap in life expectancy and that there has been improvement in reducing mortality rates for Indigenous children. But there is still a lot more to be done.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (11:14): I rise to speak on Closing the Gap: Prime Minister's report2014.
(Quorum formed) Closing the Gap is not a mere slogan; it is a bi-partisan commitment to change lives for the better, and we owe this to generations of Indigenous people. Closing the Gap is about life over death, hope over hopelessness, resilience over ruin. It is an expectation that all Australians should flourish. Being an Indigenous Australian should not mean being marked by disadvantage. We are learning more all the time about the challenges and barriers facing Indigenous Australians. We are making some progress on overcoming them, but there is much more to be done. All of us in this House can make a difference in improving the poor health of Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples when compared to that of the non-Indigenous population.
Since 2006 governments, Australia's peak Indigenous and non-Indigenous health bodies, NGOs and human rights organisations have worked together to achieve health and life expectancy equality for Australia's Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples. This is known as the Close the Gap campaign. Many of its targets were set to be reached by 2031. Seven years ago the Council of Australian Governments agreed to hold each other accountable for reaching a number of goals. They set out six specific targets for the Closing the Gap campaign: closing the life expectancy gap within a generation; halving the mortality rate for children under five within a decade; ensuring access to early childhood education for all Indigenous children in remote communities within five years; halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for children within a decade; halving the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020; and halving the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade
The most recent Closing the Gap report indicates mixed results on the goals articulated by COAG in 2008. Unfortunately, there has been little progress in closing the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The gap remains at 10.6 years for men and 9.5 years for women. Over the past five years the rate has dropped 0.8 years for men and 0.1 years for women. Currently the Northern Territory is the only state or territory on track to meet its 2031 target.
The goal of halving the mortality rate for Indigenous children under five is on track to be reached. From 1998 to 2012 the Indigenous child mortality rate dropped by 32 per cent, and, if this trend continues, the target for 2018 will be achieved. We are also on track in ensuring access to early childhood education within five years for all Indigenous children in remote communities—88 per cent of indigenous children were enrolled in pre-school in 2012, and the 2013 target is 95 per cent. Conversely, there has been very little improvement in halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy in a decade. Between 2008 and 2013, only two out of the eight categories showed significant improvement, namely reading in years 3 and 5. The goal of halving the gap in Indigenous year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track to be met. In 2011, 54 per cent of Indigenous Australians aged 20-24 had attained a year 12 certificate. This is a significant improvement from 2006, when the rate was at 47 per cent.
Sixthly, the target of halving the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018 has shown no noteworthy improvement. In fact, data provided by the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey indicates that the proportion of Indigenous Australians aged 15-64 who are employed fell from 54 per cent in 2008 to 48 per cent in 2013. Moreover, there has been a statistically significant fall in CDEP participant levels from 2008 to 2013.
Education is our best antipoverty vaccine. Education helps an individual to become a valued member of the community who can participate and who has the self-esteem that comes from a great education. Meeting Indigenous targets is achieved through genuine partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, working with them as equals with compassion and a desire to understand conditions on the ground. I am proud to represent Jervis Bay Territory, which includes the community of Wreck Bay. In my first speech I spoke about its kangaroos grazing on an oval overlooking the Pacific Ocean. It is one of the most picturesque parts of my electorate. I have the founders in Canberra to thank for the notion that no capital city is complete without a port. In socioeconomic terms, the Wreck Bay community is the most disadvantaged part of my electorate. I want to speak in particular about Jervis Bay Primary School and the Indigenous learning centre. Jervis Bay Primary has the lowest ICSEA score of any school in my electorate, but on a like-schools comparison it is one of the top-performing schools, if not the top performing school, in the ACT system.
I want to pay tribute to Principal Bob Pastor, who sets high expectations and is universally well spoken of throughout the community. Through the Learning 4 Life program he has engaged representatives from nearby Vincentia High School, the University of Wollongong, Noah's Ark, Booderee National Park and local preschools and childcare centres. This year I want to commend Bob Pastor for his reporting of school attendance rates, which are very much in line with the government's new Closing the Gap target for school attendance. Bob has made a commitment to publicly present his school's attendance record every week and see how it compares with the national average. For the first time in the school's 100 year history the year 5/6 attendance rate is at nearly 100 per cent, and many other classes are not far behind. On recent numbers, year 3/4 is tracking at 95 per cent, above the national average. I congratulate the Jervis Bay School for setting these high standards, and I commend them for their multifaceted educational experience, including an AFL Auskick program and visits from NRL club the St George Illawarra Dragons, who facilitate anti-bullying and rugby league skills sessions.
Also part of the Wreck Bay community is the Gudjahgahmiamia Early Learning Centre. 'Gudjahga' means child and 'miamia' means shelter. The Gudjahgahmiamia early learning hub is a vital part of closing the gaps in Wreck Bay. This centre ensures that children are based in friendly educational surroundings, and it is a centre which is absolutely vital to the educational performance of children in Wreck Bay and indeed to attaining Closing the Gap targets. The Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care has spoken to me about the importance of this kind of early learning centre. However, the centre faces an uncertain future beyond June 2014 because its funding comes out of the Australian government's budget based funding model. The Gudjahgahmiamia MACS Early Learning Centre is one of 38 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child and family centres set up across Australia.
If the Prime Minister is serious about closing the gap, I call on him to confirm funding for the 38 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child and family centres beyond the expiry of the national partnership agreement in June 2014. I am told by experts in the field that, without that budget based funding, falling back onto the funding approach which characterises most other early learning centres in Australia risks a high level of drop-out if families are unable to transition from the budget based funding model through to the childcare benefit and childcare rebate system. If children drop out of the early learning centre, it is going to make it more difficult for Jervis Bay Primary School to do the good work it needs to do. So it is absolutely fundamental that the government commits to funding the early learning centre in Wreck Bay. It is part of closing the gap.
I share the passion that was felt across the parliament when the Closing the Gap statements were delivered in the House. But passion is not enough. We need results and we need commitment to funding. The government must fund the early learning centre at Wreck Bay under a budget based model.
Mr MATHESON (Macarthur) (11:26): I rise today to speak about the Close the Gap Indigenous health campaign and to promote the importance of Indigenous health equality in Macarthur. As the proud representative and advocate for the Macarthur region, it is my job to represent and invest equally in each and every constituents' health and wellbeing. It is my wish that every member of my community has the same opportunity to live a long, healthy and happy life.
Sadly, that is not necessarily the case. Statistics show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience higher rates of preventable illnesses, such as heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes, and a far lower life expectancy than other Australians—up to twenty years less in some cases, according to Oxfam. Improving the health and life expectancy of Indigenous Australians is critical across this country and in my very own electorate. As the member for Macarthur, I would like to see an end to the existing disparity between the health and wellbeing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in my electorate by 2030. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Macarthur are working towards this target by complementing national campaigns such as Close the Gap with local community initiatives.
In Macarthur we have an Indigenous population that is proud of its culture and heritage. The suburb of Campbelltown is home to one of the largest populations in New South Wales of people identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. I have been very proud of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in my electorate and of the great work they are doing to maintain their strong ties to the land and to close the gap between the many cultures in Macarthur.
Nationally, peak Indigenous and non-Indigenous bodies, NGOs and the federal government are taking important steps towards closing the gap. More specifically, I am proud to acknowledge the variety of community programs, individual projects and council initiatives in the Macarthur community that aim to improve the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. One program in particular is the Young Spirit Mentoring Program in Airds. The program is for children of all different backgrounds and encourages social inclusion, hard work, fitness, wellbeing and respect. At 5am, three days a week, cars are deployed all over Campbelltown to pick up 50 children and take them to Airds. From 6am these children are put through their paces by local mentors and fitness instructors. At 7am a healthy breakfast is provided by parents and at 8am the kids are all off to school. This program is teaching young children of all cultures the importance of good health and wellbeing from a young age. Spirit stands for 'special, potential, integrity, respectful, inspiration and together'. It is all part of a fitness and wellbeing plan that has been running in my electorate for three years and has helped over 150 kids. This program is run by Uncle Dave Bell and a team of dedicated mentors who aim to help children concentrate on their schooling and inspire a healthier lifestyle by leading them in fitness routines and boxing drills. It has had a profound impact on the lives of many young people. The kids who take part in the program are more focused at school, are losing weight, exercising more, eating healthily, and developing important social skills.
Another important program in my electorate is called Murrubin, a KU Macarthur parent program. This is a supported playgroup program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families with young children in my electorate. The play based program provides children with opportunities to play together while developing their individual skills and interests. The highly qualified and experienced staff at KU also offer support for parents, including information about the wide range of community services and resources available to children and their families. The parents also regularly engage in cooking activities and read stories with the children.
Aboriginal parents and carers also attend family meetings at KU and are involved in the decision-making about their children's progress, development and educational outcomes. Having an interest in their children's learning encourages their participation in the program. KU Macarthur has seen positive outcomes from these projects. There has been an increase in children attending the KU Macquarie Fields Preschool program, and both the preschool and the playgroup have become a referral pathway for other agencies.
We have many support groups, clinics, health and counselling services in Macarthur that support Indigenous Australians in my community. Another is the Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation which has a women's health program, hearing program, eye health program, paediatric clinic, a dental service, diabetes education and many more services for local Indigenous people.
Individual members of the Macarthur community have also shown a serious commitment to closing the gap. Last year, Dr Michael Bonning took part in the Gold Coast half marathon to raise money for the Tharawal Aboriginal Medical Service in Airds. His passion to help close the gap in Indigenous health spurred Michael Bonning to complete the marathon. Dr Bonning was joined by more than 100 medical students from across Australia who raised thousands of dollars for the medical service. The students, who connected through the Run for a Reason initiative, decided money raised through last year's marathon should help improve Aboriginal health care in Campbelltown.
Dr Bonning, who treats patients at the centre two days a week, said the money raised would support an Indigenous children's health project to boost health outcomes in the community. This includes improving vaccination levels, promoting school attendance and encouraging regular health checks for children just to make sure everything is okay. Dr Bonning said the foundations for a healthy lifestyle are laid in childhood, and motivating families to encourage regular school attendance and medical check-ups was vital. These foundations work together to produce happy, healthy adolescents and young people.
The NRL also plays a role in closing the gap in my electorate. Last year the NRL backed a very successful Learn Earn Legend school-to-work program in Macarthur. The program was assisted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and by NRL clubs, including the Wests Tigers. It aims to provide employment and further education pathways for Indigenous students after high school.
Our local councils are also doing their bit to close the gap. Feeling Alive and Looking Deadly is the title of a workout DVD developed specifically for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in Campbelltown. The DVD aims to make exercise convenient, fun and easy to do, and help close the gap in life expectancy for the Indigenous population. The DVD has been filmed with members of the local Aboriginal community to demonstrate how to exercise at home every day. It includes a three-level strength program, cardiovascular exercise and other useful information to help Aboriginal people in our community achieve their fitness and health goals.
The DVD has been produced by members of the local Aboriginal community along with the Campbelltown City Council in partnership with NSW Health; health promotion of South West Sydney and Sydney local health districts, the Local Government and Shires Association of New South Wales, the Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation, and Short Black Films. The DVD was launched at local Close the Gap Day celebrations in 2012 and was sent out to local Indigenous groups to promote the benefits of active and healthy lifestyles.
I believe it is important that these local initiatives work in union with national strategies. That is why I will continue to support the federal government's commitment to work with the Close the Cap campaign to achieve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health equality.
To achieve significant improvements in the health status of Indigenous Australians by 2030, we need to work together as a nation to meet important targets, such as reducing the gap in life expectancy, preventable diseases, unemployment and education standards, halving the child mortality rate, enrolling 95 per cent of remote Indigenous children in preschool and assisting as many Indigenous youth as possible to reach year 12.
In a country that proudly promotes benchmarks of equality and a 'fair go', the campaign to close the gap is vital to addressing the health needs of the most vulnerable members of our community. I am proud of the work my community is doing to close the gap in Macarthur, and I encourage those involved to keep up the good work. That is why I stand here today to encourage all residents in Macarthur and across Australia to support these vital programs and join this country's largest campaign to improve Indigenous health at both a local and a national level. For the sake of our future generations of Indigenous Australians, we must all play our part in closing the gap. We all know that we need to do more.
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (11:35): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the annual statement on Closing the Gap and, in doing so, I commend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for the manner in which they have contributed to this debate. I also commend other members who have already spoken to the statement. The speeches in the House and in the Federation Chamber have demonstrated that there is bipartisan support to work with all levels of government and the community to address Aboriginal disadvantage in our nation.
It is worth noting this is the first time that Tony Abbott, as Prime Minister, has had the chance to report to parliament on the progress on achieving key targets relating to issues of life expectancy, mortality rates, early childhood education, reading, numeracy and writing, year 12 achievement and employment outcomes. In his speech, the Prime Minister indicated that the target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade is on track to be met and that the target to have 95 per cent of remote children enrolled in preschool is already close to being met. We should soon know what percentage of preschoolers are actually attending as well as being just enrolled. The target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is also on track. This is the good news, as the Prime Minister reported to the House.
The bad news is that there has been almost no progress in closing the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and other Australians, which still stands at about a decade. There has been very little improvement towards halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy. As for Indigenous employment, the Prime Minister reported that, if anything, it had slipped backwards over the past few years. We are not on track to achieve the more important and meaningful targets.
I recognise during the Prime Minister's speech that he went on to propose a new target for our existing Closing the Gap targets, which is to help end the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance within five years. This is a good initiative and it sends an important message to our community—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 11:37 to 11:44
Mr CHESTER: We need to improve the school attendance rate for Aboriginal children because we know that a good education is the key to a good job, and a good job is the key to economic independence and the freedom that it brings to our communities. As I have said before in this place, this is not the responsibility of governments alone. If the burden falls solely on the shoulders of MPs and public servants, it will surely end in failure. This is the joint responsibility of us all—black and white, young and old, schoolteachers, students and parents. From my personal experience, I fear that some parents in my community do not value education enough and their attitude flows through to their children. It is not just a problem for our Aboriginal children in Gippsland—we need to keep working to raise the aspirations of all children, particularly those from lower socioeconomic or disadvantaged backgrounds, and instil in them the importance of a good education.
Some of our schools, it must be said, are already working very hard and they are outstanding teachers who are making progress in embracing the Aboriginal students in our community, but I do believe others could do more. It is not always easy because some of the students do have significant behavioural issues which makes it easier for teachers if they actually do not attend and disrupt the class. I acknowledge that, but in the longer term we need to keep improving the attendance rate to give all students the opportunity to achieve their full potential. As the Prime Minister himself noted, there is enormous goodwill across the nation to achieve positive changes among our Indigenous communities.
There is no question there will be setbacks on the journey, and I would like to briefly mention one such setback today. In recent weeks in my community of Lakes Entrance there have been several incidents which are now in the hands of the local police. I will not speak on the details of the alleged assaults and thefts but I will acknowledge they have led to increased tension between some members of the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in my town. But I believe we have the capacity to overcome these challenges. So much good work has already been done in recent times by our sporting and community groups to bring our communities together that we cannot allow isolated incidents like these to stop that progress. People have every right to be angry when crimes are committed, but I urge the community to let the police carry out their investigations and deal with any offenders. It is a difficult time for our community but we need to keep working together. There are many Aboriginal families who are equally hurt and frustrated by the alleged crimes and who do not deserve to be tarnished by the actions of others. We must not allow an even bigger gap to develop between Indigenous and non-Indigenous families in our community.
When I spoke on the Closing the Gap progress last year, I talked about the need to make a real difference in the lives of Aboriginal people throughout Australia, and I endorse the building blocks of Closing the Gap which have been supported through the COAG process. They are about early childhood development, schooling, health, economic participation, healthy homes, safe communities, and governance and leadership. We need to make sure that Aboriginal children are healthy from an early age to give them a good start in life so that, when they reach school, they are ready to learn. We need to help them and their families to value that education with the real prospect of a job at the end of their education and training pathways. As much as is humanly possible, we need to make sure that young people growing up in Aboriginal homes have a safe living environment, and there is a shared responsibility in providing such an environment. Governments cannot control what goes on in every home, every day and every night. Individuals need to take responsibility for their own actions and, in my community, I see many young and old leaders in the Aboriginal community who are leading by example. They are providing a safe home environment for their children and valuing education. They are keeping their families healthy and participating in community life. They are protecting and preserving their cultural heritage at the same time. There are so many success stories, and we need to reach out to those families and encourage them while also developing strategies and programs to help those who are not capable, for whatever reason, of caring for themselves.
I have spoken before about the gap in Aboriginal participation in the social and civic life of our communities. I fear that many white Australians would hardly know any Aboriginal people at all. Most of them would not have sat down and had a cup of coffee or shared a meal with an Aboriginal person. Most of us would claim to care about outcomes for Aboriginal people but, in our busy lives, I believe that most of us have never had the opportunity to really engage at a social level. We need to do more to break down those barriers which exist between black and white in our nation. It is terrific that we cheer for our Aboriginal athletes like Cathy Freeman and the new Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes, but we need to do more in our daily lives to build strong relationships which can overcome setbacks, like the one I mentioned earlier in my own community.
I have been very fortunate in my life to have very close relationships with some Aboriginal people through my family ties. That has helped me to be better informed on issues and shaped my attitude towards public policies in this area. The grand speeches are undoubtedly important because they send the message that the government and the nation is keen to help and cares about these issues, but I still believe it is the little things—the practical steps on the ground in our communities—that will make a real difference in the longer term. For example, I hade the opportunity last year of coaching an under-13 football team in Lakes Entrance. As a football coach, I am a true member of parliament—I think we won one game for the year. But it was good to have the opportunity to have several Aboriginal boys in our team. It was good for them, because they got to be involved, and also good for the other boys in the team to play alongside them because it helped break down some of the social barriers which exist. Now when I see those boys down the street in Lakes Entrance I can say g'day to them and ask them about their day, and I hope they do not see a white bloke in a suit asking them questions, giving them a hard time or checking up on them. I hope they see a dad who has boys the same age and who is actually interested in them and their lives. It is little things like that which can help break down the barriers I refer to. I am looking forward to watching those young boys progress in our community not just in sport but also in their education, and in their community and working lives. This is a gap I believe we can all help to address in our daily lives through friendship and goodwill, and I am convinced that every small step along this path will pay huge dividends in the future. By building up mutual respect and encouraging greater participation in all aspects of community life, we can make a real difference in the outcomes for Aboriginal children.
In closing, I want to briefly touch on my role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence and highlight the efforts that have been made in Defence to support Indigenous communities. I believe there are huge opportunities within Defence to improve employment outcomes, in particular, for Indigenous Australians. As one of the largest employers in the nation, with 100,000 personnel in the Australian Defence Force and associated Public Service roles, Defence has a target of increasing its Indigenous representation from the current 1.2 per cent to 2.7 per cent. The former government's Defence white paper identified Indigenous affairs as an area of focus for Defence, and in my meetings with Defence personnel over the last six months I have continually reminded them of the need to achieve those employment targets. Senior Indigenous advisers have been appointed and efforts are being made to market Defence as an employer of choice among Indigenous communities. But, as we have Indigenous representation of 1.2 per cent currently, in comparison to the Indigenous community of 2.4 per cent of the total Australian population, you can see we still have a long way to go in achieving those targets. The engagement which is occurring now is important, along with recognising the often underrated role Indigenous people have played in the ADF throughout its history.
I believe there are real opportunities for Defence. Defence has come a long way in working to recognise the role of Indigenous people in the Australian Defence Force history, through participation now in Anzac Day ceremonies, through NAIDOC Week and through other dates of local and national significance. In Northern Australia, in particular, the Army's Regional Force Surveillance Units are engaging with remote Indigenous communities. As a side issue, I note that many members of this House have volunteered to participate in the Indigenous elements of this year's Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program. Announcements in relation to those deployments will be made in the near future. It is very pleasing to see the number of members and senators who chose to participate in either the community program or the Regional Force Surveillance Units. Again, it is a small step but it is a practical step towards improving our understanding as MPs. It also helps to build respect in those communities and respect among MPs. I am also looking forward to participating in the Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program later in the year, around September.
Our nation is on a journey when it comes to Closing the Gap initiatives. For as long as we continue to experience unacceptable rates of violence and substance abuse or poor participation rates in paid employment and health outcomes, which are still well below the national standard, we know we still have a long way to go on this journey. But progress is being made, and there are people in this place, on both sides of the chamber, who are working very constructively on these issues. We must continue to strive to work together at all times for the benefit of current and future generations.
I thank the House.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (11:52): I am certainly pleased to rise today to associate myself with the annual statement on Closing the Gap. Leichhardt is an electorate that has a very large Indigenous constituency, with the homelands of the Torres Strait, many Cape York communities and of course large Indigenous populations in its main towns. I have been the member for Leichhardt for most of the last 17 years and a resident of Cape York for many years before that, and I have come across a number of programs aimed at reducing the gaps in education, health, employment and the standard of living between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Many of these programs started with the best of intentions but have failed for any number of reasons, with outcomes and, sometimes, millions of dollars going by the wayside. Sometimes it has been hard not to get jaded, hearing about another new initiative and wondering if we would ever see a real difference in our lifetime. But standing here today, as part of this government, I truly feel that there is a change in the air.
Listening to our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, make the annual Closing the Gap statement to the House, it was clear to me that when he says Aboriginal policy must become personal rather than political he clearly means it. I have never, in my time in this place, seen such meaningful actions being taken. Note that I said actions, not dialogue. These actions include the focus on amending the Constitution to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with a joint select committee chaired and deputy chaired by my good friend Kenny Wyatt and Senator Nova Peris; the moving of the Indigenous Affairs portfolio into the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the establishment of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, chaired by Warren Mundine; and the focus on investment in Indigenous employment, driven by Andrew Forrest and others.
That feeling was reinforced over the course of four days recently, when I attended four events in my region. Last Wednesday, I witnessed the emotional handover of the Bilwon Training Farm from the ILC to a group called Indigenous Job Connections, who have shown a level of commitment to good governance that blew me away. Back in 2011, I presented board members with their Certificate IV in Governance. At the handover, I was honoured to be asked, as a non-Indigenous person, to read the national apology on the anniversary. And I think it was very appropriate that the land was divested from ILC to Indigenous Job Connections on that anniversary.
On the Tuesday, I attended the graduation of 11 young Indigenous people through the Shangri-La Deadly Success program; not training for training's sake, but training with a guaranteed job and a one-year mentorship at the end. Jeremy Donovan from Generation One told his incredibly inspiring story; and congratulations to Nic O'Donnell from the Shangri-La, to Sue and Bronwyn from Deadly Success, and of course to the Deadly trainees, all 11 of them who were successful in this program.
On Monday, I spoke at the opening of the Australian Red Cross Pat Gosper Place, a new model in accommodation that will significantly improve the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who stay in Cairns for long-term medical treatment.
And on the Friday before, I went to the road show launch of the IDEAS van. This particular initiative has really shown me a practical way to close both the remoteness gap and the health gap. The acronym IDEAS stands for Indigenous Diabetes Eyes and Screening. Parked at the Wuchopperen Health Service, there it was: a huge, brand-spanking new semitrailer, painted with beautiful Indigenous artwork. I was met by Lyndall De Marco, the Executive Director of Diamond Jubilee Partnerships. It was an absolute pleasure to meet someone so brimming with enthusiasm. Lyndall gave me a guided tour through the IDEAS van, which has to be seen to be believed. It contains everything you need to diagnose and treat eye problems in diabetics who have suffered visual impairment from refractive change, cataract and diabetic retinopathy. It has three rooms—one for the optometrist, one for the ophthalmologist and one for imaging—each filled with pristine, state-of-the-art medical equipment.
So what is it all about? Most Australians would be aware that diabetes is a huge problem for our Indigenous peoples. One in three Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Queensland over the age of 40 are affected by diabetes, and almost 10 per cent of these have some form of vision impairment. Most blindness caused by diabetes can be prevented by managing glucose levels, getting regular eye checks and early treatment. The IDEAS initiative aims to help reduce incidences of blindness by providing education, equipment and specialist clinical support to 27 Aboriginal Medical Services in Queensland. It has been funded initially by the Queensland government, which donated $5 million to the Diamond Jubilee Partnerships for the innovative two-year pilot project.
Nine AMS centres, including Cairns, will become regional hubs to serve 16 communities. The Royal Flying Doctor Service partnership will expand the scope of care and tap into 32 communities. The van will visit each of the nine hubs every four and a half weeks, spending ten months solid on the road this year. The regularity is really important; it meets the time frames for people who need to have regular injections and, if someone misses an appointment, the van will be around again soon.
Telemedicine facilities will be set up in 27 communities, giving people instant access to some of the best specialists from around the country at no cost. The program will generate a rich data set of information: every retinal scan will be sent to Professor Paul Mitchell of Sydney University to be graded, before local GPs are advised on the next course of action—an operation, six-monthly monitoring, or investigation.
As Lyndall said to me, the incredible work of people such as Fred Hollows, Bill Glasson and Mark Lone was unfortunately limited by the amount of equipment they could carry. Here, the van is bringing the equipment. Lyndall says she gets asked all the time, 'How on earth did you get this world-class facility—the machinery, the staff and the supplies for a two-year program—into regional communities of 100,000 people for $5 million?' The answer comes down to three things: the cause the project is working for, the people who are driving the project and the alliances the project has created through an ideal public-private partnership.
Twenty organisations have come on board with Diamond Jubilee Partnerships, and experts have given freely of their time to add value and to guide the project. The organisations include: the Queensland Eye Institute; the Optometrists Association of Australia in Queensland and Northern Territory; the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists; Diabetes Queensland; the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; and the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Ellex gave a $150,000 discount on the eye equipment. Volvo provided the use of a brand new prime mover, which they are committed to servicing and replacing every year. JJ Richards will take care of medical waste and grey water. Professional services have been provided pro bono through Minter Ellison Lawyers and BDO. Kurtz Transport will supply at cost the drivers who will steer the vehicle around Queensland. The artist who painted the colourful mural on the van's exterior donated the work. Perhaps most importantly, the project is not being foisted on the Indigenous communities. One of the most significant partnerships is with the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council and its CEO Selwyn Button, who will drive the project through the council's 27 medical centres.
The assistance of the 20 assisting organisations enabled 94 per cent of the funding to be spent on infrastructure, equipment and running costs—Lyndall does not even have an office. This Monday, 3 March, the IDEAS Van will see its first clients in Toowoomba, and it is full steam ahead from there. I think that this is an absolutely incredible initiative; I am very excited by it. So much money has been spent on bringing people to cities for medical treatment—paying for hotels, meals and transport—and it is revolutionary to instead bring specialist facilities to people in a cultural environment that is familiar to them.
The project is about building a sustainable model which someone can take on, once the pilot ends, for about $500,000 a year. As Lyndall said, the project is not about giving money; it is about providing tools and support to build the capacity of and give ownership to Indigenous health services. Projects such as this are exactly what will help to achieve our Closing the Gap targets. I hope that that similar vans can be used to bring health services to communities in remote areas. If this happens, will see some serious, tangible differences—and we will close the gap.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:03): Firstly I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area, and I pay my respects to the elders past and present and, of course, to all of Australia's Indigenous peoples.
I rise today to add my thoughts on the Closing the Gap statement delivered by the Prime Minister. In the Prime Minister's address there was a sense of humility and an understanding that we as a nation and we as members of parliament representing our various communities still have much work to do in bridging the gap between our Indigenous peoples and the broader Australian community. I have a strong sense that, while we have come some way in doing so, there are still many areas in which there is much work yet to be done.
As the Prime Minister noted when he spoke, there are many, on both sides of politics, who have gone before us in trying to bridge the gap. We all have a personal responsibility, however, to ensure that the journey does not end with us; that we give our all to continue the work that has begun. It is vitally important that the Prime Minister and his department take leadership of bridging the gap.
It is also vitally important that the many innovative and creative initiatives which are already taking place across our nation—some of which are funded by the federal government; others of which may be funded either by state or local government or by business and corporates—that are working and bringing about results in the various communities across our nation, whether they be in urban Australia or regional Australia, receive ongoing support. The establishment of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council is another significant milestone.
However, there are some particular aspects of the Closing the Gap report that should be cause for reflection and action. In particular, the data involving Indigenous young people and children is evidence that there is much more to be done. The report shows that progress against the target to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy within a decade has been disappointing—only two out of eight areas have shown a significant improvement since 2008. The attendance of Indigenous children in remote schools is one of the greatest indicators that we are still far from closing the gap. Education is the cornerstone of our society; it is where children are given the best opportunity to grow, learn, develop and become contributors to their communities. It is the foundation of their future. We cannot neglect this important moment in time.
One particular organisation I have had the pleasure of working with, that lives and breathes closing the gap is Ngroo Education. Ngroo is a non-profit organisation intent on improving opportunities for Aboriginal children to achieve their potential by increasing their level of participation in mainstream early childhood education and care. Ngroo engages strongly with Aboriginal people. Across New South Wales there are now 20 elders connecting their communities to Ngroo, and then in turn to childcare centres. Ngroo's earliest work took place in September 2008 and it has had many achievements in just a few years. A highlight is that its Walking Together program is having a demonstrated positive impact on the participation and outcomes of Aboriginal children in early childhood education and care. Ngroo works to provide improved cultural awareness training focused on outcomes for non-Aboriginal staff. The outcomes include skills to identify barriers to participation and motivation to work to overcome these barriers. Ngroo also works with Aboriginal communities to create connections that empower the community to drive the activities of Ngroo. At present, Ngroo has two full-time and five part-time staff, with Aboriginal staff making up 57 per cent of the total. In 2014, one more Aboriginal staff member will be added.
I have witnessed the work of Ngroo on the ground in my electorate of Macquarie. It is one of the best models of closing the gap I have seen. Ngroo is focused on creating an environment where Indigenous children are not seen just as a number but are valued, where their communities, elders and families are connected and engaged with the local community, the broader community and with the childcare centre that is part of their community. I have watched as the local elders and Aboriginal staff dance barefoot with the children at a local preschool. In fact, I have joined them on one or two occasions. In my view this wonderful organisation is proof that we can close the gap and create an environment where Indigenous children enjoy attending preschool and feel a connection to their culture, to their mainstream teachers of education and, most importantly, their families.
Health is another key area where there is much work to do in closing the gap. Child mortality rates for Indigenous children have been a concern for every government. The Closing the Gap report showed that there have been significant improvements in Indigenous child mortality in recent years. During the period 1998 to 2012 the Indigenous child mortality rate declined by 32 precent. This has led to a significant narrowing of the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. In my electorate, the Nepean-Blue Mountains Medicare Local has taken the initiative to create the Blue Mountains Aboriginal Healthy for Life Program which is funded by the federal government. This is led by Brad Moore, who is the Chair of the Blue Mountains Aboriginal Health Coalition. He is doing a wonderful job. This program works in close partnership with five primary health sites, including medical and general practices as well as the community based health program including the Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation-Darug Mountains Group and the Gundungurra Tribal Council Aboriginal Corporation. At this point, I acknowledge the Darug and the Gundungurra people, who are the First Australians of the community that I represent. I acknowledge their elders, past and present.
The Aboriginal Healthy for Life program aims to: enhance quality of life for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with chronic and complex illness; improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mothers, babies and children; improve the long-term health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians; reduce the incidence of adult chronic illness over time; and improve the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men and boys.
The Blue Mountains Aboriginal Healthy for Life team is made up of two registered nurses, a male and female Aboriginal outreach worker, and a program manager. They are making significant progress and the health outcomes will be seen in the decades to come. The program is making significant inroads into Aboriginal health in my community, and I congratulate the Nepean Blue Mountains Medicare Local on their work.
In my electorate of Macquarie, the history of the First Australians is rich. Aboriginal heritage extends well beyond archaeological sites, rock engraving and rock shelter art. It includes: natural landscape features; ceremonial, mythological and religious areas; and massacre sites; and other places with which Aboriginal people maintain a strong spiritual, cultural and historical association. It is a constant reminder of the First Australians, who long before Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson crossed the Blue Mountains had been crossing the mountains for thousands of years. As a nation we must never forget those who were the first inhabitants of our nation and who still have such a strong connection to the land. Today is an opportunity for us to again assert our commitment to working alongside our Indigenous First Australians to create a better future for all Australians.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (12:11): The Closing the Gap statement delivered by Prime Minister Tony Abbott was an important moment in this parliament and an important moment of personal reflection in my political career so far. Let me recap why the Prime Minister's speech is significant to all of us as Australians and why it is significant to me personally and also as the member for Robertson. In doing so, I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area, and also the Darkinjung and Guringai peoples, who are the traditional custodians of my local community region, and pay respect to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.
There is, quite crucially, a focus on children and young people in Indigenous communities. The target to halve the gap in child mortality within a decade is, so far, on track to be met. We must not relent in our pursuit of this goal. In my electorate of Robertson, there were more than 3,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at the time of the last census, almost of half of them under the age of 20. Helping this age group is often about education. Closing the gap in my electorate, and around the nation, is about getting kids to school and then on to employment. This can take on a variety of forms.
In Robertson, our Indigenous population is supported by a number of local organisations, including the Darkinjung land council and the Mingaletta Aboriginal corporation based out on the peninsula. They do terrific work in our community. Robertson is also home to the National Aboriginal and Strait Islander Skills Development Association's dance academy—or NAISDA, as it is more commonly called. NAISDA graduates are positive role models for Indigenous youth not just in my electorate but right around our nation. I commend NAISDA for their goal to develop opportunities and self-development and independence in their students and their commitment to encouraging their students to maintain strong links to their cultural backgrounds. NAISDA chairman, Dr Warren Mundine, is also head of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. Dr Mundine has called on the Prime Minister to close the gap on school attendance by the end of this year, four years ahead of the 2019 deadline.
There are other organisations and programs in my electorate that also seek in their own way to help close the gap. One such program is organised by Gosford City Council, which arranges a sport and cultural exchange to Walgett for Aboriginal students enrolled in local primary schools. The students play in the Ricky Walford Shield rugby league and the Jenny Wright Shield netball carnival and visit a cultural centre where they hear traditional storytelling and learn more about Indigenous culture. Gosford council also runs an Indigenous surf carnival—a summer surf program targeting young Aboriginal people on the Central Coast. The program includes three water safety and learn-to-surf programs and a competition day, and is a great way to engage hundreds of young people while also ensuring they learn about water and beach safety. An Australian Sports Commission report found that this surf program and others like it make a difference in other parts of the participant's life. Such programs can help lead to less self-harm, less antisocial behaviour and less substance abuse. They also increase confidence and self-esteem, help to develop social skills and result in better behaviour at home and in the classroom.
Unfortunately, there has been very little improvement towards halving the gap in reading, writing and numeracy. It is apparent that Indigenous employment has, if anything, slipped backwards over the past few years. That is where my moment of personal reflection really hit home to me. While not claiming to be an expert on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues—in fact, quite the opposite—I was really moved by the Prime Minister's statement in the House that day. As a mother, a former teacher and someone who has mentored young people in a range of voluntary roles over the last 20 years or more, I have a passion to see all our young people have great hope for the future. Initiatives like those I have mentioned today and heard of from my parliamentary colleagues are inspiring, as we seek to work together to build hope and opportunity.
My own work background is quite diverse. While my first full-time job was as a teacher back at my former high school in Narara, I have since gone on to work in politics and the corporate sector. I have come to understand how education plays a vital role in providing opportunities, particularly work opportunities, for our young people. Each of my own work opportunities was afforded to me because of my schooling and university degree, as well as my skills and subsequent work experience But beyond all this is the importance of advocacy and of taking a stand. Closing the gap has always been a bipartisan goal and so our successes and our failures are also shared. As the Prime Minister has said, our challenge is now to turn our good intentions into better outcomes. Today I commit myself to being an advocate in my electorate for closing the gap so that these intentions and outcomes help people right across the Central Coast, and indeed around Australia, to thrive.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (12:17): Talk about timely! To begin this important address, I would like to repeat words from my maiden speech:
There is a belief in my community that there is enough money in the system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, that there is enough money in the system to house them and that there is enough money for the education of their children but it is just that it does not get through to the people who need it the most. My community is telling me that there is a consultant class of government and non-government people taking too much on the way through. They need two things: the opportunity to do it themselves and the understanding that some will fail. My community is no different to any other and I take it as my solemn pledge that I will not leave anyone behind. We are one team … They need a hand and they need us to give them the whip handle.
I, like the Prime Minister, lament the lack of progress in this field. This is again, just as the Prime Minister said, not due to any bad intentions. In fact, I believe the complete opposite occurs in this field. We are all full of good intentions; it is the experience on the ground which needs to be addressed. It is the experience of those people who are dying too young, who do not have a job, who are being incarcerated for crimes where poverty is a primary factor—it is these people who understand our intentions. But intentions do not matter if you are 19 years old and strapped onto a dialysis machine or have a nappy soaked in Rexona planted on your face. Those are the people who are dying, or going to jail, too young and too often.
During NAIDOC Week, I attended a flag-raising ceremony at the old Thuringowa council chambers. I was asked if I wanted to say something, so I stood up there and told them that the decision to be made must be made by them, the people concerned. I told them that although I have an opinion, I have no real personal perspective. My perspective as a middle-aged, fat, white guy means nothing to the 12-year-old trying to understand why he or she must work hard at school to get a job when no-one in his or her family has ever had one. That is the issue. That is what we have to get around. As Senator Nigel Scullion always says, 'This is not a black problem; it is a poverty problem.' No matter where you go in the world, where there is poverty there will be disengagement from the education system and bad health outcomes. All these things come from poverty. So what we have to do is address the basic question: how do we get people out of poverty?
I am a great fan of Kevin Andrews, our Minister for Social Services. His statement was that the best form of social security we can give anyone is a job. That is the key here.
We have some real issues to confront, but we can only do so much. We need to provide, as my good friend the member for Longman always says, 'a hand up; not a hand out'. We need to understand that people have been hurt by processes for over 200 years. We have to know that commitment to change is a two-way street and that we will see failure. We have to see failure in order to succeed. Failure is, by nature, proof positive that someone is trying something with which they are not comfortable. We need to get people to step out of their comfort zones and be supported in doing so. We need to challenge but we need to support. Everyone can master turning the TV on and watching day-time television. For those people who have never been engaged it is very hard to master getting out of bed and going to work.
Again, as the Prime Minister stated, education is the key. I am convinced of that. He said, in his speech, that we need full participation in education in modern Australia. 'That does not mean,' he said, 'access to a good education. It means actually going to school.' I would take it a step further. We need people to commit, from as early an age as possible, to full participation in education—in learning to learn, and understanding that sometimes learning is plain hard work. Only then will we have the means to address the wrongs we are seeing in our cities, towns, and remote communities.
Recently, we saw the death of a young girl in Townsville. She was 18. She stole a car and went for a joy ride, crashed, and was killed. She had a mum and two sisters pleading with her not to do it. But she saw this as something she just wanted to do. It was fun. The dead girl was 18 years old. She had two children of her own. I do not know her circumstances, but she fits the basic model of the accident waiting to happen. She had a mum who loved her but could not stop her. There is a sense of inevitability and hopelessness in her Facebook posts from that night. She had a lot to live for but chose a course of action which was at best reckless and at worst suicidal. She is now, sadly, a statistic.
That there is a sense of hopelessness in so many people today goes to the way we roll out programs, ask people to commit 100 per cent to them, and then defund them. You can only maintain your resolve for so long here before you must throw up your hands and ask, 'What is the use?' That is the issue here. We continue to tell people that this is a real problem. We continue to tell people that they have to commit. They commit, and then six months later we tell them that there is no money for the program.
We are a great country. We have great people who make up our community. We have great people in Townsville and North Queensland who care deeply. We all need to be responsible for this—not just government, ACOSS or the churches. All of us must do our bit to assist our first peoples in living a full, happy, engaged life of purpose. We must close the gap and we must do it as a nation.
In the time I have left I would like to address an issue of youth justice in Townsville. In Townsville there is a group of Aboriginal elders trying to start an outstation where we can take the at-risk kids. In my discussions with Townsville police they have stated their frustration when they knock on a door to arrest a young offender. When they take charge of the young offender they will see three or four kids—cousins, brothers and sisters—standing there. The question is: as a society, do we just let the police go back one at a time and keep on picking them up and putting them into this system? Or is there some way that the police can access the system and say to Centrelink or to Wayne Parker or to child support, 'Here is a group of people who may be in need. We need to get to these kids before they start disengaging from primary school, before they hit high school, and put them into something'?
I said to people in Townsville last weekend that it costs a lot of money to bring kids up, and today's society cannot just let them walk everywhere. If we want kids to engage, we have to do it at a basic level and we have to do it at a level with which they are comfortable. We say a lot about getting kids to engage in education, but our education system is becoming deskbound, even in prep. It is becoming book learning. We talk to Aboriginal kids about coming into school. We talk to them about music, dance and sport, and as soon as we get them into a school we sit them down at a desk to tell them just how stupid they are. We have demonstrated that they are struggling with this. We have to change that basic proposition and allow teachers to teach, to display their art and their skill in bringing the best out in every child. If it takes a little bit longer, we have to have the courage to sit there and say, 'Look, you have to do this again.' We have to get through the basic message that it is okay to fail, as long as you try. That is a big one. At the moment we are simply not closing the gap. Something that will haunt us all as we leave this place—and we all leave it eventually—is that one thing we did not do was assist in this process.
I thank the House for the opportunity to talk to this statement. It is one of the most worthy things we have done here. I stood and watched then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd give the apology, and it was a truly great moment. But it has not kept one person out of jail and it has not stopped one person getting out of the system. We must have very concrete things. We must make sure that we have very tacit and tangible outcomes.
I thank the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (12:27): Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave granted.
Ms HENDERSON: I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful member of the Geelong community, Alison Murphy, who very tragically and very suddenly died yesterday. Ally was the embodiment of joy and optimism and fun. She was blessed with a fierce intellect, a strong sense of compassion and an infectious 'can-do' attitude. For Ally, anything was possible, and in every aspect of her life she made things happen.
I first met with Ally back in 2009, when I was running for preselection. As the owner of her own strategic communications company, RedStick, and as a member of the executive of the Committee for Geelong, Ally played a vital role in so many of Geelong's success stories. She was a trusted adviser and a first-class strategic thinker. As adviser to Judith Troeth, a former senator for Victoria, Ally made her mark. She was an incredible asset to Judith, particularly in her work in agriculture. I have spoken to Judith this morning, and she, like so many of Ally's close friends and colleagues, is devastated.
Judith described Ally as devoted, smart and a shining light—and that she was. While Ally worked here at parliament on one side of politics, she built her business by building loyalty with those on both sides of politics. This was an impressive feat and demonstrated the scope of Ally's skill and capacity.
She became a trusted adviser to the likes of the Geelong Football Club, GMHBA and the City of Greater Geelong. She built a great team—James, Karen, Jess, Jo and Julia—all of whom are numb with this dreadful news. She touched so many lives, and today so many people in Geelong and here in parliament House can barely come to terms with what has happened.
In various ways, I have worked closely with Ally for the past five years. I was proud to call her my friend. She was a great friend to Senator Michael Ronaldson and to my electorate officer Melissa Bann. They too are devastated. This morning the member for Corio spoke about his family's wonderful friendship with Ally and her family. Being Ally's friend was easy.
The last time I saw her was 12 days ago, when we met as part of a steering committee working hard to bring the Land 400 defence project to Geelong. As the clock approached 3pm, we both looked at each other with that knowing smile as we prepared to do the mad dash to school pick-up. On Monday, Ally suffered a massive stroke. Today my thoughts are with Ally's husband, Peter—or Stevo as he is known—her stepson, Tom, and her precious twins, Charlie and Lucy, who have just started school. To them I say: your beautiful wife and mother was a shining light in so many lives. She will forever remain a shining light in your lives. Ally Murphy, we will miss you.
House adjourned at 12:32
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
HMAS Hobart
(Question No. 4)
Mr Brough asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 21 November 2013:
In respect of HMAS Hobart, (a) Is it still scheduled to be delivered in 2016, (b) What processes exist to routinely monitor the progress of the different aspects of the building process, and since 1 November 2011, (i) how many times has this process triggered alerts for unsatisfactory progress, (ii) in what specific areas were these deficiencies, and (iii) how were they corrected, and (c) Have detailed plans for 'test and evaluation' and 'introduction into service' been developed, and will tests such as missile firings be conducted prior to ship delivery and acceptance.
Ms Julie Bishop: The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(a) Future HMAS Hobart is scheduled for delivery in 2016.
(b) The Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance participant organisations (ASC and Raytheon Australia) are required to plan and manage their work within Earned Value Management Systems (EVMSs) which report cost and schedule performance.
Key project milestones are specified in the AWD Alliance Based Target Incentive Agreement (contract).
A total AWD project management view is established at the AWD Alliance level based on the input from ASC and Raytheon Australia.
The AWD Program is also subject to other review and monitoring processes, including the annual Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Major Projects Report (MPR), annual DMO Performance Gate Review audits, DMO projects of concern early indicators and warnings monitoring, annual Assets Under Construction review which is undertaken by the DMO and reported to ANAO, and periodic ANAO audits – the most recent nearing completion.
(b) (i) to (iii) None of the DMO project of concern early indicators and warning thresholds have been triggered for this project. Triggers will be breached if it is assessed that:
( a) The schedule for meeting Initial Operating Capability or Final Operating Capability (IOC/FOC) will be delayed by 20 per cent (%) or more;
(b) The project's cost will exceed its approved budget;
(c) An 'essential' capability requirement will not be met; and/or
(d) Significant changes occur in policy, emerging requirements, industry capacity or project risk that impact project execution.
The AWD Alliance performance monitoring system alerts management to unsatisfactory progress. The Earned Value Management System highlights significant cost and schedule variances in any monthly reporting period.
(c) The approved AWD Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) details requirements for all phases of test and evaluation through to completion of Naval Operational Test and Evaluation (NOTE) and introduction into service.
Missile firings are not required for the achievement of the Provisional Acceptance/delivery milestone. Plans for missile firings are in development for the Naval Operational Test and Evaluation (NOTE) phase, which occurs post-delivery of each ship to Navy.