The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
PETITIONS
Responses
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01):
Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows:
Father Francis Joseph
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for your letter of 3 March 2014 attaching a petition requesting the House of Representatives to initiate enquiries with the Sri Lankan Government regarding the well-being of Father Francis Joseph, a Catholic priest from northern Sri Lanka who has been reported missing since May 2009.
The Australian Government is aware of the case of Father Francis Joseph, who is one of many thousands of individuals who remain missing and unaccounted for following the brutal civil conflict in Sri Lanka. Since it was brought to our attention in 2009, the Australian High Commission in Colombo has been following the case, including through contact with church and government officials. I note that the matter is currently the subject of a habeas corpus case and ongoing consideration in the Mullaitivu Magistrate's Court in Sri Lanka.
The Australian Government has made clear to the Sri Lankan Government our interest in seeing this case, and the many other cases of unsolved disappearances, resolved as a key measure of accountability and reconciliation. We welcome the Commission of Inquiry on Disappearances established by the Sri Lankan Government in late 2013, and will continue to encourage progress on this front.
I trust that this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ms Julie Bishop
Mobile Homes Goods and Services Tax
Dear Dr Jensen
Thank you for the letter of 31 January 2014 to the Treasurer relating to a petition recently submitted for the consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions, requesting an amendment to the goods and services tax (GST) legislation to maintain the current GST treatment of moveable home estates in the event that the ATO finalised its draft ruling on moveable home estates. Your letter has been referred to me as I have responsibility for taxation in this area.
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) withdrew the draft ruling on moveable home estates referred to in the petition on 19 December 2013, which means that there will be no change to the GST treatment of these residences. Accordingly, there will be no need to examine an amendment to the GST legislation for the purposes of the petition.
In withdrawing the ruling, the ATO noted that it now considers that moveable home estates are sufficiently similar to caravan parks and accordingly, are classified as commercial residential premises and will continue to receive concessional GST treatment in respect of long-term residents. A copy of the ATO's media release is attached for your information.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
MEDIA RELEASE
Australian Taxation Office
19 December 2013
Media release 2013/41
No extra GST to be added to moveable homes
The ATO has considered comments on its draft ruling and decided not to change the GST treatment of moveable home estates.
The draft ruling will now be withdrawn and moveable home estates will continue to be treated as commercial residential premises with the same GST rules for long-term accommodation.
'Over the past seven weeks, we have been considering a range of submissions from the community and stakeholders as part of our consultation process,' Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan said.
'We have carefully considered the legal arguments and practical implications and decided that we don't need to change the existing GST treatment of these estates.
'Our preliminary view had been that moveable home estates were not sufficiently similar to caravan parks to be commercial residential premises.
'With the benefit of submissions, it is evident that while moveable home estates have changed, they are still similar enough to caravan parks to receive the concessional treatment. In particular, both involve letting of sites separately to the building, and provide communal facilities to residents.
'Our draft ruling process encourages the community and stakeholders to put forward their views on our interpretation of tax issues. We received many comments from industry groups, residents and tax professionals during the consultation process. We thank the community for their involvement.'
from the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples
Dear Dr Jensen
I refer to your letter of 12 February 2014 to the Hon Alan Tudge MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, regarding a referendum for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Your correspondence has been referred to me as the senior responsible Minister for this matter.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are the first inhabitants of this nation, and the Government commitment to recognise them in our Constitution presents an historic opportunity to acknowledge their unique culture and history, and their enormous contribution to this nation. A successful referendum would be a unifying moment for the nation, similar to the 1967 referendum and the National Apology.
The 'Boomerang Petition' addresses the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. The Government is committed to releasing for public comment in late 2014 a draft constitutional amendment to recognise Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.
A Parliamentary Joint Select Committee has been established to inquire into and report on steps that can be taken to progress towards a successful referendum on Indigenous constitutional recognition, including consideration of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians. The Committee is chaired by Mr Ken Wyatt AM MP, the first Indigenous member of the House of Representatives, and its deputy chair is Senator Nova Penis OAM, the first female Indigenous federal parliamentarian. The Committee will submit an interim report to the Parliament by the end of September 2014.
A review required under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act 2013 commenced on 27 March 2014 to consider support for Indigenous constitutional recognition. The review panel includes former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, the Hon John Anderson AO, Deputy Director of the 'Recognise' campaign, Ms Tanya Hosch, and Mr Richard Eccles, Deputy Secretary at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The responsible adviser for this matter in my Office is Mr James Lambie who can be contacted on (02) 6277 7300.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours faithfully
from the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis
PETITIONS
Statements
Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (00:00): Madam Speaker,
In my previous statements to the House as Chair of the Petitions Committee, I spoke about the requirements for petitions, the role of the Committee and members, the practicalities of petitioning, and a brief outline of the history of petitioning. At this early stage in the Parliament, I think it would be useful to focus on the history of petitioning parliament in a bit more detail. To do so, I will go back to the early days of petitions, before returning to the present to briefly examine the effect petitions can have.
The act of petitioning the House represents the only way by which an individual citizen can directly have a matter raised in the House, and is described in House of Representatives Practice as 'a fundamental right of every citizen'. This right has a long history, Madam Speaker, and goes right back to the early days of Westminster parliamentary democracy.
In the days of Kind Edward I in the 13th century, where our tradition of petitioning originates, petitions were presented to the King and considered by his council. In those days, petitioning was primarily used for the redress of personal grievances. Some of the earliest forms of legislation were simply petitions requesting that the king take action on a particular matter and are the origin from which our current system of legislation by bill evolved. Petitions represent one of the oldest of all parliamentary forms, and have been described as 'the fertile seed' from which other proceedings of the House are derived. Even the origins of parliament itself can arguably be traced back to the King's Council sitting to consider petitions. Naturally, the form which petitions take has undergone considerable change since the days of King Edward I.
The form of petition we know today developed in the 17th century. In 1669, the UK House of Commons affirmed the right of petitioners to prepare and present petitions to seek redress of grievances. It also affirmed the right of the House of Commons to receive these petitions, and its right to determine which petitions were fit to be received. It was at this stage, Madam Speaker, that it was established that petitions had to be addressed to parliament and drawn up in a prescribed manner. From this time on petitions tended to request action on a public grievance, rather than a personal one.
Australia inherited this system from the UK, and I would like now to turn our attention to the Australian experience. Since Federation, a large volume of petitions have been presented to the House. They have numbered around 300 a year. Before the current system was established in 2008, petitions which met the requirements in the standing orders needed to be certified by the Clerk. Once presented by a member or the terms were read out by the Clerk following the lodgement by a member, the petition was then automatically referred to the relevant minister. The minister could then, if they chose, lodge a response with the Clerk. Once a petition was referred, it was very rare that any further action would be taken. Between 1901 and 1999 only 18 responses to petitions were presented to the House. In the ensuing nine years, a further three responses were presented.
All this changed with the reforms of 2008 and the establishment of the Petitions Committee. Before being presented, petitions are first certified by the Petitions Committee as meeting the standing order requirements. After presentation, the standing orders allow for the committee to refer petitions to the responsible minister and there is an expectation that a response will be received by the committee within 90 days of presentation.
As a result of these reforms, almost every petition referred to a minister has received a response. Under the standing orders, ministers are expected to respond to the committee in writing. These responses are then considered by the committee, presented to the House by me as chair, published in Hansard and on the committee website, as well as being sent on to the principal petitioner. In this way, petitioners are kept informed of the progress of their petition and any ministerial response to it.
While it is true that ministers do not often agree to the request made by petitioners, the effect that petitions can have are numerous. Outside the parliamentary context, petitions have a range of effects. It has been said that many petitioners tend to sign for community reasons rather than out of pursuit of personal gain. In doing so, petitioners demonstrate a sense of duty and common purpose within a community—a common purpose which is then demonstrated through the presentation of a petition to the House. This further provides members with a better understanding of the issues affecting Australians and the Australian community and may contribute to more informed debate and decision making.
Petitions can also draw the attention of ministers to issues of which they may be unaware. Similarly, petitions can help to create or foster a climate of opinion, both within parliament through exposing members to ideas and requests and within communities as potential petitioners read the reasons and requests for actions contained in the petitions. In the process, petitions can help inform members about the strength of feeling in the community on particular issues. It is for these reasons that many people go to great efforts to gather as many signatures as possible.
DELEGATION REPORTS
Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa—Deputy Speaker) (10:08): I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei from 30 March to 10 April this year. Five members of the delegation from our parliament, including from the Senate, which I had the honour of leading, visited these three countries—the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei—as part of our annual dialogue under ASEAN, of which Australia has been a delegation member now for some 40 years. Members of the delegation included the deputy leader Senator the Hon. Don Farrell, Senator Helen Kroger, Mr Ken Wyatt AM—who is in the chamber with me now—and also the Hon. Alan Griffin, who is also in the chamber. I want to thank all of them for their cooperation and the strength which they brought to this very important annual dialogue in the ASEAN region.
The delegation focused on re-affirming Australia's valuable relationship with our ASEAN neighbours, establishing connections with parliamentarians in the region and discussing bilateral ties associated with economic development, the environment, security and defence cooperation within the multilateral system and social development. It was very evident when we travelled in those three countries that Australians and Australia are held in very high regard. As Australians travelling there, it was very invigorating to have repeated in all of our meetings the regard in which Australia, and Australians as citizens, are held in the ASEAN region.
In the Bohol province of the Philippines we saw the provincial government and saw firsthand Australian aid money at work, which is rehabilitating the province after it was struck by a magnitude 7.2 earthquake, which killed some 200 people in October last year and destroyed buildings, including schools and hospitals, bridges and roads. The delegation learnt that, as part of the Bohol disaster, resilient homes were being built as part of a project to assist families whose homes were destroyed by the earthquake. The project is a partnership between DFAT and Catholic Relief Services, which will provide cash grants for some 870 families to enable them to quickly rebuild their homes with seismic resistance, for approximately $800 per home. It is very humbling to see how such a small amount of money can give people shelter in a resilient and very earthquake resistant home. It is humbling to see where the money is going and how it can help these people.
During our visit to the three countries we also focused on the important role that the Colombo Plan has played in helping the ASEAN countries. We saw in Bohol Colombo Plan students who had returned to their region, bringing the skills and knowledge they had gained in Australia back to their region. I, and I know the other members of the delegation, was inspired by these students who had studied under the Colombo Plan.
The loss of flight MH370 overshadowed our visit to Malaysia. It was clear that it was foremost in the minds of the Malaysian people. Of course, the Malaysian people thank Australia for the leading role that we were then and remain committed to doing everything we can to identify just where this plane and the tragedy that unfolded with it is now located. We visited the Monash University campus in Kuala Lumpur. This is of course for Monash University the first foreign university to be established in Malaysia. The delegation, through that university, saw firsthand people from over 60 different nationalities studying across seven faculties. The campus is fully integrated and governed by Monash University in Australia. It was clearly evident that Malaysian maintains a strong interest in participating in the Colombo Plan from 2015.
In Brunei we had the opportunity to discuss with officials the introduction of sharia law. The high commission was able to brief us what it might mean, particularly for Australian nationals living in Brunei. Wherever we travelled in Brunei we were assured that Australians should not be concerned about it, but of course the delegation is keeping a watchful eye, as our high commission will, on the introduction of sharia law in that country.
I thank the high commissions in those three countries, the staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and also the secretary to our delegation, who is the clerk here today. We thank you, Peter, for the work that you did in keeping us all focused and always on time. I do thank the department and all those who participated. The annual ASEAN delegation is important for Australia and a very important part of our relationship,.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (10:14): It is a great pleasure to follow the Deputy Speaker in discussing the findings of our delegation to ASEAN. I start by endorsing all of his comments and to thank him for his leadership of the delegation. I think we pretty much behaved ourselves, although there were times when the member for Hasluck, who is in the chamber, was a bit of a worry. Luckily he followed my good example on a number of occasions!
Delegations are often discussed in the media without being understood. I would like to focus for a couple of minutes on the significance of a delegation such as this and why it is in fact a very important part of the work we do. It is a very important part of the work that we do because we live in a region. With respect to this delegation in particular, we were visiting countries that are significant in the region. They are neighbours and there needs to be greater understanding across our nations. Delegations such as this play a very important role in ensuring there is a better understanding not only of their perspective but also of our own, because although we are in the same region we have very different histories and very different cultures. Developing that understanding across parliaments, communities and people and through business, politics and community structures is incredibly important. It is also important because it is recognised that Australia plays a leading role in this region. We are a small country in terms of population but a large country in terms of land and a significant country in terms of wealth and expertise, and we play a key role in the region. That key role is something which develops over time.
The Deputy Speaker mentioned some of the aid projects. The fact is that we play a significant role in providing aid and support to our neighbours when they are in trouble. There is no doubt that in the circumstances of the Philippines, in particular and more recently in the context of the missing Malaysian aircraft Australia has played a key role. It is important that we as parliamentarians get to see those aid projects in operation. What we as a delegation saw were aid projects which showed that Australian aid dollars are being used effectively, that they are being used to provide opportunities for communities to deal with the tragedy of natural disasters and to provide them with the opportunity to build into the future, to become more self-reliant and to be in a situation where they are able to triumph in the face of the adversity of the circumstances they have faced.
It is also important for trade. It is important in engaging with foreign countries and their officials, to assisting Australian businesses to better understand and facilitate contacts within countries they are seeking to trade in, to providing a better understanding back here in the Australian community and the business community, about what needs to be done, and also, frankly, to ensuring that our diplomatic staff overseas, who do a fantastic job, are facilitated and assisted in engaging with respect to those sorts of issues. That relationship-building across business, and in terms of the broader community and ensuring that the work that the Australian government does on behalf of all of us is done efficiently, effectively and properly is an important part of what is done. I think that this delegation touched on all those issues across all of the nations we visited.
A number of significant issues were considered. The circumstances around the missing Malaysia Airlines aeroplane have been mentioned. There were also issues involving the South China Sea and around the negotiations that are occurring in the Philippines to try to resolve some of the terrorist conflicts that are occurring in that nation. I think it showed the delegation—I certainly appreciated it—the complexity that surrounds the issues that are faced when trying to deal with insurgencies. It is often easy to encapsulate it in a headline, but it is much more complex than that. Frankly, it showed that the Philippines government in a very difficult set of circumstances is genuinely trying to engage and through that process hopefully resolve longstanding conflicts.
I also would like to think of number of people. The Deputy Speaker mentioned Peter Banson, who is in the House today, DFAT staff—embassy staff and consular staff—in all three countries that we visited and the delegation members for their camaraderie and support over the course of the trip. I had a crack in good spirits at my friend the member for Hasluck, but I would like to acknowledge, particularly, senators Kroger and Farrell who, at this stage anyway, are about to finish their time in this place. They were excellent contributors and I wish them well in the future.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Landcare 25th Anniversary
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (10:19): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Landcare is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year;
(b) the keystones of Landcare are that it is community owned and driven and bi-partisan in nature, and it encourages integrated management of environmental assets with productive farmland and a more sustainable approach to private land management; and
(c) 40 per cent of all farmers are involved in Landcare;
(2) acknowledges that Landcare has been working for over 25 years to:
(a) improve our farmlands;
(b) breathe new life into waterways;
(c) improve the coastal environment;
(d) restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats; and
(e) protect our urban environment; and
(3) condemns the Government for slashing almost $480 million from Landcare’s budget.
Landcare is a grassroots community organisation with over 100,000 volunteers Australia wide and in excess of 2,000 volunteers in Lake Macquarie, where I come from and where we have over 300 Landcare groups. In the Shortland electorate I will mention just two very large community Landcare groups—Galgabba Landcare group and Belmont Wetlands Landcare group. It is important that in this 25th year of Landcare when we are celebrating Landcare's anniversary that we acknowledge the incredible impact Landcare has had on our environment, both in rural areas, where 40 per cent of activities are conducted by farmers, and in areas such as Lake Macquarie, where the work of those 2,000 dedicated volunteers has contributed to restoring the health of Lake Macquarie through restoration work of creeks and river ways, revegetation, environmental remediation and a lot of hard work.
The strength of Landcare is that it is owned by the community and that community is working to restore the environment in which it lives and works. Now the Abbott government has ripped $483 million out of Landcare over the next five years in its slash-and-burn budget of broken promises. It would use this money to fund its Green Army Program, which I am sure will build a lot of pretty walkways and undertake a lot of beautification but will not undertake the hard environmental work that is done by those dedicated Landcare workers. The beautification is hardly environmental restoration.
When we look at the Green Army the workers that will be involved in it will not have the same versatility and dedication to the environment that Landcare workers have. Those people will not be able to be picked for their skills and the expertise that they have to work on environmental projects. It will disenfranchise all those dedicated Landcare workers that go out day after day to work to restore the environment. This is another example of the government saying one thing before the election and then doing another thing after the election.
I would like to refer to a speech made by the member for Gippsland in May 2010, where he acknowledges the fantastic work of Landcare volunteers and was questioning what he perceived to be a cut in the budget at that time. He said that cutting funds:
… is a kick in the guts to every volunteer who has given up a Sunday morning to plant trees, to remove weeds or to otherwise make a difference to the environment in their local community.
He said:
Landcare is an organisation that has enjoyed bipartisan support across its 20 years of history.
Well, on the side of the parliament, we certainly support Landcare and we know just how important it is. The member for Gippsland went on to ask a question of the then minister:
Landcare volunteers want to know if the current minister even try to protect them from these budget cuts.
Certainly in the case of this budget I suspect that the answer is no. We would really like to know what this government's commitment actually is to the environment.
In the Lake Macquarie and Newcastle area the regional coordinator of Landcare has pointed out that for every dollar you invest in Landcare delivers $10 to the community. It is a wise investment. I will finish on the note that the member for Gippsland said in 2010:
This government does not understand regional communities. It is not understand Landcare.
He at that time encouraged members of Landcare to contact their local radio stations and to write their local newspaper and put on record that they support Landcare and so should the government. This government stands condemned.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Dr Leigh: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon) (10:25): I rise today to speak on this motion and to say 'Happy Birthday' to Landcare. They are celebrating 25 years of doing fantastic environmental work in this nation. Happy birthday, Landcare. It is very interesting to be here in the house because I have a family involvement in Landcare going back a very long time. As a matter of fact, in Victoria there were two female ministers who were heavily involved in Landcare when it started off—one of them was the former Labor Premier Joan Kirner; the other one was my mother. So it is particularly good to be here today to talk about Landcare's achievements over 25 years and to reach out to the other side to say: 'It's great that we still have bipartisanship when it comes to Landcare and everything that it has to offer.'
In this year's budget we sought to make sure that there is still a workforce for Landcare and to ensure that Landcare projects are properly developed and properly implemented. We have done this by bringing the Green Army into the Landcare program. To those opposite who are looking a little bit cynical about this, even though it always had a bipartisan approach, let me give one example: Basalt to Bay in my electorate. I see the shadow agriculture minister is in the House, and I invite him to the electorate of Wannon to see this project.
Mr Fitzgibbon: I was there during the campaign.
Mr TEHAN: I know you were, but you were uninvited then; I am giving you an official invitation. For the Basalt to Bay project they want to put shelter belts through some of the best agricultural land in this country to make sure that it continues to be productive. They need help in making sure that, when they put these shelter belts in, they have the people on the ground there to do it. When we announced our Green Army project and showed that it could work with Landcare, Landcare was incredibly excited. I would say to the shadow agricultural minister, 'Come down, meet with the group and I will explain to you how the Green Army will help Landcare.' The environment minister has set about making sure that everything we do in this natural resource management space works together—he has tied in the protection of whales into coastal care. When you come down, shadow agriculture minister, you can do a bit of whale watching and see what we are doing to preserve whale breeding. We might be able to take you out to show them, but we will not get too close. This is good, sensible policy making.
What does Landcare do? It makes sure we have very good waterways and good coastal environment. It restores native vegetation and wildlife habitats and, more recently, it also protects our urban environment. One of the initiatives of this government—which I know the members for Higgins and Kooyong were very keen on—was to ensure proper protection for the Yarra River, and a measure in this year's budget will take care of that. In this 25th anniversary year of Landcare, I once again call for bipartisanship to ensure that everyone recognises the terrific work that Landcare does and the way it adds to our environmental heritage and protection and the way it delivers on the ground for local communities. That is what this government is all about—ensuring that on-the-ground management in our local communities occurs. There is $2 billion overall for national resource management in this budget. It is to be commended.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:30): I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Shortland. I congratulate her on a motion which both acknowledges and recognises the wonderful work of Landcare, its leading people and its volunteers but also highlights the threat to Landcare posed by this callous budget which has cut such a wonderful organisation. I listened closely to the member for Wannon and I almost do not need to make a speech now—he said it all for me! He acknowledged the wonderful work that Landcare and its volunteers do together to battle soil salinity and erosion, deploying sound land management practices. Each year they plant millions of native trees, shrubs and grasses for a range of benefits, including improved soil and water quality. This is why none of us can understand why the government has broken yet another election promise in its decision to cut $480 million from Landcare in this its 25th year. This year, when it is celebrating such a significant birthday, why would the government so dramatically cut funding to an organisation which is doing such great work and which has met with such great success?
It has been estimated that for every dollar the government invests in Landcare it receives $5 in return. Why is that so? It is because there are so many people out there volunteering and sharing their expertise. This is the important point to be made about the Green Army. I am sure there are some circumstances where the Green Army may be able to enhance and extend upon the work done by our Landcare people. But anyone in this place who has had anything to do with Landcare groups will know that the work they do is quite complex. This is effectively science we are dealing with.
I have been most impressed by the knowledge and expertise of so many people I have met in Landcare groups. Many of them are farmers. Many of them are environmentalists. Many of them are associated with farmers or local Landcare groups and have simply been looking for an opportunity to give something back to their community in an area which is so important to the sustainability of this country. Forty per cent of our farmers are part of Landcare, and many more of them use Landcare practices. This is a program supported by those who work our land.
I started by saying that this is a broken promise. Of course, it is. I note that the member for Wannon, while he spent a lot of time praising Landcare, did not address this key aspect of this motion. In keeping with the Speaker's ruling, I will not seek to table this document I have with me. But I have with me a media release from the now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, dated 26 August 2013. You remember that date, don't you, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am sure the shadow minister at the table does. It was just before the last federal election. It seems there were a lot of media releases issued and commitments made just before 7 September last year. I do not know what the coalition's private polling was telling them, but the end result leaves one with no doubt that they should not have been too concerned. In August a lot of media releases were issued and a lot of promises were made. Here is one from the now environment minister with an absolute guarantee that, while Caring for our Country and Landcare would be merged into a single entity, the funding would be guaranteed.
We raised questions on this in Senate estimates just last week. We could not get any answers. This is one of the most obvious breaches of an election commitment of all, which, like the commitments to health, education and pensions and no tax increases, was a commitment made out of desperation and from a mob who were just so determined to take office at any cost that they were prepared to promise anything and everything. They were elected on a lie. They were elected on a false premise that they would not cut health, education and pensions and that they would not cut Landcare. They should not cut Landcare in its 25th year. It is too important a program to be cut.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (10:35): It is my pleasure to rise to speak to this motion from the member for Shortland, as many in this House know of my passion for the environment. It is in recognition of this passion that the then shadow minister for the environment, now minister, announced in 2012 my role as the coalition's Environment Ambassador for Western Australia. Landcare should be congratulated in their 25th year of operation for the campaigns and practical work they achieve and for their many volunteers who conduct activities across this country to promote sustainable natural resource management in partnership with our farmers, miners and, of course, local communities. It is the strength of their ethos and passion that sees them continue to grow and thrive within our environmental discourse and landscape. It is also because of this strength that they will continue to grow and thrive for many, many more years to come.
In my electorate of Hasluck, we are proud to be the home of Men of the Trees WA. Men of the Trees is an outstanding local not-for-profit group that promotes environmental sustainability, revegetates landscapes by planting trees across Western Australia and educates young and old alike. I mention Men of the Trees for two reasons. Firstly, when the Minister for the Environment, then shadow minister for the environment, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP, visited Men of the Trees in 2011 to launch Hasluck's Green Map, he committed half a million trees to them should the coalition be successful at last year's election. I am pleased to report that I have had many fruitful discussions with the minister about the delivery of this commitment and I look forward to making further statements and announcements on it in the future. Secondly, Men of the Trees are trying to set a new world record! On Friday, 25 July this year, Men of the Trees will be attempting to plant 100,000 seedlings within an hour to break the world record. I am thrilled today to inform the House that Team Hasluck and I will be at Whiteman Park, assisting Men of the Trees in this world record attempt.
Men of the Trees are looking for more volunteers to help out at the Project 100k—The Greening Challenge world record attempt. If Western Australian residents, particularly those within Hasluck and Pearce, want to get involved then contact my office or Men of the Trees directly to find out more information. You can also jump online and visit their website or Facebook page.
The reason I have talked about Men of the Trees and their world record attempt is that Landcare Australia regularly partners with them and is promoting the world record attempt—proof of the local partnerships and impact they have in my electorate of Hasluck. Those opposite, particularly the member for Shortland, have used this motion—which should be a positive endorsement of Landcare's outstanding track record in the community and celebration of Landcare's 25th anniversary—as a cheap political stunt to attack the government. Shame on them. Instead of attacking the government, the member for Shortland and the Leader of the Opposition should outline how they plan to fix the budget mess that they helped create.
Now the Budget has been delivered, the design of the National Landcare Program can be progressed. Despite the member's protestations, through the National Landcare Program, the government will invest $1 billion from 2014-15 to 2017-18. The government intends to put land management back at the centre of Landcare. It is interesting to note that over three-quarters of farmers identify with the Landcare movement—some 6,000 Landcare groups and over 100,000 volunteers. This demonstrates that Australians understand how important it is to get natural resource management right. The National Landcare Program is complemented by other initiatives, including the Green Army program, the Reef 2050 Plan, the Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan, Working on Country, the Land Sector Package and investments in the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. In fact, Landcare groups will be key beneficiaries of the government's long and proud history of supporting local communities' land management efforts.
I pledge today that I will continue to advocate and promote the government's environmental credentials in Hasluck, Western Australia and across the nation. The members opposite can play their cheap political games but, at the end of the day, the government's strong environmental agenda will strengthen and protect the rich natural landscape that makes Australia such a great place to call home.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Northern Australia
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (10:40): I move:
That this House notes that:
(1) there is a serious need for infrastructure and economic development in Australia’s north;
(2) the Government wants to maximise Northern Australia’s enormous untapped potential and the Prime Minister has adopted measures that will end years of Government inertia on developing this region;
(3) the terms of reference for the Northern Australia White Paper provide a foundation for a rigorous, well-defined and timely policy platform for promoting Northern Australia’s development; and
(4) through its deliberations the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia will contribute to the development of the White Paper with valuable feedback from stakeholders on the ground who have an interest in advancing the national interest.
Developing north Australia is imperative to see our region grow and thrive, given our advantageous location and unique agricultural opportunities. I was delighted that, after some discussions with Prime Minister Abbott, the terms of reference were expanded to include Alice Springs. Very importantly, the terms of reference were launched in the Northern Territory—in fact, in my electorate.
The coalition's policy to develop the north, which was released last year, names Australia's north as underutilised relative to the rest of the country, despite its natural, geographic and strategic assets. This is in stark contrast to previous governments' attitudes to northern Australia. For far too long Labor governments have hindered growth in the Northern Territory. Locally, we had 11 years of Labor, which meant 11 years of populous policy, 11 years of waste, and no real investment in infrastructure.
As a result, we now see the Country Liberals Territory government picking up the pieces of a neglected health system and an underachieving education system. These are major road blocks when it comes to growing our north. That is why the coalition has listened to my advocacy for my electorate and, indeed all Australians and the rest of the Territory, and has invested in a new hospital for Palmerston and education funding that will provide real outcomes for our children.
Along with this, the coalition recognises the territory's need for improved road infrastructure, and has placed this as a priority. This was proved in the recent budget. I am delighted with the Australian government's investment of $90 million in a regional roads productivity package, and $77 million in the Northern Territory's specific roads package. This is a significant commitment, given the financial mess that the previous Labor government has left us in. These investments come on top of the $70 million already promised by this government to duplicate Tiger Brennan Drive in my electorate.
It makes sense to continue investment in Darwin and Palmerston. Our geographic location means that we are often the first responders in Australia's response to international disasters, and we also have a massive advantage in trade with our Asian neighbours. Darwin and Palmerston really are the gateway to Asia. The booming economies of South-East Asia and southern China are within three to five hours flying time from Darwin. Plus, we are privileged to have advantages from sharing a similar time zone to many Asian countries.
Asia is already the world's largest and fastest-growing regional economy. By 2030 Asia's real GDP is expected to increase from 27 trillion to $67 trillion—exceeding the expected GDP of the Americas and Europe combined. Our exports to Asia have already benefited from this rise, with an 80 per cent increase in the decade to 2011. Given these economic advantages it is imperative that this government and future governments continue to invest in major transport infrastructure such as ports and airports.
Due to our location, the Top End is the leader in Australia's export capacity. As of 2011, more than 636 million tonnes is exported from seaports in northern Australia. This represents 74 per cent of the national total of exports via seaports. I am excited to be part of the coalition's plan to develop the north through my position on the Joint Standing Committee on North Australia. I am a proud advocate for the Territory being a leader in this process.
The Territory's interest is obvious, through the large number of quality submissions to the joint standing committee received. It was really encouraging that people were able to share their ideas and their visions to ensure that we develop north Australia. The committee has travelled extensively across northern Australia and was in Darwin recently. I was proud of the number of quality submissions the committee received. In fact, we had so much interest in the committee that we will be coming back to Darwin later this month. It was great to be able to harvest the fantastic ideas that are developing in our community.
People in northern Australia know that the Abbott government are committed to developing the north—putting into action the promises we made at the election. As I said, I am excited about the opportunities the coalition commitment to develop the North will bring my electorate and all Territorians. I will continue to lobby this government to drive growth through the fantastic opportunities that we have in the Territory.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Price: Yes, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later point.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (10:45): I thought we were going to get something a little bit profound today and that we might get some insights into the needs of northern Australia, but what we got was a recitation of a set of statistics that anyone who has anything to do with the economic growth of Australia is well and truly familiar with. It seems that the member believes she has just discovered that we have Asia up there and there is this massive market. This has been a great process that has been happening in Australia since the Second World War—since the days of John Curtin. We have gradually come to realise that our geography is something that will ultimately determine our destiny. It is not the province of any particular government to say that they are the ones who have discovered this and developed it. If you look at the record of the Hawke-Keating years in focusing us on our northern neighbours you will see that that was a great leap forward. Every government since then has recognised that.
The idea that the previous Labor government or Labor governments before that had neglected the North is complete and palpable nonsense. I certainly, as the minister responsible for building ports and roads in Western Australia, was well and truly aware of the difficulty of extracting any money out of the Howard government to do any of the great big projects that we needed in Western Australia. As I have said before in this place, we were able to get funding from the federal Labor government for the North. The duplication of the Dampier Highway was a $110 million project, $90 million of which was the federal government's contribution. The rerouting of the Great Northern Highway into Port Hedland was a massive, much-needed project. The federal contribution to that was $191 million. $195 million was contributed by federal Labor into the expansion of the Ord River and a further $10 million was committed to advance the rollout of stage 3. Then we had Regional Development Australia, which invested $700 million to leverage programs of $1.9 billion. Many of those were in the north of the state. So the track record of Labor in having a focus on the North and in being prepared to provide that big infrastructure development is fair.
I enjoy being on the northern Australia committee. I want to compliment our chair, the member for Leichhardt, who I think is doing a good job. There is enormous potential, but we have to ensure that we follow the science. There is a lot of boosterism going on. A lot of really quite crazy projects, I have to say, are coming before us. The potential there is enormous, but we must be disciplined about this and look at the evidence that we are getting from the CSIRO as to what is sustainable.
We have seen enormous potential to develop irrigation. By not having massive dams on rivers but using a sustainable yield from the ground water we could see 120,000 hectares of new irrigated land that would enable us to not only lift agricultural and horticultural production but have our beef industry in the north of Australia be a much more vertically integrated operation, able to finish off cattle and have abattoirs there and really be the food bowl for Australia. But, as I say, there is so much boosterism that we need to be very, very careful that we work through this in a very productive way.
I also say that it is absolutely essential, if we are to get the proper development of northern Australia, that we make sure that we are bringing the Indigenous communities with us, that we are not slashing and burning their opportunities to get themselves into a sustainable position by slashing health funding and family services. (Time expired)
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (10:50): There is a fair bit that the member for Perth just said that I agree with. To develop the north of Australia we have to look around the rest of Australia and see what has gone before. We have seen the troubles in the Murray-Darling Basin. There were troubles with salinity, overfarming and other things that went on there. In speaking to people around Australia you would think that the Murray-Darling River system was the biggest in Australia. That is far from the truth. The Murray-Darling starts in Queensland and ends up in South Australia. It only rolls into one major exit. In Queensland we have the major river systems of the Burdekin and the Fitzroy rivers. They run into the Murray-Darling, Lake Eyre, the Gulf of Carpentaria and the Pacific Ocean.
My comments in relation to this will be, by necessity, representing north Queensland in relation to the development of northern Australia. When it comes to the development of northern Australia, I agree with the member for Perth: we must get our baseline science right because we must not make these mistakes again. When you look at the development of northern Australia and across the top end of Queensland, there are 25 river systems. We know what is in about five of them. When we come to development of northern Australia, the approach of someone like Dr Damian Burrows at CSIRO, with his freshwater research to know what is actually going on in river systems, makes the most sense to me.
When you are talking about the development of Australia, everybody wants the development in their area. What we have done wrong before is taken a higgledy-piggledy approach of $5 million here and $20 million there to see what comes up. But if you do the matrix the right way and look at the whole thing and ask, 'Who has the water?' and put that down and overlap it with who has the arable soil and overlap that with who has access to ports and transport you will come up with five or six projects that we could really progress. I have always said that, when it comes to the development of northern Australia, the one thing we cannot do is put in a $25 million mung bean crop in the Gulf of Carpentaria if it is going to ruin the $1 billion prawn industry. You cannot put in a dam if it is so flat in that area that the fastest runner in the world, Usain Bolt, cannot keep up with the rate of evaporation. We have to make sure that we do this right.
At the end of the day, we have to recognise that a group of people have gone from opposition to government and we cannot play too much politics. There are eight seats north of the Tropic of Capricorn. There are 142 seats south of it. So for Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, Julie Bishop and Warren Truss to come in here and say, 'This is the future of the country,' says a lot to me. It says a lot to the people in the north of Australia. Suddenly we have people understanding that this is basically half the country, with a tenth of the population, a minute number of seats and even fewer senators representing that part of the world. We know this is the way we have to do it.
Andrew Robb spoke in Townsville last year just before the election. He said that, at the moment, if you look at the tropical world, there is a population between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer of about 500 million people who would be considered middle class. That number is expected to grow by 2030 to 2035 to 3.6 billion people who will need quality protein, quality food, quality education and quality health. They will also need electricity.
What we have to do is recognise those opportunities and make the most of them. We are in a perfect position with the work that the government has done in securing a free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and is well on the way with China. We have to make sure we develop those things. We cannot ignore the role of Papua New Guinea in the development of Northern Australia. We must look at where our largest neighbour is. Our largest neighbour is Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world. Sometimes our relationship is prickly, but at all times we are able to do business with people.
So when it comes to the development of Northern Australia the first thing you must accept is that at last we have a government that is taking it seriously. At last we have a government that is extra doing the hard work to put down the patchwork to make sure we are looking at the macro situation and from there we can develop the projects. That is what we have to do with this process and we will deliver for the north of the country. I thank the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:55): I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion, and can I thank those who have contributed already, particularly my friend from Perth, the member for Perth.
I agree that there is a serious need for infrastructure and economic development in Northern Australia; I absolutely disagree that this government 'wants to maximise Northern Australia's enormous untapped potential' and that 'the Prime Minister has adopted measures that will end years of government inertia on developing this region'. That is the biggest load of codswallop that I have heard in a long time.
In 1996, after the Keating government was defeated, the first thing almost the Howard government did was to knock off a regional roads program in the Northern Territory and get rid of the Office of Northern Australia. That is what they did. That tradition has continued, because in this last budget they have strangled regional development of Australia; they have cut funding to education for Northern Australia that will affect constituents in my electorate; they have showed a pitiful interest in funding infrastructure in the north by committing less money to the Northern Territory than they are for the ACT; they have made education and training a second tier issue, with savage cuts to schools; they do not understand there can be no development without serious commitment to education and training—and that is very clear; they have endangered the future of Charles Darwin University and made a tertiary education unaffordable thousands of people in Northern Australia. That is not a bad start for a government that is supposed to be committed to Northern Australia!
I can say this: one of the things that I am most concerned about is the way they have stood aside to passively watch the town of Nhulunbuy get gutted because of a decision made in hubris by the current Northern Territory Chief Minister not to do a deal with Rio Tinto over gas to Gove. That has meant halving the size of the town. If the government were actually committed to Northern Australia they would have been in there with a rescue package. They haven't been near the place. I have to say to those on the other side who think that somehow or other Tony Abbott is different from the rest—he ain't.
oil and gas But I do say we are doing significant things in Northern Australia and we ought to be very proud of them. In the Northern Territory, for example, we know already that there has been great work done in oil and gas, tourism, cattle and buffalo, and horticulture. We know that ConocoPhillips and INPEX's success in bringing gas onshore will lead to further development of the Top End, particularly the Darwin region, as a world-class oil and gas hub; we know that cattle and buffalo will become more attractive as the Asian middle classes grow; we know that AAco need to be congratulated for their investment in the abattoir at Livingston outside of Darwin—$80 million worth is not an enormous vote of confidence in that industry; we know about the iron ore developments in the Roper Valley; we know about developments in the Indigenous tourism training and investment; and we know about the strong gains made in horticulture. The Darwin rural area produces $180 million to $200 million worth of produce a year. They produce more mangoes with higher value than in Queensland. Melons are worth $50-$60 million. There is Asian fruit and vegetables—bok choy, kalian, choy sum, dragon fruit et cetera of around $40 million. Vietnamese-Australian farmers working in the Darwin rural area are turning over $60 million a year, the same as Ord stage 1. This is significant work that is being done that is not understood by this parliament and certainly not understood by this government.
There are huge impediments to Northern Australia growing and they are partly the responsibility of government. We have seen funding cut to CSIRO. We need to understand the science of the north. Cutting funding to Northern Australian institutions will not help. The Northern Australia and savanna CRCs, the CSIRO, Desert Knowledge, Charles Darwin University all need support.
There are huge impediments to what is happening in the Northern Territory, and some vandals are making what is happening in Northern Australia their own province. I am now talking about the Northern Territory government and its attitude to water. They are carving up the Territory's priceless water resources for their mates. A prominent CLP pastoralist, a candidate in the last election at Mataranka, has been given 5,000 megalitres of water. That is enough to run a significant number of farms. When asked what she was going to do with that water, she said she did not know. So this water was allocated not out of some plan for production but on the basis that someone wanted to get economic benefit out of trading and water. Another CLP figure, a fundraiser for them, received 21,000 megalitres in the Daley only recently and this person has never grown a thing in his life.
Water is a huge issue for Northern Australia. Understanding the science of water is absolutely fundamental. Making allocations based on your political mates is not the way to do good science or react to what is needed in Northern Australia.
I congratulate finally the chair of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia for the magnificent work he is doing in leading that committee in his deliberations and travelling around the north.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson—The Nationals Deputy Whip) (11:00): I rise to speak on this private member's motion. I do so as a proud North Queenslander who has often spoken in this place about the need for infrastructure in the north. I, like many other North Queenslanders, have often asked the questions: what if the true potential of the north was recognised by government? What if infrastructure was built to make the most of the assets we have in the north: our abundance of water; our welcoming climate; and enough space to swing a very, very long cat? What if policies, departments and decisions recognised that only four per cent of the population lives in the top half of the continent, and enabled and encouraged better development of Northern Australia?
Those what-ifs would require a government with vision such as the Bjelke-Petersen government, which delivered the Burdekin Dam, the last major piece of infrastructure that was built in North Queensland. The Abbott government too is a government with vision. As we promised before the election, the government set up the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, which will inform a white paper on the north. Unlike the previous government, which grabbed the nearest thought bubble and then rammed it down people's throats, this government is actually out there listening to the people.
The committee on Northern Australia development is asking people who live, work and operate businesses across Northern Australia what unique obstacles they face and what opportunities exist. The committee has visited Perth, Cairns and Mackay and other northern parts of WA, Darwin and the Top End, and has listened to key stakeholders across north and north-west Queensland. I recognise and pay tribute to the chair of the joint parliamentary select committee who is here in the chamber, the member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch.
Some of the input from those regional areas has been along familiar lines: doing something about increasing the zonal tax rebate and other business-led tax rebates and incentives for individuals, because you have to understand that everything is more expensive in the north. A Deloitte Access Economics report identified Queensland and regional areas as those hardest hit by things like the carbon tax, so we need to do something about that as well.
Much of the input has been about local opportunities and, in my electorate in coastal North Queensland, some very good potential projects were presented to the joint select committee which were often water related. Water is a key part of driving development. The north sees very little rain during the dry season but, during the wet, it really rains. So new dams would provide a steady reliable source of water.
The Urannah Dam project would open up an area of greenfield irrigation development only 100 kilometres from an existing agricultural area—that is, the sugar industry of the Burdekin to the north and the horticultural industry of Bowen to the south. Catching water in the wet tropic areas around the back of Eungella, Urannah would supply reliable water to the dry tropic area around Collinsville, which is now ably represented by the member for Capricornia who is going to speak later in this motion. The dam site would be in a deep valley that would produce a dam almost the same capacity as the Burdekin Dam but would only flood 20 per cent of the country that the Burdekin Dam actually covers.
Another water project in the Bowen area is an extension of the Elliot Main Channel, which is already partly constructed. It was originally designed to transport 60,000 megalitres of water each year from the Burdekin through a 93-kilometre open channel and a 63-kilometre main pipeline to Bowen and the agricultural areas in-between. Given the infrastructure is partly built already, you would only require a government with vision to reinvigorate the project to further grow agriculture in the north.
But there is more to the north than agriculture. We already have a thriving tourism market—it was once thriving; it has gone through a bit of a hiatus lately but it is getting there again. There is no shortage of drawcards throughout Northern Australia, particularly in North Queensland, such as the Whitsunday Islands and the Reef in my electorate. But there are significant cost issues. One of the obstacles raised by the committee has been the high cost of all the taxes and charges that go on airports, which in some cases actually means more than the cost of an airfare from one Asian country to another. It sets us back.
I would also like to point out one of the visionary, job-creating projects in my elect—that is, the Abbot Point coal terminal expansion, something that we need to support because it is going to be important to growth and development and new jobs in Northern Australia. A visionary government, such as the one we now have, is setting the course for the future and will not be persuaded by emotional and irrational ideological arguments against development such as the Abbot Point plan. The Abbot Point plan and the tough conditions that have been put on it by the environment minister will ensure responsible development with a net benefit to the environment.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (11:06): I embrace the opportunity to speak on this debate today. Northern Australia has received a lot of attention by this parliament and that in the main has been due to the tireless efforts of the member for Leichhardt who through his lifetime in this parliament has devoted a substantial portion of it to a better understanding of the opportunities and fragile nature of Northern Australia.
In many ways, because Northern Australia has such a small population and is such a large area—that entire area of our continent north of the Tropic of Capricorn to the Arafura Sea and the Cook Strait—this part of our countryside is represented by a relatively small number of parliamentarians who in turn also represent every strain of the politics of this parliament.
So it means that Northern Australia really does not have in this place a consolidated, powerful caucus that can win votes and act in the interests of Northern Australia. To pursue the interests of Northern Australia, we need to do it through logical, carefully considered debate and with a commitment to developing our north through an understanding of the fragile nature of Northern Australia and also through a lot of common sense. What I have always enjoyed about my experience in Northern Australia is that the politics, the investment and the practicalities of Northern Australia are so solidly driven by common sense.
It has always seemed to me that Gladstone on our east coast has a lot more in common with Karratha on our west coast than Gladstone or Karratha have with the various capital cities of their states, Brisbane and Perth; that Broome and Cairns have more in common than Broome has with Perth or Cairns has with Brisbane; that Mount Isa in the great minerals province of the north-west of Queensland and Newman and Tom Price in the Pilbara have everything in common—logistics, power generation, health, Indigenous issues, cares, concerns and opportunities; that the mining provinces of Northern Australia have more in common with each other than either have with the capital cities of their states is self-evidently the truth.
Northern Australia is the home to a small but vibrant population. It is the home to some of the most innovative agricultural practices. It is the home to our northern beef industry, a billion-dollar industry. It is the home to our iron ore exporting industry, which next year will export in excess of 800 million tonnes of iron ore—contributing around a quarter of the entire state revenue of the government of Western Australia. We must consider the importance of our coal exports through Queensland, the importance of uranium mining, the importance of developing our hydrocarbon reserves off Australia and the importance of doing it all right.
We have had a substantial amount of work done by our parliament over the course of the last decade commencing with the insightful work that was started by the member for Leichardt through the Northern Land and Water Task Force, which considered the catchments through Northern Australia as distinct from the geography of Northern Australia itself. That work stands as a seminal piece of work in considering land and water use through Northern Australia. We must be cognisant of the environmental needs of water flows through Northern Australia, while, at the same time, the capacity for mosaic farming opportunities allows us to look carefully at how we can expand our horticultural and agricultural industries through Northern Australia. Other speakers have spoken of the great gains that have been made in horticulture by Vietnamese farmers in the Northern Territory generating in excess of $50-million worth of product each year through their insightful use of land and water.
We are getting there in Northern Australia but we need careful consideration—not a political debate about Northern Australia—based on the science, based on careful land use and based on the interests of the environment and of the people of Northern Australia.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (11:11): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to follow the member for Brand. Listening to what he said, he was very informed, very thoughtful and very insightful on the needs of Northern Australia. This is clearly going to be reflective of the report we are putting out. There are a lot of members on this committee but those of us that have been actively participating in this have been doing so very much in a tripartisan way. At this point I would like to acknowledge the deputy chair, the member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan, who was very supportive and very capable in the work that she did. The member for Solomon, Natasha Griggs, also did a lot of good work on this. My namesake, the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, travelled around with us quite extensively. I have no doubt at all of his commitment to making these things happen. George Christensen, the member for Dawson, did great work. I see the member for Capricornia, Michelle Landry, is coming up shortly and she was very good too. The senators including Ian Macdonald, Rachel Siewert—our Greens senator—Senator Eggleston and Deborah O'Neill also made very positive contributions and were very productive. I have to acknowledge Senator Macdonald, who really started my journey on this back in 2002 when he hosted the Northern Australia forum at Knotts Crossing near Katherine. As the member for Brand mentioned, the start of it was really the Northern Australia Land and Water Task Force back in 2006-07 and we have continued on.
There are some great opportunities but the key to this is not partisan politics. Take the politics out of it. We have some fabulous opportunities in Northern Australia: the Urannah and Nullinga dams were mentioned and both have considerable merit as does the extension to the Elliot Main Channel. Other members talked about special economic zones. I have to say, Desert Knowledge Australia's Desert Knowledge Precinct in Alice Springs is something we need to seriously look at if we are going to be looking at development as a whole. Aside from innovations such as mobile phone technology, solar panels et cetera at the Desert Knowledge Precinct, the algae project at James Cook University in Townsville is something equally as astounding.
We found some fabulous outcomes in Indigenous employment. Sid Rusca and the Rusca Brothers in the Northern Territory have a 100 per cent Indigenous workforce at the Western Desert mining project at the Bing Bong Port at Borroloola. The company is 100 per cent owned by an Indigenous family and is something we can be really proud of.
We wrestle in this place with the challenges of engaging Indigenous people, but you get out into these places and you see people like Sid Rusca and his boys with 100 per cent employment. And we are not talking about menial stuff; we are talking about jobs where some of his employees are getting $1,000 or $1,500 a week. He is employing people straight out of communities like Ngukurr and Borroloola, and these people are aged between 17 and 60, and they are doing meaningful work. There is another one we are looking at in a couple of weeks time, Northern Projects Contracting: the Waanyi Aboriginal Corporation. Derek Aplin is the chair. They did Century Zinc; they also have a job with BHP. They are doing fabulous work.
The one thing I would say on the negative side is: let's not blame the government too much about what happened at Nhulunbuy. When we went to other places, like Paraburdoo—and we will certainly see it when we go to Weipa and other places—we saw that the company itself had a hell of a lot to do with what happened, and they should not be let off the hook. We got evidence at Nhulunbuy that after 40 years there was absolutely no legacy left when they walked away. Let's just remember that. I am sure we are going to get the same sort of thing out at Weipa.
Thank you to the members who have participated. You are doing a fabulous job, and I look forward to an outstanding report.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:16): In politics as in sport you have to know thy enemy. I have read the coalition's 2030 vision for developing Northern Australia. As a Queenslander I was interested in what they had to say. The area north of the Tropic of Capricorn is much misunderstood by people who come from the southern states. Tourism, mining and agriculture are absolutely critical not just to my state of Queensland but to Western Australia and the Northern Territory: mining in the Pilbara in north-west Western Australia; agriculture across the region; tourism, the beauty of Uluru and the wonder of the Great Barrier Reef, and even the majesty of the Kimberley. They cannot be ignored. They are simply amazing places to visit.
The coalition says they want a Northern Australia strategic partnership—I think that is a sensible idea—engaging the premiers of Western Australia and Queensland and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. They talk about audits of red tape and green tape. They recognise—and I think many people do not recognise this—the importance of the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway comes up the coast of Queensland. I know that last week the Minister for Agriculture thought it was in New South Wales or Victoria, but it actually goes up the spine of Queensland. According to the North Queensland Roads Alliance, it contributes about $11.5 billion to the Queensland economy—that is a lot of money—and over 60,000 jobs. So this is particularly important.
But the jury is still out. I welcome the joint parliamentary committee. I hope it does good work and I hope it comes up with strong recommendations so we can have a bipartisan approach across this space. But I fear that—with cuts to rail, cuts to CSIRO, cuts to regional universities like James Cook, cuts to schools and health services and $534.4 million in cuts to Indigenous affairs in my shadow portfolio—we will not see the good outcomes we would expect and we hope for in relation to that parliamentary committee. It is not just about rhetoric. It has to be matched by momentum and political muscle and there has to be money behind it.
Whilst a lot of people do not recognise the contribution Indigenous people are making, I applaud the member for Leichhardt—that might be the first time I have ever said that in this place—because he did mention the contribution of Indigenous people to Northern Australia. Indigenous Land Corporation has done some good work. Since 1995 they have acquired property in Northern Australia. There is $30 million in land management enterprise development, particularly in remote and regional areas in the north. They have acquired more than four million hectares of property. They are contributing a lot; nearly 100,000 head of cattle across Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland. There are many people, as the member for Leichhardt correctly stated, who are working these stations. We have about 2.5 million hectares of Indigenous held land in production across the country. Many people would not understand the wonderful contribution—the knowledge, the history and the participation—of Indigenous people across the north of this country and what they have done.
But I fear the cuts we are seeing—for instance, the cuts to Indigenous health and the cuts to Indigenous programs. On Friday in Senate estimates, the minister could not outline what those particular cuts would mean. Indeed, in the area of the member for Leichhardt—and I praised him before—there are $3.5 million in cuts in the Torres Strait Regional Authority. We do not know how that will impact on that particular authority. They claim it will not impact on the ground but I find it hard to believe that—with the alleged efficiency dividend of 4.5 per cent, much higher than the rest of the areas of cuts across the country—that will not have an impact on front-line services. I do not really believe these efficiency dividend claims by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. I think this will have a big impact on Northern Australia, because in parts of Northern Australia the Indigenous population is very high.
We have nearly a 100 per cent Indigenous population way up in the north of Queensland. But even in the southern parts of Queensland, in my area and in Central Queensland, there are massive numbers of Indigenous people, who we should honour and cherish. We should applaud the contribution they have made to Northern Australia. They run cattle stations in the live cattle export area. It is an important industry, and I have always been a strong supporter of the live export trade. I think it is important for North Queensland and it is important for the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I have been a strong advocate for that industry, which employs about 12,000 people and contributes $1 billion to the Australian economy. That has to be recognised, particularly in Northern Australia.
So I welcome the motion. I hope the committee does good work and I hope the member for Leichhardt actually backs it up with money into the portfolio areas I have referred to.
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (11:21): In 2050, reports indicate that Australia's population could double to reach 39 million or as high as 42 million people. At the same time, the population of Asia will boom as the number of people in the world grows to 9.6 billion human beings. By then, three out of four of the most populated countries will be Asian. Not surprisingly, these include India, China, and our neighbour Indonesia. If assessments prove correct, one of the biggest concerns will be the ability to feed these people and provide the fibres and raw materials to clothe and house them in a sustainable way.
If we act now, Australia has time to improve its position as a significant supplier of food and fibre to the world. I note a comment from Ian Burnett, from Agforce in Queensland, who suggests we cannot grow food as cheaply as other countries with which we will be fiercely competing. But what we can aim for is to supply Asia with food and fibre of a premium quality that attracts 'far better premium prices' than other parts of the world. This is why a major focus on the future potential of northern Australia is so important
I am a supplementary member of the Parliamentary Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia, which is currently looking into the future potential of agriculture north of the Tropic of Capricorn, which runs through my electorate of Capricornia. I am convinced that we have to plan now for the boldest developments in Australia since the Snowy Mountain scheme. This may involve building more dams, opening up land previously locked away and securing water supplies to arid inland areas, some of which may even be desert.
I remind the House, that the ancient Egyptians were able to harness water into the desert and generate their own food bowl to feed their own growing population many thousands of years ago. Right now, researchers at my local university in Rockhampton, CQUniversity, are researching dryland rice cropping for northern Australia without the need for vast irrigation networks or water allocations. CQUniversity, together with Australian Agricultural Technology Limited, are conducting field trials of dryland rice geno-types. These geno-types are showing commercial potential for growing dryland rice varieties in North Queensland during the wet season. This is an area of huge importance for drought-prone Australia and for the entire Asia-Pacific region, as pressures on population and food security increase.
One project local government is pushing for in my area is a previous idea for a Fitzroy agricultural corridor along Queensland's lower Fitzroy River. Reports suggest, if viable, such a project could lead to more feedlots, piggeries and horticulture and vine and vegetable crops, such as citrus, grapes and carrots. But the future may not just be in wide-scale broadacre cropping. It may be in niche areas like gourmet foods that attract premium prices.
Recently, I took the agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, to see a hydroponic lettuce farm near Rockhampton which was started by the Wilson family. This small farm operation involves six family members and employs eight other local staff. While you might be thinking that this is not a unique ideal, it is a very unique venture for this arid, hot part of the Tropic of Capricorn. If we are talking about increased food production we have to think outside the box, like the Wilson's, and turn to different types of farming methods to make use of difficult landscapes. The Wilsons now supply Coles, Woolworths and IGA with gourmet lettuce. Developing northern Australia will take bold thinking and bold decision making, but it must be done and this government must be at the forefront of getting on with the job.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (11:25): It is a great pleasure to follow, in particular, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Brand, who collectively and individually have a great wealth of knowledge on the issues facing northern Australia and, of course, the opportunities that are there for northern Australia. One of the unique things about Australia is that about 90 per cent of us live in urban areas, 60 per cent live in capital cities and an enormous 80 per cent of us live within 50 kilometres of the coast. We are the most urban concentrated country in the world. There is no doubt about that. With a land mass of 7.6 million square kilometres, people who live in Europe and elsewhere might think that strange, but they might also understand is that 20 per cent of our land mass is desert and much more has very low rainfall.
What is northern Australia? It is the north, of course—not just any one state but the north of Western Australia, the Northern Territory and, of course, Queensland. It is not surprising, therefore, to see such a mix of members speaking to this motion. I want to congratulate the government for forming a select committee on northern Australia. That is a good thing. I get a bit concerned about committees. We seem to be having plenty of them at the moment and too many white papers and too much policy inertia. But this is a big issue, and you cannot criticise the government for taking that initiative and building on the very, very good work of the 2009 Northern Australia Taskforce, which was initiated by the former government.
Policy in northern Australia is not something to be rushed into. The issues are very complex. People would not see it at first blush, but the environment is very fragile—the balance is very fragile—and we must take that into account. The north is where much of our wealth lies and will lie in the future. Of course, much of our mineral deposits are extracted out of northern parts of Australia, including coal, and much of our food at the moment is exported out of the north, including our beef industry and the live export industry. This is a critical industry, worth about half a billion annually to the north, which utilises lands that are not much good for anything but running cattle—therefore, adding diversity to the economies of the north.
The previous speaker, the member for Capricornia, was talking about the opportunities in food in Asia. I think it is at least some times overestimated what role the north can play in our best endeavours to fully capitalise on what I call the Asia-led dining boom. But it will play a role. With innovation, expertise and the right planning from government, it will play a role—and it will need to play a role. If we are to significantly lift our output as well as seek high-yield products for the Asian market, we will need all the arable land that we can secure.
Anyone who has ever flown across the continent heading for Asia—and that is, I am sure, everyone in this chamber—and watched the red desert all the way until you come to the Ord scheme will know what can be done with the right sorts of resources and the right planning. The question becomes of course how sustainable these things can be done, but I have no doubt that the north will play a role in the Asia food boom.
In my experience, the council of Northern Australia is already doing good work there. When I was agriculture minister, I had the opportunity to engage with the regional ministers who form part of that committee. Many of them fortuitously are also agriculture ministers, which I think is a wonderful synergy for those who sit on that committee and for those who are trying to make the most of the opportunities posed in the north.
These things are not as simple as building dams, as important as dams can be and no doubt will be in the future, but I discourage politicians from telling people in the south of the country that we can take on the world if only we build more dams. It is not that simple by any stretch of the imagination. The issues are far more challenging and more complex than that. That is why I welcome this, even if we currently have some policy inertia with the committee, the work of the task force and whatever the government might do with its coming program. (Time expired)
Debate adjourned.
India
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:30): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the decisive victory in India’s recent national election of the Bharatiya Janata Party, led by Shri Narendra Modi;
(b) India’s achievement in building secular, democratic government since independence in 1947;
(c) the continuing improvements in living standards of the Indian people over recent decades; and
(d) India’s growing role in international affairs; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to move promptly to build a strong relationship with the new Indian Government.
The victory in this month's Indian general election of the BJP, led by Narendra Modi, presents great opportunities for India, for Australia and for Australia-India relations. It was a remarkable victory. It was remarkable for Mr Modi himself. As a child and teenager, he sold tea with his father at a railway station in the western Indian city of Vadnagar. Now he is the leader of the world's largest democracy. The size of Mr Modi's victory was remarkable. His is the first government to have an outright majority in the Indian lower house since the election of 1984. His victory brings a big change in the complexion of Indian politics. There has been a shift away from the Indian National Congress, which has dominated Indian politics for almost all the years since independence in 1947. Mr Modi has a real opportunity, but as the leader of a country of 1.3 billion people, he also faces huge and daunting challenges.
Growth in the Indian economy improved after the reforms that began in the early 1990s, but in recent years economic growth has slowed. India's GDP per person is one-tenth that of the United States and half that of China. Mr Modi will be working to narrow that gap. I hope he can promote growth in ways that benefit all Indians. Mr Modi's victory brings opportunities for Australia. Australia and India share values of democracy and the rule of law. We have strong historical links and a common language. Ties between the people of Australia and India have been growing rapidly.
There are 450,000 Indian migrants in Australia, our fourth largest migrant community, making a wonderful contribution to Australian life. India is our largest source of permanent and skilled migrants. Tourism has been increasing. Last year there were 169,000 visitors from India to Australia. Diplomatic and strategic links with India strengthened greatly during our time in government. A joint declaration on security co-operation was agreed to by Prime Minister Rudd in 2009 and Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Gillard made successful visits to India. Our ties with India are strong and they can grow and deepen further.
The India country strategy that was part of Labor's Australia in the Asian century white paper said that out of all our major relationships, the one with India had the greatest potential to continue to grow. The strategy sets out ways that India can help Australia become more productive and resilient through greater trade and investment. It says closer people-to-people links, continuing migration and increasing travel will benefit both countries. India has a long tradition of support for multilateral cooperation and the white paper says we should work together to strengthen such dialogue.
I urge the government to take up the opportunities identified in the white paper to deepen our relationship with India and to make it a priority to build strong relations with India's new government. It is economically, culturally and socially a country with which we have many existing links but there is potential to deepen, strengthen and broaden those links, in part because of the very significant Indian diaspora here in Australia but also because of the firm footing on which the previous prime ministerial visits have placed the relationship. It is an opportunity Australia should not miss.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (11:37): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Rishworth: I second the motion and reserve me right to speak.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:35): The people of India should be congratulated on the successful conduct of India's democratic election, a significant achievement. Around 66 per cent of 815 million registered voters cast a vote, making it the largest democratic exercise in the world. The Australian government congratulates Bharatiya Janata Party, led by Narendra Modi, and its National Democratic Alliance partners on their decisive win. Prime Minister Abbott spoke to Mr Modi on 16 May to congratulate him on his electoral success and to invite Mr Modi to visit Australia to attend the G20 summit and to conduct a bilateral program.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, spoke to the new Minister of External Affairs Mrs Sushma Swaraj, to congratulate her on her appointment. The Australian government looks forward to working with Mr Modi's government to strengthen the strong and strategic partnership with India. I also want to add my own congratulations to Narendra Modi and to the party as chair of the Australia parliament's India network. I look forward to working with the member for Greenway to ensure a great relationship with India.
India has a population of 1.27 billion people. Such a landslide victory means that Indians are desperate for change. Mr Modi not only brings in a new government but represents a change in the way the Indian people respond to ineffective government. He stands as a symbol of empowerment and has a remarkable story, from a humble background to a strong record in the state of Gujarat where he became chief minister in October 2001. He was by far the longest serving of anyone in that position until he became Prime Minister. He has been immensely successful in transforming the state of Gujarat from a more economically backward state with no infrastructure into a progressive, modern and peaceful area—a remarkable record.
In the 67 years since independence, India has made a conscious and successful effort to remain secular. It is something that we share in common with them. It is a country so strongly rooted in rich Hindu tradition and culture. There are people from a plethora of religious and other backgrounds. It is rather easy to allow, sometimes, religious doctrines to infiltrate government and administrative processes. Secularism has been a highly important tool in maintaining communal relations, in particular between Hindus and Muslims. India has always, in that regard, been described as a land of contradictions. From Bollywood to literature, from music to textiles, culture and religion permeate every level of Indian society and have become India's most popular and visible exports.
Sometimes people observe that there are striking physical differences between our countries. Sometimes it is assumed that we have little in common. This is a gross misconception. From my own dealings with the Indian-Australian communities in Western Sydney and our bigger cities, and from the great relationship we have shared over the years, I can attest that India and Australia share a great history, not just of British colonisation and being English-speaking nations. We are also large democracies, secular states and key economic players in the Asia-Pacific region. We have strong relations in vital economic, political and cultural ways. There is a sizeable Indian diaspora here in Australia, with a large proportion being very skilled migrants.
Tourism is an important way that we broaden cultural boundaries. We have seen great grown in recent years, an increase of 7.5 per cent from 2012-13 to 2013-14 in tourism. We also have international students. While this has suffered some bad reputational situations in the recent past, there are very strong links built on Indian recognition of Australia's expertise in international education. India is the second highest source country for foreign students in Australia. Australian institutions are also expanding the delivery of education services in India to assist India to meet its vocational training and skills development needs. The government hopes to begin sending students to India from 2015 under the government's New Colombo Plan.
Under the leadership of its new chair, senior Australian businessman Ashok Jacob, the Australia-India Council is playing its part by strengthening its work in science, technology, public policy, tourism, sport and the arts. The Australian government is encouraging greater trade expansion between our two nations and the export of resources to India, which is driving Indian development. The re-establishment of the uranium trade between our two countries has been more than welcome given its vital nature.
Our government is looking forward to strengthening parliamentary ties between India and Australia. I want to note the great victory that the BJP has had in this election and welcome the new government. We are hoping against great hope that we see the Prime Minister visit Australia in the near future. I look forward to meeting all of the new members of parliament and the new ministers in the new government, and I hope we have a great relationship between our two nations well into the future.
Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (11:40): I join with others in supporting the motion by the member for Sydney to congratulate Prime Minister Modi and the BJP for their quite stunning election recently in India and also to encourage the Australian government to build on the record of previous governments to increase engagement with, and to develop our relationship with, India into the future. As earlier speakers have said, there are a number of things about the current situation in India which are advantageous, potentially, for Australia but also provide an opportunity for India itself to grasp the nettle of its future.
As has been said, it has been more than a quarter of a century since a government in India has been in a clear majority and not in some form of coalition. That in itself provides India and the BJP with some opportunities around the question of setting a course into the future. As the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, mentioned, Prime Minister Modi had an impressive record as regional head in Gujarat state, an area that was seen as being quite underdeveloped in relation to the rest of India. He embraced policies and an approach to try and achieve advancement in that state, and it was quite successful. Frankly, there are some significant challenges around the question of corruption and some areas of internal dissent within India. A majority government will give the BJP the opportunity to lead with respect to those issues. I wish him and his party well with respect to that.
They also build on the country's base which has been growing exponentially and which has significant potential. A snapshot of modern India shows a GDP of some US$1.870 trillion in 2013, a GDP per capita of US$1,504, GDP growth of 4.4 per cent and a population of over 1.2 billion. With respect to Australia, our trade base has grown from around $3.6 billion in two-way trade value in 2000-01 to in excess of $16 billion in 2012-13. The growth is on the way up. The opportunities are there.
India has links to Australia. It has been mentioned that we share links in terms of a colonial past, and with that comes language and some governmental similarities. As the member for Sydney said, when we look to the opportunities of the Asian century there is often a focus on China—and rightly so, given our trade relationship with China—but there is no doubt that the potential of developing links with India is more than significant.
It is a very young population. As we know, many young students have come to Australia and we have had increased levels of migration from India to Australia, to the extent where it is now, for the first time in the last several years, our most significant source of migrants on a permanent basis. I know from going to citizenship ceremonies in my own electorate that there are more and more Indian-Australians who are proud of their heritage and also very proud to embrace the opportunities which Australia brings for them. I think one of the key things we need to do into the future is to utilise the skill base of those who have come from India and made Australia their home.
The potential is significant. The opportunities for the future are great. It is incumbent on the government to build on what occurred in recent years in building that relationship. I welcome the offer from Prime Minister Abbott for Prime Minister Modi to visit Australia. I think that links such as that—such as the visit of former Prime Minister Gillard and also, before that, Rudd—were key elements in building the relationship into the future. The opportunities for doing that now are significant. As we look at the links with respect to students, as we look to the links in terms of trade, and as we look at the potential for growing particularly service industries, a development on the base that has also occurred around the question of mining and resources in more recent years, the potential for Australia to play a role in India's development into the future and to benefit from that role is significant. Together, we can help build the Asian century in a manner which ensures that it is of great benefit to both India and Australia.
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (11:45): I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating Narendra Modi and the BJP on their decisive win last month in the recent Indian elections. Mr Modi was sworn in as Prime Minister last week after a successful campaign that has inspired millions around the world. After taking office last week, Mr Modi expressed his commitment to leading a 'strong, developed and inclusive India that actively engages with the global community to strengthen the cause of world peace and development'. I commend Mr Modi on his words and his vision for the world's largest democracy and one of our most important international partners. The people of India should be congratulated on the successful conduct of this very significant election. An election of this magnitude has never been conducted anywhere in the world. Around 66 per cent of the 815 million registered voters cast a vote, making it the largest democratic exercise in history.
Prime Minister Abbott spoke to Mr Modi last month to congratulate him on his electoral success and to invite him to Australia to attend the G20 summit later this year. Continuing the strong bilateral programs that exist between our two countries will be a key priority for both prime ministers in the months and years ahead. The Australian government looks forward to working with Mr Modi's government to strengthen our Strategic Partnership with India. Building a genuine Strategic Partnership with India is a long-term project and one to which this government is firmly committed. We recognise the enormous potential for economic, political and strategic engagement between our two nations. We also recognise the strong people-to-people links that already exist and the prospect to further grow in the future.
Under this government, parliamentary engagement with India is increasing every year. We look forward to engaging with India's new parliament. The Australia-India Council will support the visit of a delegation of young Indian members of parliament later this year. Meanwhile, the Australian parliament is also planning for a parliamentary delegation to visit India later this year. Thanks to delegations like these and a commitment to regional cooperation, we have established a bilateral architecture of annual ministerial meetings on foreign affairs, trade, education, and energy cooperation issues. Early engagement with Mr Modi's new government will ensure even closer cooperation and economic diplomacy between our two nations.
India is already our fifth-largest export destination, and this relationship is mutually valuable. Australia's resource exports to India are helping to drive India's development. Two-way trade has grown in value from $3.3 billion in 2000 to over $15 billion in 2013. We see potential for growth in investment in both directions, particularly given that both the Australian government and Mr Modi's government are committed to cutting red tape around investment. Our two governments share the goal of increasing regional prosperity and stability, and we welcome Mr Modi's commitment to business and economic reforms.
Education links between our countries are particularly strong and build upon Indian recognition of Australia's expertise in this area. India is the second-highest source country for foreign students in Australia. Australian institutions are also expanding the delivery of educational services in India to assist India to meet its vocational training and skills development needs. Australia hopes to begin sending students to India from 2015 under the government's New Colombo Plan. Australia also receives high numbers of Indian skilled migrants. India is Australia's largest source country of skilled migrants, and, increasingly, Indian tourist arrivals have strengthened our economy at home and brought our nations even closer together.
I would like to thank Shubha Kumar and Dr Aksheya Kumar from the India Club in my electorate of Bennelong for providing me with information about the recent elections in preparation for this speech. I understand that many sections of the Indian-Australian community in Bennelong are very hopeful of a bright future following Mr Modi's win.
Mr Modi's personal story has already inspired many. From a tea-seller's son to the 15th Prime Minister of India, he has risen from a humble background to international recognition. Shortly after taking office, Mr Modi committed to take India's development journey to new heights. He asked for the 'support, blessings and active participation' of the Indian people and the international community. Today, this government offers its support for the new Prime Minister. I trust he will fulfil the aspirations of millions of people worldwide.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:50): I am pleased to rise in support of this motion moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition noting the recent election victory by Narendra Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, but also congratulating the people of India for a very successful election and the largest democratic exercise in the world. From 7 April through to 12 May, one-thirteenth of the world's population went to the polls in what was an extraordinary period for democracy and, of course, a landmark election for India. On the final day of the five-week election cycle, more than 535 million Indians had had their say on the future of the world's second most populous country and largest democracy. I wish to congratulate the officials involved with conducting the election but also the people of India for what was by all accounts a very successful election period. That is a remarkable figure, made even more remarkable by the fact that it represents 130 million more voters than in the previous election, in 2009. The result of the world's largest exercise in democracy was a resounding victory for the leader of the BJP, Narendra Modi, whose party won a parliamentary majority in its own right, the first time that this feat has been achieved since 1984.
As a close friend of this great nation, Australia has watched as India has built a successful secular democratic government. The first Indian election, in 1952, was described by some as the biggest gamble in the history of democracy. Clearly that paid off. Fast forward six decades, and India has just held the biggest election in the history of democracy. That achievement speaks volumes as to how far this nation and these people have come. With one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, India has experienced a steady increase in its standard of living, driven rapidly by a growing middle class, which at last count was close to 300 million people. It is pleasing to note the increased confidence in India's economic future that has come on the back of this historic election, with the stock market jumping more than six points in the wake of the victory and the rupee surging to just under 60c against the US dollar.
Recognising India's important place on the world stage, the former Labor government worked hard to strengthen Australia's relationship with India. In 2009 the Rudd government signed the Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation, which took to a new level strategic relations between Australia and India. There is a strong tourism market between both nations. India is one of the largest sources of tourists for Australia. In migration, India is the largest source of skilled migration for Australia. And of course educational cooperation is one of the great strengths in the relationship between Australia and India, particularly around vocational education and training and higher education. I am pleased to say that many of those Indian educational migrants are studying in my electorate.
This is the background behind the previous Labor government's focus on Australia in the Asian century, through the Asian century white paper. If Australia is going to be part of Asia, we need to be able to communicate with Asia. A particular focus in the Asian century white paper was on languages in schools, and one of those languages was Hindi. We urge the current government to continue the good work of building stronger relations, through communications and through teaching Asian languages, particularly Hindi, in our school system.
It is encouraging to hear that the new Indian Prime Minister has a keen interest in foreign affairs, with expectations that the new government's foreign policies will be backed with greater resources. There are a number of challenges for India, of course. Their economy has experienced stagflation in the past. The relationship with Pakistan is a key strategic challenge. But, based on the success of this election, we wish the Indian government all the best and look forward to working with them.
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (11:56): I am pleased to be able to speak today to this motion on Australia's relationship with India, and I commend the member for Sydney for putting it to the House. Within Reid, I have the honour of representing an incredibly valuable Australian Indian community. Over the last two years or so, I have been honoured to be able to call many members of that community friends. Since their arrival in Australia, Indian Australians have worked hard to provide a better life for their families and have made an invaluable contribution to this nation and indeed to my community in Reid. In Reid, like so many parts other parts of Australia, they have become leaders within our community in the field of business, education, engineering and health. I am delighted to inform the House that in Reid we have over 6½ thousand people who were born in India and many more who are proud to identify India as part of their cultural heritage. They are also extremely proud, and rightly so, of India's democratic processes, which have remained strong since India's independence in 1947.
The people of India should be congratulated on the successful conduct of India's democratic election, another successful achievement. To hear that over half a billion registered voters cast a vote, making it the largest democratic exercise in the world, is truly staggering. We saw for ourselves the complexities and challenges faced by our own Electoral Commission in the conduct of an election a fraction of that scale. I congratulate the Bharatiya Janata Party, the BJP, led by Narendra Modi and its National Democratic Alliance coalition partners on their decisive win. I understand that Prime Minister Abbott has spoken to Mr Modi to congratulate him on his electoral success and to extend an invitation to Mr Modi to visit Australia and attend the G20 summit. I applaud him for that.
The friendship extended by our Prime Minister should not be a surprise to anybody, as Australia and India have a long-established partnership across a broad range of areas. Whilst on the cricket pitch we are fierce competitors and have had many memorable battles, our strategic partnership is one that this government is committed to working to improve even further. Of course, this partnership is based on many common interests, most particularly in the areas of economic development, education and, as the member for Sydney notes in this motion, international affairs. The value of our relationship with India is illustrated by the fact that India is our fifth-largest export destination and that our exports of resources to India are helping to support India's development. This government remains committed to being a long-term and reliable energy supplier to the people of India. I am sure that all within this House, and our wider communities, are pleased to know that the trade between our two nations has grown substantially over the last 14 years, from $3.3 billion in 2000 to over $15 billion in 2013. Moreover, this government, and the Indian Australian community in Reid, see great potential for further growth in investment in both directions.
Education is at the heart of Indian society, and I know from my friendships within the community of Reid that education is valued greatly for its capacity to lift anybody to a higher level of achievement. I am therefore delighted that education links are strong and being built upon by recognition of Australia's expertise in this area, an expertise that is of course informed by participation of so many Indian Australians within that sector. I note that it is also hoped that we can begin sending students to India from 2015 under the government's New Colombo Plan.
The New Colombo Plan provides for a truly exciting opportunity for students to obtain work experience with a business in India. So not only will students meet other students and teachers but they will also gain an intern opportunity. They will see how a business operates, how a hospital functions, how a profession works and perhaps even our next generation of Australian election officials will benefit from seeing how an Indian election works.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (12:00): I rise to continue speaking about the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I was speaking about the importance of this bill in cutting the regulatory burden on small business. From 1 July 2014 this bill provides that employees will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless an employer opts in to provide parental leave pay to its employees.
Today I say to members opposite: think again about the burdens on small business. Think again about their needs and embrace this amending legislation, because it gives small business the choice. It gives an enormous advantage of some $44 million in savings to businesses and there is no merit for not agreeing to this amending legislation, as Labor has in the past.
Why are the government cutting red tape? Because it helps drive jobs. Small business is the engine room of our economy. Small business grows jobs, grows prosperity and builds confidence. We must take the regulatory burden off small business, to grow the jobs that our country needs. We understand how important this is. That is why we are abolishing the carbon tax and the mining tax. That is why we have an unashamed focus on our red tape repeal day. We want to do everything we can to boost small business and this bill is an important part of our firm strategy.
As I mentioned, the small business sector is the engine room of the Australian economy. When the Howard government was in power, around 53 per cent of people were employed in small business. Today, this number has dropped to only 43 per cent. Under Labor's watch, over the last six years, some 519,000 jobs were lost in small businesses across Australia. We are determined to reverse that. I ask members opposite to consider the cost of their continuing opposition of this important legislation.
There has been much misinformation about our Paid Parental Leave scheme from those opposite and in the media. Let me say this: Labor's campaign against our genuine Paid Parental Leave scheme shows how out of touch it is with what is happening across the rest of the world. Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme is paid at the minimum wage for only 18 weeks. But the World Health Organization has identified 26 weeks as the minimum period of exclusive care for optimal maternal and child health outcomes.
I refer to the comments made by the former Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the member for Jagajaga, last Thursday in this debate when talking about the importance of bonding with babies. What a shame she was not prepared to acknowledge that bonding requires the full recommended period of six months instead of short-changing women, to only 18 weeks.
Of the 34 countries in the OECD, 33 offer paid parental leave schemes. None of these countries derive its rate of payment of parental leave from the minimum wage. The scheme that Labor is sticking by demonstrates that we are lagging behind the world's economic powerhouses. Frankly, that is not good enough. It is not good enough for women, it is not good enough for families and it is not good enough for our economy. Our policy will allow Australia to catch up with the rest of the world and to lift our productivity.
I also want to draw the attention of the House to an article written by Anne Summers in The AgeandThe Sydney Morning Heraldon 6 May entitled 'Most mothers worse off on PM's leave scheme'. I referred earlier to how much misleading information there is in the media and this is yet one more example. This article contends that most mothers will be worse off. Unfortunately, Ms Summers has got her facts badly wrong. I actually addressed that in a letter to the editor. I want to put those facts on record here today. Ms Summers argued that 25 per cent of women who earn less than the national minimum wage will get a pay rise while on the current scheme, in contrast to low-paid women, who, under the coalition's scheme, will only receive leave calculated at their actual wage or, as she puts it, 'a raw deal.'
Ms Summers has got her facts badly wrong. The fact is that, under the coalition's scheme, mothers will be provided with 26 weeks paid parental leave at their actual wage or at the national minimum wage, whichever is the greater. Unlike Labor's scheme—and this is a very important difference—recipients of our Paid Parental Leave scheme will also receive superannuation.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, around 80 per cent of Australian women earn a salary of less than $62,400. The average salary for women who work full time is around $65,000. This means that women who earn the average full-time salary will be more than $21,000 better off under the coalition scheme because they will receive their actual wage over 26 weeks, instead of the minimum wage of around 18 weeks, and also because the coalition scheme includes superannuation. Under the government's scheme it also means that a woman earning the average full-time female salary of $65,000, who has a child at 26 years of age and another child at 29 years of age, will be around $50,000 better off in retirement than she would have been had she been under Labor's scheme.
The other very important thing that we will do is remove the ability to double-dip whereby recipients can access paid parental leave as well as their employer's scheme. This is a terrible waste and like so much of the waste we have seen under Labor we will address this double dip and eradicate it. We have made it very clear that paid parental leave should be a workplace entitlement and not a welfare payment. Prime Minister Abbott has every reason to celebrate the wonderful advances this policy will deliver for women, for families and for workplace productivity. So I say to the likes of Ms Summers that when it comes to adding up the benefits of the coalition's paid parental leave scheme Ms Summers's politically skewed assessment unfortunately has little credibility.
I also want to address some of the misleading statements that are continuing to be peddled by members opposite. Last Thursday we did hear this from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who made some disparaging statements in relation to millionaire plastic surgeons who receive paid parental leave. We have heard some similar comments from the member for Jagajaga. Like health care, all women should be entitled to paid parental leave. Let us not create a class warfare over a basic workplace entitlement. All babies matter, all families matter. So let us stop the attacks on some women and recognise that that first six months where a woman, and in some cases a man, has the opportunity to bond with their child is incredibly important, and our policy proudly stands by that incredibly important principle.
I also think it is very important to point out that, being a workplace entitlement and not a welfare measure, it is similar in fact to other workplace entitlements like sick leave, long service leave and carer's leave. Surely Labor is not proposing that those particular aspects of workplace leave be paid at the minimum rate. As the Prime Minister said last week, only two per cent of women in the workforce earn more than $100,000, so to characterise our scheme in the way in which members opposite are continuing to do does them no credit.
One of the great aspects of our policy that I am incredibly proud of is that we have included superannuation. I think every woman across this nation needs to understand that we are proudly incorporating superannuation in our paid parental leave scheme. As I have said, that will result in an incredible difference in terms of the way in which women will benefit from our scheme. Unfortunately, what we have seen from Labor is a scheme that does not reflect the recommendations made, it does not reflect what is going on in the rest of the world, and I very proud that we are championing a scheme that treats women seriously, that reflects the seriousness of women spending this valuable time with their children and makes such an important investment in workplace productivity.
Just like our paid parental leave scheme, our budget includes a range of important measures to help families. Over the next four years the Australian government funding for public hospitals will increase by some 40 per cent, more than $5 billion a year. The government is investing record recurrent funding of $64.5 billion in government and non-government schools over the next four years. Patients will be contributing $7 towards the cost of standard GP consultations but that is in order to make Medicare more sustainable. Let us not forget that 8.6 million concession card holders and children under 16 will only pay this contribution for the first 10 visits, so there is a very important safety net. We are abolishing the carbon tax, which will save households on average $550 a year. We are helping small businesses. We are cutting the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent, which will again give small business another important opportunity to cut costs and to grow jobs. We are creating the world's biggest medical research endowment fund, a $20 billion medical research future fund. We are proudly supporting young people who earn or learn. We are supporting older people going into the workforce by giving businesses an incentive of $10,000 to employ a person over 50 who has been unemployed for more than six months. So we are driving those incentives to support young people, to make them feel valued, to give them the confidence in the workplace, and investing in older people as well. We are very proud of the support that we are giving to mothers through our budget and in this wonderful paid parental leave scheme that we are championing.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (12:12): Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution on this legislation. I do so today both as a member of parliament who represents an electorate of thousands of families and thousands of women who will be directly affected by the provisions of this legislation but also as a young mother and someone in this House who is probably going to be more affected by decisions about paid parental leave than most. It is in both of those capacities that I will be pleased to vote against the legislation that is before us. For those watching at home and up in the gallery, I will explain the impact of this particular piece of bill that is before us. This legislation is an element of the paid parental leave scheme that many of you have read so much about in the newspaper. The particular decision for us today is that which will move the responsibility for administering paid parental leave from the employer over to Centrelink.
There are two issues that I want to talk about today. The first is a very practical one: the impact of passing this legislation will mean that thousands of Australian men and women who are taking parental leave will have to deal with Centrelink instead of their employer in administrative questions and issues associated with PPL payments. It means waiting in queues and dealing with robotic phone systems and overall creating a system that is less user-friendly and more bureaucratic for the people that the scheme is designed to benefit. The second and much more fundamental issue with the bill before us today is that it has the effect of severing an important link between the employer and the employee while the mother, or the father in some instances, is off on parental leave. The reason that is important is that it runs so contrary to all the rhetoric we hear from the Abbott government about the importance of paid parental leave.
One of the central arguments that has been put forward by those on the other side of the House is that the increase to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, the very generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme, will help improve female workforce participation. It will help mums get back into the workforce after having kids. If that is the purpose of this scheme, why then sever this critical link between mum and her workplace? Why then are we saying, through the law to employers, that the woman and her entitlement to paid parental leave is actually the government's responsibility not the employer's responsibility, which is supposed to be the central element of this scheme?
I will return to the issue of female workforce participation, but before I do that it is important to understand a little about Labor's scheme as a contrast to the one that we have before us. When Labor came into government, 55 per cent of Australian women had no paid maternity leave. It is a bit hard to believe today and we have obviously come so far in this debate. Today, 95 per cent of Australian women have access to paid maternity leave. It is one of the reforms that the last Labor government put in place that I think we can actually all be incredibly proud of. The scheme provided 18 weeks support at the minimum wage. Critically, it was the same for all mums. It recognised that having a baby or adopting a child does not get easier when you have less money. Many would argue that it comes with more challenges because you simply have fewer resources in the household to meet the issues that hit you every day in the first few months of having a child—less money for nappies, less money for baby clothes, less money for child care when the new mum or dad need a break. The scheme was not specifically designed for low-income mums; it was designed for all Australian women and in some cases men. But, in practice, we found that higher income women tend to have more power in the Labor market and hence were able to access paid parental leave through their workplaces. What we saw was that the median income of women accessing Labor's scheme was around $45,000 a year. So there was a really important equity element to that scheme—it was available to everyone; it gave everyone their fair share.
Another really important part of the scheme was that it was genuinely designed to keep women connected to their workplaces. This is absolutely crucial because it is an important part of meeting that goal of making workforce participation by women in Australia more equal. This is a critical challenge that faces our parliament over the coming years. Getting women to engage more equally in workplaces around Australia has an incredibly important economic element to it. Many in this place would know that the Grattan Institute has estimated that if women in Australia had the same workforce participation rate as women in Canada, our GDP would be about $25 billion higher by 2020. But there are massive gains to be made for women and that is why this is an area of particular passion for me. Many of us in this House would already be aware of these figures, but I will repeat them because they are so relevant. Women in Australia retire with about 40 per cent less superannuation than men. They face a gender pay gap of 17.5 per cent. They hold just 10 per cent of senior management positions in ASX 200 companies. Women in Australia are much more likely to be living in situations of poverty than men. We know that more equal engagement with the workplace is part of the solution to these problems. There are other benefits too.
It is important that we have our workforce in Australia as large as possible because, as we know, we have an ageing population and more workers will help us manage that. But there are also benefits for children. You would think that increasing female workforce participation would mean a significant increase to the flexibility, the quality and the affordability of child care. We know that if we provide great early-learning environments for our young people, we give them the best start to help see them through primary, secondary and hopefully on to tertiary study.
Both parties of course are aware that this is an issue for slightly different reasons. Both sides of politics are quite passionate about finding solutions. But we see that the current government have taken a very peculiar approach to dealing with the issue of helping women back into fulfilling professional roles. The first element is that they are attempting to put in place this massively generous scheme that will provide women with huge amounts of support for the first six months of the child's life. The second element is that this last budget has taken away lots of provisions that support women at home, seemingly in an attempt to bully women back to work by taking away payments for families and for single parents. Then we have a range of issues around the funding of child care, which I will detail in a few moments.
I believe that these approaches completely miss the mark. I talk to lots of mums as much as I can about what is holding them back in various different instances in going back into work. One of the biggest issues that mums talk to me about are the challenges that they face just transitioning back to work. It is often not after their first child that they face these challenges but when they have taken time off with their second child. They face a lot of issues finding roles that have the flexibility that they need to balance family life and professional life. Pregnancy discrimination is a huge problem in Australia that is very rarely discussed. We know that about one in five Australian mums experience pregnancy discrimination. Some studies estimate it at a lot more than that. Pregnancy discrimination last year was the No. 1 industrial issue raised by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Pregnancy discrimination was the most complained about industrial issue ahead of every other industrial problem that we hear about in this country. This is why the government should be doing everything it can to strengthen the links between employers and employees when parents are taking time off around having children. We need to make it clear to employers that it is part of their role to collaborate to help parents and especially to help women to make a smooth transition back into work. It is good for women, it is good for our workplaces and it is good for Australia.
That brings us back to this legislation which, as I have mentioned, will sever that critical link between the workplace and the mum or the dad who is taking time off. Since the beginning of Labor's scheme, payments were administered by employers. Removing that provision is a significant step backwards for Australian women. It is part of a scheme that most Australians, certainly most economists, believe is a significant step backwards for participation in the workforce by women. International evidence, and, of course, just common sense, suggests that the longer women step away from work, the more work they take on at home and the harder it is for them to get back into a fulfilling role. That is why I think this paid parental leave policy has the potential to entrench, not break down, gender divisions at home and at work.
So if the solution before us is not the right one, then what should we do? When you talk to women about what it is that they would like help with, when thinking about managing the difficulties of having a family and a work life, you get a pretty straight answer from them. What they tell you is that, if we want them to reach their potential at work, what really matters is not the first six months of a child's life; it is the many years that follow, where child care has to be juggled in the majority of Australian families where both parents work.
It is only when you start to make comparisons between child care and this Paid Parental Leave Scheme that is before us that the huge expense of this scheme comes to light. The cost of this scheme is $5 billion a year. That is hard to imagine for most people, who do not deal with those sums of money every day. Just consider that, last financial year, the federal government spent $4.7 billion on childcare supports. So we are actually going to be devoting more money to the first six months, to this scheme, than for women and all of the support that they would like for their children further down the line.
While we see this being implemented, there are elements of child care that are under attack. In the last budget, we saw some kindy funding removed, so that kids in my electorate of Hotham will only get 10 hours of kindy per week—one third less than the 15 hours enjoyed by their older brothers and sisters. Funding has been cut to the Community Support Program, which helps small family day care operators that provide child care to 80,000 Australian families. We know that the eligibility thresholds for childcare support have been frozen, which means that families who were previously eligible for support may not be eligible next year.
So the conclusion to all this is that the legislation before us, and the part that it plays in this broader Paid Parental Leave Scheme, is a huge policy faux pas. Even if it were good policy to implement a scheme like this one, it is madness to think that now would be the time to do it when we have had, in recent weeks, a budget handed down which has seen attacks on pensions; the removal of benefits, which will see many young people in Australia become homeless; the dismantling of our Medicare system; and changes to payments that will see the poorest in our society pay the most, not just as a percentage of their income but in actual dollar figures. Yet this scheme will see millionaires paid $50,000 to have a baby.
It is not the right priority for the budget. It is certainly not the right priority for women, to put all of our focus on the first six months when women tell us that what they really want help with are the years that follow. While we are doing all this, we create a scheme that severs, not strengthens, the ties between employers and employees. I must say that, even though I do think this policy is extremely contradictory, I am not all that surprised, because this is a government where a man who has a long history of anti-feminist views has appointed himself the minister for women, and where, amongst a raft of very talented backbenchers, only one woman could be found for the cabinet. So I think, given the context here, it is not really surprising that this government has got this area of policy so fantastically wrong. And I will be very pleased to vote against it when the time comes.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (12:25): It is a pleasure to rise on this important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I would just note that the member for Hotham perfectly reflects the malaise and the confusion in the Labor Party about government and the role of government in our society. Not once did the words 'small business' pass her lips. She talked about consulting with families and women in her electorate but not with small business—the drivers, the engine room of our economy; those millions of enterprises employing all of our young people, and creating the jobs and innovation that we need in this country. 'Small business'—those words did not pass her lips once.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the provisions of this bill, because this bill is primarily about lifting an administrative burden off small business and, importantly, the not-for-profit sector. This has nothing to do with changes to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. This is an administrative amendment to save small business money—that is what this bill is about. But, as I say, the term 'small business' did not pass the member for Hotham's lips, and that is because the Labor Party do not understand small business; they do not understand its significance, and they do not care.
I also want to say that it is particularly disturbing to understand that the member for Hotham thinks that this is about the relationship between an employer and employee—a perfect reflection of the malaise in the Labor Party as to the role of government. This money that is paid to women in Australia through the Paid Parental Leave Scheme does not come from business. It comes from government—the money comes from government. The taxpayer pays for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. And when the taxpayer pays for it, the government should administer it. It is breathtaking arrogance for the member for Hotham to suggest that it is a burden that should fall on the small business owner—that struggling person. The member for Hotham is laughing. But these people are on struggle street at the moment—these small enterprises; these family businesses. The economy is tough. Times are tough. It is hard to employ. It is hard to run a small business. People are working longer and longer hours. They are struggling under more difficult burdens of regulatory impact from the state and federal levels. It is a very difficult climate.
I speak to the business community in my electorate regularly, as well as to the families and, of course, all of the women in my electorate. But, listening to business, I understand that this is a significant burden on many of these businesses. That is what the facts show. An Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey showed that 84.3 per cent of businesses agreed or strongly agreed that government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. That is because we estimate that it is about $44 million of cost. It is not just the small business sector. It is also the not-for-profit sector.
But that, of course, has never come into the member for Hotham's consideration. It is as if, to the member for Hotham and the Labor Party, the government owns private civil society and private business: 'We can tell them to do whatever we want. We want to pay them money through the Paid Parental Leave Scheme; of course, it is business who should administer it, not the government.' But of course, when the government is footing the bill, when the taxpayer is providing the money, this administrative burden should fall on government agencies. That is where this should lie. It should be administered by Centrelink. It is cheaper to have it administered by Centrelink than to put the burden on the whole of the small business sector. It is better for small business. It is better for people in general that those businesses can continue to employ; can go better; can travel better in the economy; can pay their bills on time and function better as economic units than if they have to spend their days administering government policies.
Where does this end? Well, we do not know what the member for Hotham would envisage. If, every time a business had to provide government money to an employee, it should be administered by that business, then where does this end?
Is the member for Hotham saying we should extend all government payments to be administered by small business? How many days a week should small business owners work for the government unpaid? It is unanswered, because I do not believe the member for Hotham actually read this bill. I think she is talking about another bill that might come before this place, another change to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, which of course is a different matter.
Today we are talking about the government's agenda to remove the red tape and regulatory burden on our small business sector in Australia. It is a significant problem. We have even heard from the Leader of the Opposition on red tape, who said:
We are committed, in a bipartisan spirit, to the organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation.
This bill is a great starting point. Why wouldn't the member for Hotham listen to the Leader of the Opposition saying that we need cost-effective regulation—$44 million of saving for the small business sector and the not-for-profit sector? Let us be clear about this: the not-for-profit sector is also going to save money under the amendments to this bill.
This is the kind of bill about which a sensible opposition—which in opposition understood what its role was in the Australian parliament and society—would say: 'We'll let this one go through, because it isn't sensible to oppose a bill that is lifting cost burdens off small business.' It is not sensible. It may take the opposition some years to learn this, but you do not just oppose everything that comes along just because it is funded. You do not conflate bills with each other when they do not go together. You do not put one bill, which is a good bill, that takes the administrative burden off small business, relieves the cost pressure and keeps our economy moving forward with other things you might want to oppose. That is what the Labor Party is opposing here—a sensible, deregulatory bill to lift the cost imposition off small business, return it to government where it belongs, that will cost the government only $7 million over five years as opposed to $44 million on individual private businesses, small business in the main.
This is a great way for the government to send a signal to the economy: 'Yes, we need you to spend that extra money you'll have in your pocket by taking on those extra hours for casual young people.' We have youth unemployment rising. We have difficulties with employment at the moment, and certainty and confidence. There can be no better signal than saying: 'Right. The government understands that small business is in a bind at the moment. We understand that the economy is not going well. We understand that we need to do everything we can to lift those practical day-to-day burdens off you. Those hours you are spending administering our paid parental leave scheme will be done by Centrelink.'
The member for Hotham says; 'This is terrible. People will have to get in touch with Centrelink.' This is a government payment. This is government money. It should be going through Centrelink. She does not address the fact that it costs business money to administer this scheme and, more importantly, it costs them time.
I know from my own discussions with a variety of small and medium businesses in my electorate and in Western Sydney that they are making up for the difficulties in the economy and in the regulatory environment by simply working longer and longer. Their quality of life is suffering. Many small business owners are saying: 'How can we get out of operating a business?' We have seen a decline in small business numbers and ownership rates. People are choosing to become employees again and not employers, because it is too difficult.
Where is the Labor Party on this question? What are they doing to assist Australians to own and operate their small businesses? They are not doing anything and, furthermore, today they are here opposing a commonsense measure to allow Centrelink to administer a government payment scheme. That is what we are proposing here today. It is absolute economic vandalism for the Labor Party to oppose a bill of this nature. It has nothing to do with any other changes to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme; it is simply to remove the administrative burden that was placed by the former government on small business.
It is also important to note Labor has a record here. The Minister for Small Business of course in opposition has proposed this amendment twice before; and the Labor Party has opposed it twice before. You did not hear the member for Hotham mention small business and you probably will not hear any of the other Labor members mention the words small business, even though they are the most significant employer and the heart of our economic survival in this country. They are ashamed to say that they are not supporting a bill that will remove the administrative costs and red tape burden on small business. Their heads are hitting the desk in shame.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: While I take the members' interjections, I think it is important to note that some people have criticised this bill on the grounds that, if you allow opt in, not many people will opt in. But the government is keen to allow for workplace flexibility, and it is important to note that many of the members' concerns opposite are fully addressed by this important part of the amendment—that is, if someone wants to retain the existing arrangements, employer and employee, they will be allowed to opt in. It is an opt-in scheme, giving the flexibility for people who want to retain their current arrangements. If small business owners and employees who currently have these arrangements find them effective, they can retain them if they want to—not those businesses who say, 'This takes a long time and it's very costly to my small business,' 'Gee, I would rather spend that money on new equipment' or 'Gee, I would rather spend that money on adding casual hours employing a young person for two or three more hours. If every small business in the country did that, we would have a lot less youth unemployment and a lot less drain on the public purse in terms of welfare payments and other things. The Labor Party will not consider here today that opposition to this bill will directly impact upon small businesses' ability to put extra young people on for casual hours and to do more of their essential economic activities by not allowing them to get on with their job, which is running their businesses.
It is important to note that the government has flexibility built into its scheme. It is important to note that the median hours identified by all organisations—that is, the average—was 22 hours. Of course that includes some larger organisations but that is still an enormous amount of hours for the median. Time is money is an old saying, and I know the Labor Party would not understand what that meant or what that referred to, but time is money in business—22 hours is a lot of money on average. That means some organisations are spending a lot more time administering the Labor government's scheme, working for the government and not being able to create, employ and grow. It is really quite shameful when you get down do it: imagine a small business spending several hours administering this scheme. Let's do something to alleviate the burden. Let's get on with ensuring small business spend its day focused on what it should be doing—its business and the functioning of its business. Let's be sure not to conflate this issue with other matters of paid parental leave and other matters of child assistance and support because this amendment bill has nothing to do with those issues. Every Labor member that gets up to speak about the government's proposed Paid Parental Leave Scheme or other matters is simply engaging in hyperbole. Those opposite know this is a good quality amendment.
This amendment is about lifting administrative burdens and costs off business and returning them to where they belong. Government payments belong in the administration of government, not on the backs of our small businesses and family businesses, which are the backbone of the Australian economy. Government administration belongs in government. This is an exceptionally good amendment. It is the government keeping its election commitments to lift the red tape regulatory burden off the backs of small and medium enterprises in our country and get them doing what they do best—that is, creating, growing and employing.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (12:38): I would really like to answer the questions raised by the member for Mitchell: what is the connection between this bill and the government's outrageous proposal for its Paid Parental Leave Scheme? There is a very clear nexus and a very clear reason why we need to oppose this bill before us today in order to take a stand on paid parental leave, because this bill is actually demonstrating the rank hypocrisy of the government on this matter. We have now got a series of student-politics-like stunts being attempted to be woven into a coherent policy. The bill we have before us today demonstrates very clearly that there is indeed no coherent consistent policy.
The bill we are dealing with today is a bill that would transfer the administration of the paid parental leave system to the government sector on the basis that 'all the other payments of government such as family tax benefits are all paid for by the government'. But when the Prime Minister is questioned as to why it is that this Paid Parental Leave Scheme is going to be such a generous scheme that it is going to allow women who are very wealthy to have an enhanced entitlement—
Mr Sukkar: What about women on the minimum wage?
Ms MacTIERNAN: The women on the minimum wage will get the minimum wage. The scheme is very unlike any other government payment because the more you earn, the more you get, which is completely contrary to the general payment scheme.
The justification that the Prime Minister always gives us for this little pet project of his is that this paid parental leave is a workplace entitlement; it is not a welfare entitlement and should be paid at people's wages in the same way that sick pay or holiday pay is paid at people's wages. This is a very different thing from any other benefit. According to the Prime Minister, this is scheme completely different and all those other benefits that were being alluded to by the member for Mitchell are to be assessed in a different way. As it is a workplace entitlement then clearly it makes sense for it to be an entitlement that is paid for by the employer—although quite clearly the employer has to be properly compensated in advance so that there are no cash flow problems as a result of having to pay this entitlement. Indeed, this notion that an entitlement like this should in fact be paid for through the employer is not something that has just been invented by the Labor government but, indeed, was the recommendation of the Productivity Commission. The Productivity Commission, in providing its analysis of paid parental leave, said:
Given the desire to link paid parental leave to work—
which is clearly something Prime Minister Abbott wants to do—
where an employee has reasonable tenure with an employer, the employer would act as an agent for government and pay the statutory leave payment on its behalf. This is the arrangement used in the United Kingdom.
They go on to say:
Structuring payments in this way would strengthen the link between the employer and employee, which should increase retention rates for the business (and lead to higher lifetime employment by women).
They go on to recommend that there be prepayment of this money so that there are not cash flow problems. As I understand it, that is what was duly implemented.
So here we have the Productivity Commission saying that it is important to create this linkage between the employer and the employee on paid parental leave. We have got the Prime Minister going into overdrive trying to justify what could only be, in the current climate, considered to be overly generous arrangements for a certain segment of the community, saying these are workplace entitlements; these are completely utterly different from any of the entitlements that are paid by government. Yet we had the member for Mitchell and the member for Corangamite before that come in here and say 'these benefits should be considered in the same light as every other social benefit that is paid out by the government'. So it is really important for us to stand up in the debate on this piece of legislation and say we are not going to support it because it absolutely underpins the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister in this whole scheme.
Before their last election, Labor committed to providing some relief for small businesses, and there was an acknowledgment that when you are dealing with very small businesses—20 employees or fewer—they are unlikely to have HR staff and, therefore, we were prepared to look at an exemption in relation to those small businesses. But there was not this general opt-out; in a scheme that has now been sold to the public as something completely different from all other welfare payments, and that has been used, as I said, to justify the excessive nature of this scheme.
I want to talk about many of the things that the member for Hotham has raised. As someone who has had children and known what the difficulty is for young mothers returning to the workforce, I want to highlight the complete implausibility of even the Prime Minister's stated intention for this overly generous paid parental leave that is quite clearly being funded in part from a tightening and a holding back on childcare payments.
I know from my own experience and I know from dealing with the young women in my electorate who want to return to work that the biggest problem is the availability of child care, and second to that is the cost of child care. Even the availability is a massive problem in Perth. Trying to find somewhere to provide care, and decent quality care in particular, particularly for children under two-years-old, is the greatest impediment for women returning to the workforce.
The Productivity Commission had some really interesting things to say about the proposal for full replacement wages which is effectively what we are getting here:
Payment at a flat rate would mean that the labour supply effects would be greatest for lower income, less skilled women precisely those who are most responsive to wage subsidies and who are least likely to have privately negotiated paid parental leave. Full replacement wages for highly educated, well paid women would be very costly for taxpayers and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits.
So any rational analysis of the government's scheme for replacement wages, as opposed to the payment at a flat rate, tells you that this is not good value for money. If your aim is to try to get women back into the workforce, this is not how you do it. They point out that 'women on higher incomes are very likely to have a high level of attachment to the labour force' and there will be 'few incremental benefits to labour supply' by directing the replacement wages policy.
Can you imagine if we were putting $5 billion a year into child care? Imagine how that would revolutionise the participation in the workforce of women with young children. I put it to you that even if we were adding $1 billion a year to child care we would see a marked increment in the number of women that would be returning to work and the amount of hours that were spent by those women who have returned to work.
Common sense—combined with one's knowledge of the challenges to young parents, particularly women, wanting to return to work after they have had a child—will tell you that the additional money should not be put into providing more money to wealthy women to stay at home. Those women, in all likelihood, will be returning to work, because of their pay levels and their education levels and because of what they can expect when they return to work. Every economic bone, every common sense bone, every equitable bone, in one's body should tell you that this vast investment, this vast increment of money, that is going into this replacement wages policy of paid parental leave is going down the wrong path. A very considerable proportion of this money should be put into beefing up the availability of child care.
But in this budget we get the opposite. We get a significant scaling back of childcare benefits. We see the childcare benefit threshold frozen; we see the childcare rebate cap frozen. One of the appalling things we see is the universal access to preschool—almost $500 million per year—discounted. This is where we get kids going to kindergarten for four-year-olds, and the Commonwealth assistance to that being cut. This is an absolutely retrograde step, not just for child care and women's participation. The outcomes that we are getting in performance at school as a result of introducing universal access to kindergarten has been huge. This is a cut not only to child care; it is also a dreadful cut to our education standards. We see the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance scheme cut back while, at the same time, the Prime Minister is saying that he is going to cut back on family tax benefit B because no-one should be sitting at home once their child is six and expecting the taxpayers to support it. But where are you going to put the child when outside school hours childcare places have been cut? If you are wanting to return to work and you have a six-year-old child, during school holidays and after school hours, you are going to require out-of-school care. We have seen $450 million cut out of the after-school-care budget.
All of these positions that have been embraced are completely and utterly contradictory. They say they want to cut out the 'age of entitlement'. They say that people should be going back to the workforce once their kids turn six, but they are cutting the availability of child care for that. This is at the same time as they are embracing a replacement wage policy for paid parental leave that, on any economic analysis, is shown to have very, very few incremental labour supply side benefits.
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (12:53): The fact that Labor's position on this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Scheme Amendment Bill 2014, is so indefensible is highlighted by the fact that the member for Perth spoke about every single related topic without actually dealing with any of the substantial aspects of this legislation. Let me bring the debate back to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme Amendment Bill, because for the last 15 minutes we have had a frolic on a number of other topics.
The bill before us today presents yet another measure from the coalition to reduce the red tape on business. I must say that the member for Perth, to her credit, mentioned small business once. So you are one up on the member for Hotham—you mentioned it once. This is a small business measure. I know members opposite do not know much about small business. Not many of you have ever run or had much to do with small business, but this bill is about small businesses.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SUKKAR: Your actions do not represent it today, do they? We have a situation here where the bill in front of us seeks to replace $44 million of cost burdens on small business with $7 million from the government—and members opposite, in an unconscionable way, are blocking that. This is one series in a series of steps that the government is taking to slash cumbersome and unnecessary regulations. It also reaffirms the government's commitment to support women to have a child and to return to work—a commitment underlined by our Paid Parental Leave Scheme.
The history of the bill before us today also demonstrates the complete and utter lack of understanding of business possessed by those on the opposite side of the House, as I have said. When I was reading about this bill I was pretty baffled to read about Labor's years of obstruction to what seems like a very straightforward measure. To the credit of the now Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson, the genesis of this bill was a private member's motion back in 2011, and it should have been put to bed then. If we cannot get bipartisan support on something as basic and as straightforward as this, we have problems. It was voted down then and again in 2012. Now in the Senate we see Labor and the Greens locking arms together as usual seeking to block it and they want to introduce a confusing and water down version of the amendment. I will come back to this in a moment.
The bill here today—irrespective of the frolic that the member for Perth went on—simply seeks to relieve business of the burden of having to act as the pay clerk for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme introduced by the former Labor government. As I have said, it is not a radical amendment being proposed. It will save businesses $44 million a year and the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year. I want to echo the comments of the member for Mitchell when he said that those compliance burdens that would be lifted if this legislation is passed are likely to be reinvested by small businesses. That means upgrades to capital. That means more hours for casual workers. These are important things.
The Labor Party think that you can just put on another burden—a bit like a camel struggling under the weight of a pack: 'Just a bit more; it can take it.' That is what is weighing down small business—that mentality that you can keep loading small businesses with compliance burdens. In small businesses and family owned businesses, that is difficult. Having grown up in a small business family, I know that every time there is an additional government obligation—an additional form to fill out, an additional requirement—it is the owners who have to do that work. Often they cannot afford to employ additional people to do that, so generally it means that very late at night they are the ones doing that paperwork. We want to make sure that small businesses are relieved of an unnecessary burden in this case.
I have spoken about the $44 million saving at a national level, but in my home state of Victoria it will save approximately $11½ million a year. Businesses of all sizes as well as organisations in the not-for-profit sector will be freed up to focus on what they do best—creating wealth and employment. Businesses have much more important tasks to undertake with their resources rather than acting as a pay clerk for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Business has been telling us this for five years. Employer groups first raised their concerns and their objections to the mandatory employer under the PPL scheme during public consultations back in 2009, before the scheme was even implemented. Unsurprisingly, the former Labor government ignored those representations. We have also heard from employers through the legislative review of the PPL scheme and through businesses contacting us directly about the burden the pay clerk duties place on the operation of their business.
I would say to members opposite, do not believe us, do not trust us; listen to small businesses. They are crying out for it. Again, just last year, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry conducted a survey of its members on the PPL Scheme. These statistics have been quoted in this debate by some others, but they are overwhelming, so let me quote them again. In the survey, 84.3 per cent of businesses either agreed or strongly agreed that 'the government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme'. The additional costs to employers were outlined in the Paid Parental Leave Evaluation Phase 2 Report, with the extra workload the main cause for concern. It said that among the 29 per cent of employers who felt additional costs were involved, 94 per cent, so basically all, said these costs involved them taking on extra work, while 51 per cent said the workload of current staff had been increased by PPL. The median number of staff hours needed to implement PPL was 11 hours. The median cost was $1,783.
Employers have been consistent and strong in their opposition to having to act as pay clerk and we have listened. When it comes to business, every additional cost, every additional piece of regulation that you have to comply with impacts your bottom line. For the past six years, government in this country has been hindering not helping business, but this is changing. Today's bill is just one in a suite of measures being introduced to slash red tape in Australia.
On 26 March, we held the parliament's first ever red tape repeal day. More than 10,000 acts and regulations were repealed, removing more than 50,000 pages from the statute books. We are saving more than $700 million in paperwork costs per year. Benefits to for small business include repealing the carbon tax, which will not only remove a $9 billion a year hit on the economy but also save over $85 million a year in monitoring, record keeping and reporting costs; establishing a dedicated small-business hotline at the Fair Work Ombudsman so small businesses can access fast, binding advice on employment terms and conditions; using standard contract terms for government procurements under $200,000 and credit cards for payments under $20,000 so small businesses can be paid sooner; amending the personal property securities regime to reduce the burden on hire firms; and of course, moving the pay clerk burden of administering paid parental leave from small business to the Family Assistance Office, saving employers $48 million a year. We took a clear promise to the 2013 election to remove the pay clerk burden and today we are honouring that promise. That is why we will not pass Labor's amendment to this bill in the Senate.
In March, having twice voted down this amendment, Labor and their partners the Greens further demonstrated their lack of appreciation for the business environment by introducing a watered-down amendment. Labor is seeking to remove the paymaster role for businesses with fewer than 20 employees but, of course, without any explanation as to how this cut-off would be calculated. There are many hundreds of businesses in my electorate which certainly have more than 20 employees. They are by no way large enterprises. The concept that a business that hires between 20 and 100 employees is somehow so well-resources that they can act as the pay clerk for PPL is just wrong. That is why we believe this is an unacceptable position. This is now what business wants and this is what the Australian people want, as they told us last September.
The government wants to see this election commitment fully implemented and we are asking those opposite not to be mindlessly opportunistic in their opposition but, after years of obstruction, to see reason and support us in this. This is not controversial. This helps small businesses drastically. Again, our amendment to the payroll system—unlike their approach—is not even mandatory. What more flexibility can we give small businesses than we are giving them in this bill? We are giving businesses freedom to choose. We do not pretend to have a better understanding of a business and its resources than the owner. It is quite astounding that members opposite would seek to presume to have that knowledge or insight because we know that the Labor Party ignored small businesses for six years. They do not care about small business but we do on this side.
We are asking employers to decide what is best for their business and for their workers when it comes to administering the PPL Scheme. If an employer has administrative capacity and has found the role to be beneficial to their organisation, they can opt in and continue to act as a pay clerk for the PPL Scheme, if the employee also agrees. Based on the research and on the evidence directly from small businesses that I highlighted earlier, I doubt there would be many employers opting in to continue in that role.
Between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2013, some 125,000 employees received paid parental leave from their employer. Some employers might continue to administer paid parental leave but it will be their choice. An argument has been put forward that by no longer making it mandatory for employers to administer PPL, somehow employees going on paid parental leave will lose their attachment to the workforce. I find that an absolutely bizarre argument. I am not sure what the evidence would be to back that up. It is an argument that does not pass muster. Furthermore, the administrative costs being placed on businesses, which have clearly been calculated, far outweigh the imagined benefits put forward by Labor of employees feeling more 'connected'. Again, I think the Labor Party are really grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to justify an approach they have taken which is to be mindlessly opportunistic in opposing the legislation.
The Department of Human Services already administers PPL payments for approximately 24 per cent of employees. It makes sense therefore for the department to be responsible for the majority of payments and we will ensure the resources are available to department to do so. On this side of the chamber we want paid parental leave to work for everybody: employers and employees, as well as the government. That is what we are putting forward here in this legislation.
The government, of course, has a more comprehensive plan for paid parental leave in this country, a scheme that will give mothers every opportunity to return to their careers. Our genuine, fully-funded paid parental leave scheme will help keep mothers engaged with the work force like never before. We remain committed to introducing it from 1 July 2015. In the meantime, I would ask members opposite not to obfuscate. Deal with the matters at hand in this legislation. It is an indefensible position, I know, and it might be tempting to try and talk about everything other than what is in this legislation. But stick to the task at hand. The bill we have before us today is a sensible move to alleviate unnecessary red tape from the existing PPL scheme in order to get employers back to business. I commend it to the House.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (13:08): It was interesting listening to the previous speaker's very well-prepared speech on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and to the contributions of members on the other side, who have mindlessly regurgitated the party line and the PM's slogans. It is interesting that the member speaking previously had to sit down and write out in detail the same words that just about every member on the other side of this parliament has used. He has been concentrating on the contribution that business makes to the current paid parental leave scheme. This actually was not where I was going to start in my contribution to this debate, but I really feel that I need to address that issue right up front.
Early evaluation in 2013 of employers' experiences in implementing the paid parental leave scheme really shows that the words we have just heard from the member opposite are completely fallacious. A survey of employers showed that 54 per cent disagreed with the statement 'organising the payment for paid parental leave scheme has been time consuming'. Twenty-nine per cent of employers agreed that additional costs were involved in implementing the scheme. Of those reporting additional costs, 94 per cent stated that this rose with an extra workload they took on themselves. They took it on themselves; it had nothing to do with implementing a new payroll system.
In terms of staff hours, I was listening earlier to the member for Mitchell, who was regurgitating the same words, and he was talking about 22 hours. Twenty-five per cent of employers reported two hours, 24 per cent said three to five hours and 22 per cent said 15 hours—hardly what we have heard from members on the other side of this parliament. Cost to the organisations implementing the paid parental leave scheme, the employers, has been minimal. That was found when employers were surveyed.
The member speaking previously also said that business was supportive of their scheme and was opposed to the scheme that is currently in place. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry slammed the coalition scheme and called for a greater means test that would considerably improve the scheme's affordability and fairness. The Australian chamber of commerce are saying that this scheme is unaffordable and unfair. Charlotte Hayes, finance and administration manager at the Australian Grand Prix Corporation, said paying six months parental leave to women on salaries of $150,000 was too generous. I note that it has now been reduced to $100,000. Innes Willox of the Australian Industry Group said the current system works well. I repeat that: the current system works well. He said there is no reason for it to change. Peter Anderson, the CEO of ACCI, said it is an excessive paid parental leave scheme. Heather Ridout, the former chief of the Australian Industry Group, said:
On any measure this is bad parental leave policy and it's bad tax policy.
Even amongst the Prime Minister's colleagues there is dissent about this signature paid parental leave policy, which is not popular in the community. Nationals Senator John Williams recently refused to rule out crossing the floor to vote against this legislation. Senator Williams and Senator Cory Bernardi signalled that they may vote against this Rolls Royce scheme. The member for Tangney said:
I do have significant concerns.
He is a very sensible member. I note the concern he raised about the cuts to science in the budget being very worrying. He goes on to say:
I think there are better ways to attack the overall problem: having affordable and easy access to childcare.
I join with the member for Perth in saying that that is one of the issues that is constantly raised in my electorate in relation to women seeking to return to the work force. I listened to the contribution made by the member for Mitchell. On 6 May last year he said:
And the question is, is this good economic policy at this time, and my answer is no.
That very much demonstrates a member saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election.
The legislation that we have before us today is bad legislation. It is important to note that Labor introduced the first ever paid parental leave scheme, in January 2011. It was embraced by women throughout Australia. It has benefited 340,000 families. I think that is exceptional. And there have been an additional 40,000 dads and their partners who have also benefited from the dad and partner's pay. Labor's scheme was designed to benefit all Australian families, particularly those on low and middle-class incomes. Many of those people work in casual and part-time employment.
I know that when the Prime Minister first started touting his Paid Parental Leave scheme he said that he wanted the right kind of women to have babies. I find that offensive. I do not think that determining whether or not a woman is the right type of woman to have a baby has anything to do with the income that that woman earns. I think the right kind of woman to have a baby is a woman who wants a baby, who wants to love her baby, who is prepared to contribute to that child's life throughout and who is totally committed to that child. So I reject wholeheartedly the concept that only women earning $100,000 or more are the right type of women to have babies.
I would also like to add that around 55 per cent of working mothers had absolutely no access to a paid parental leave scheme at all before Labor introduced their scheme. I might also add that women who have higher incomes already tend to have access to quite lucrative paid parental leave schemes. But, before Labor's scheme, 55 per cent of women had absolutely no access to paid parental leave schemes. Today, access to the Paid Parental Leave scheme now stands at 95 per cent of all working women. Is the median income for these women $100,000? No, the median income is $45,000. When you are a woman on $45,000 a year, the decision as to whether or not you can afford to have a child is much harder to make than if you are on $100,000 a year.
By contrast, this scheme, the Prime Minister's rolled gold Paid Parental Leave scheme, will give $50,000 to wealthy women to have babies. I might add to that, just as a little aside, that this $50,000 is going to wealthy women whilst he is attacking pensioners and unemployed people throughout Australia. He is looking at making their lives harder—unbearable—and imposing a GP tax on all Australian families. It is just not good enough. It is not what I understand to be fair. It is not what I understand to be the Australian way. This Prime Minister is about looking after those people who have high incomes at the expense of people who look to governments for support.
This scheme comes at enormous cost: $5.5 billion a year and $21 billion over the forward estimates. To relate that back to the comments I just made, we have a Prime Minister who is about changing the indexation of pensions, which will lead to a cut in the pension for all Australians; making it harder for people with disabilities to get the support they need; and rewarding women who are on $100,000 a year. This legislation really shows how the Abbott government have their priorities all wrong. It is about supporting those people that they believe supported them.
Today the government has moved to change the scheme that was designed by Labor when they were in government. It was a scheme that was working really well. It was a scheme that had the support of people throughout the community. That scheme was designed so that employers maintained their contact with women when they were on paid parental leave. That was a very important component of the scheme. It was to retain that connectedness between that woman and the workplace. This government is seeking to break that connectedness.
Labor consulted widely with employers and employees and recognised the fact that, for companies or employers that employed under 20 employees, it may place a higher burden on them. It was because of that fact that Labor went to the 2013 election with the commitment to change the way that those employees received their paid parental leave. This was to assist and to recognise that small businesses found it a little difficult. Centrelink was going to make payments to those employees while they were on leave. That was a sensible balance, a sensible change to the legislation and a change that was developed in consultation with employers, rather than a thought bubble that the Prime Minister had one day, when he thought he would change from totally opposing the Paid Parental Leave scheme to supporting a rolled-gold model that would, in his words, encourage the right type of women to have children.
There have been a number of reports done in relation to the Paid Parental Leave scheme. The reports indicate that it may be premature to suggest that the benefits of having the employer provide the Paid Parental Leave scheme are outweighed by the costs. This evidence is being supplied by employers. The Paid Parental Leave scheme should be seen as a workplace entitlement rather than welfare. This government is placing the Paid Parental Leave scheme in the basket of welfare. This is not good legislation. This is legislation that has been developed without consultation. I encourage those members on the other side not to just regurgitate the lines that they have been given in their party room and stand here and read speeches but to stand up for women and make the right decisions. (Time expired)
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (13:23): I rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I will first make some comments about the contribution of the member for Shortland. Her comments with regard to the pension are absolutely scurrilous and false. The pension will not be cut. What will alter is how people's pensions increase. People's pensions will continue to increase.
This bill will benefit small business across our nation, with a common-sense approach to a very important sector. The coalition came to the 2013 election with a clear direction to reduce red tape for business. For too long, small business have been shackled by regulation, paperwork and compliance costs. These costs, in both dollars and time, stunt productivity and hinder growth. This bill is another small step in the right direction with regard to reducing red tape. It is a small step, but altogether these bills will make a real-life difference for the day-to-day running of businesses, particularly in the electorate of Macquarie.
This bill takes the 'pay clerk' burden of the Paid Parental Leave scheme away from small business if they so wish—they can opt in if they wish to—and shifts the administration back to the Family Assistance Office. It provides choice for small business. From 1 July 2014, employees will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless the employer opts in to provide parental leave pay to its employees and an employee agrees for their employer to pay them. Removing the mandatory employer role under the Paid Parental Leave scheme will help reduce administration and compliance costs on employers. While this may seem like a simple shift, the difference it will make will be significant. It will save business $44 million a year and the not-for-profit sector $4 million a year.
Earlier this year I was honoured to host the Minster for Small Business, the Hon. Bruce Billson, in the Macquarie electorate. As the minister and I sat and listened to small business operators from the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains, the issues became clear: small business owners do not have the time or resources to deal with the excessive regulatory burden that has been placed upon them. They want to be free to run their businesses, run their companies, without the need to employ one extra person just to comply with regulations. There are over 10,000 small businesses in the Macquarie electorate. These small businesses employ local people, produce local goods and are the pillar of our local economy. I want them to continue to see a reduction in the regulatory burden. It is important for them to thrive, with confidence and the capacity to build and grow their businesses. The estimated compliance cost reduction for New South Wales alone would be $14,377,000—over $14 million.
This bill has an interesting history in the chamber, and I would like to comment on it briefly. The Labor government's Paid Parental Leave scheme was given royal assent on 14 July 2010. On 24 February 2011, Labor voted down the member for Dunkley's private member's bill to remove the 'pay clerk' burden from business for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. On 24 May 2012, Labor voted down the coalition's amendment to remove the 'pay clerk' burden from business for the Paid Parental Leave scheme. On 5 March 2014, in the Senate, Labor and the Greens sought to amend the coalition government's amendment to remove the 'pay clerk' burden from business for the Paid Parental Leave scheme, instead limiting it to businesses with fewer than 20 employees, essentially blocking the coalition government's amendment. Finally, on 19 March 2014, as a part of the coalition's commitment to hold a repeal day, Minister Billson introduced a bill to remove the 'pay clerk' burden from business for the Paid Parental Leave scheme.
The inability of Labor to support this notion since its inception shows their complete lack of credibility when it comes to supporting small business or understanding the challenges facing small business. It shows that small business are facing a challenge from the other side of politics. I would like to remind the House that, in the five years from mid-2007, Australia's multifactor productivity declined by nearly three per cent. During this time, Labor introduced more than 975 new or amended pieces of legislation and over 21,000 additional regulations. The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. We cannot afford to keep hindering growth and productivity. We are in government to send a clear message that Australia is 'open for business'. We are on track to deliver our commitment of the $1 billion annual target for cutting red and green tape. This bill contributes in some small way towards that.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Racial Discrimination Act
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (13:30): In 1994, when introducing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the then Attorney-General Michael Lavarch said:
The Racial Discrimination Act does not eliminate racist attitudes. It does not try to, for a law cannot change what people think. But it does target behaviour—behaviour that causes an individual to suffer discrimination.
We live in a society which imposes restrictions on community behaviour, which reflect our values and maintain stability. The language people choose to use is part of their behaviour and it is not uncommon to place limitations on speech, nor are restrictions on speech confined to the Racial Discrimination Act. They are found in censorship, consumer protection, defamation, copyright, national security and other laws. Even in this parliament where privilege applies, there are restrictions on language used.
The coalition opposed the original legislation, so it should come as no surprise that the Abbott government now wants to amend section 18C. Given the wide range of exemptions available under section 18D, it is noteworthy that the Bolt case, which the government solely relies on, was not appealed. As with many matters, the Abbott government is being influenced by the extreme Right. There is no evidence that section 18C is not having its intended effect and there is no compelling reason for change. Nor is it the time for the federal Attorney-General to promote undesirable and unhelpful language, by saying, 'People do have the right to be bigots.' Rather, he should be listening to the chorus of community opposition to his proposed changes.
Eagleby Learning College
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (13:31): The Eagleby Learning College is an alternative Education Queensland site that provides quality state secondary education and certificate courses to students who do not fit into the mainstream education system. As a winner of the recent Showcase Award for Excellence in Inclusive Education, the college, located in Eagleby, embodies its motto: 'It all STARTS here.' The motto promotes the ability for students of any age to re-engage with education and to kick-start their career, whether it be in further education or in the workforce. By delivering programs in a condensed manner, focused on maths, English and certificate courses, students are also able to fast-track their schooling.
The reality is that many of the students at Eagleby Learning College were struggling to attend 20 per cent of their schooling commitments in mainstream education, with 50 per cent disengaged completely. However, with this alternative program they now average 71 per cent, with a 98 per cent pass rate in their individual areas of study.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Eagleby Learning College and was greeted by staff and students who not only strive for excellence but are also committed to their community. It was wonderful to see the incredible opportunities these students have been provided with and to experience the incomparable influence that an alternative type of education can have on individuals looking to further their education. It is this commitment and re-engagement into education that will drive future successes in our community.
Parliamentary Friends of the ABC
Ms PARKE (Fremantle) (13:33): Last Wednesday the member for Reid and I, along with your good self, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, Senator Scott Ludlam and Senator Nick Xenophon, launched the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC group. It was a privilege to hear from the ABC's managing director, Mark Scott, and chairman Jim Spigelman, as well as from the Minister for Communications and the shadow minister.
Contrary to the view held by some that the ABC is the province of the far Left, the launch was a great success, with a high attendance of members and senators of every political affiliation, which is what you would expect considering the integral and essential role of the ABC in Australian life.
The ABC delivers a diverse range of services that are unique to the national broadcaster, from high-quality commercial-free children's entertainment and Australian drama to nation-leading news and current affairs, as well as the critical task of providing comprehensive emergency services broadcasts.
The ABC is especially treasured by Australians living in rural and regional Australia. As I remarked at the launch, the Parliamentary Friends of the ABC is intended to provide genuine friendship. That does not mean uncritical friendship and it certainly does not mean fair-weather friendship. But it does mean supporting the ABC to be its best, which, quite frankly, represents Australia at its best.
I encourage our fellow parliamentarians to join the group in order to engage more closely with the role and challenges of our ABC. The national broadcaster has shaped and informed our identity, strengthened the development of our democracy and forged our understanding of the wider world since it came into being in 1932. It must be enabled and supported to continue beating strongly at the heart of our civic and community culture.
Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (13:34): I rise today to thank a special group of people who have given their time to assist me in selecting the Anzac Centenary grants in my electorate of Solomon.
I have had the assistance of local community leaders in forming a committee to approve these applications for the government's Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program. The Solomon Anzac Centenary Local Grants Program has $125,000 of funding to be allocated to organisations in my electorate to assist with the commemoration of the Anzac Centenary across Darwin and Palmerston.
Sadly, the requests for funding significantly exceeded the $125,000 that we had available. All applications have now been submitted to the department. They are of an extremely high calibre. The committee had to make some very tough decisions. We had some very innovative and creative proposals and I am sure that the community will be very pleased with the grants that were recommended by the committee.
I would like to conclude by thanking these committee members for their time and their extremely valuable input: Melanie Free; Catherine Voumard; Leanne Hudson; Lia Finocchiaro, member for Drysdale; Natasha Fyles, member for Nightcliff; Tom Lewis; and Ivan Walsh. Thank you very much.
March for Medicare
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:36): Last Friday evening, the March for Medicare took place at the State Library of Victoria. Thousands of Melbournians, including professionals, labourers, students, doctors and nurses took part to demonstrate against this government's attack on Australia's universal healthcare system.
I attended this rally, along with several of my parliamentary colleagues including the shadow minister for health, the member for Ballarat; and the member for Chisolm. We were there because we care about the future of Medicare. It is a policy that the Labor government has had to fight hard for, in the face of consistent opposition from the Liberal Party.
Universal health care was first introduced by the Whitlam government in 1975. It faced fierce opposition from the conservatives before, during and after introduction and was subsequently gutted by the Liberal Party under the Fraser government. Labor then campaigned from opposition to reintroduce a fair universal healthcare scheme, which it did in 1984 following the election of the Hawke government. In the 30 years since, Medicare has ensured millions of Australians have had access to an affordable and fair healthcare system. Now, this government is seeking to undermine the basis of Medicare by asking Australians to pay a $7 GP tax every time they visit the doctor, despite promising Australians no new taxes. These changes will hurt every Australian, especially those on low incomes.
Those of us on this side of the House have had to fight for universal health care against the Liberal Party before: we fought for it at the 1969 election, at the 1972 election, at the 1975 election, at the 1977 election, at the 1980 election, at the 1983 election, at the 1984 election and at the 1987 election, and we will fight for it again at the next federal election. Australians did not vote for this and they do not want it.
Reid Electorate: Disability Services
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (13:37): I mentioned in this place in my maiden speech my passion for disability services and that my family has been touched by it and is far stronger for it. In the last eight months as the member for Reid I have had the opportunity to meet some amazing people that work in providing amazing services. Through Bec Howe at Touched by Olivia, through Nicole Rogerson at Autism Awareness, I became aware of an organisation called FRANS. They are a disability service provider within my electorate that supports people living with disability and works with them, their families and carers to create goals and develop support and care plans that best meet their needs and ambitions. Some of the services that FRANS run include supported living, community engagement and life skills training, which are programs dedicated to assisting people to lead more independent and fulfilling lives, supporting those with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I have had the pleasure of enjoying the product of one of their cooking classes!
For 30 years FRANS has been providing person centred support programs for people of all ages living with disability. The core principles of FRANS reflect those that we value so highly in Reid, those of diversity, commitment and inclusion. I was very humbled to see the important community work this organisation is involved in, and the tremendous way that FRANS are supporting parents and carers. To all staff at FRANS for the wonderful job they do providing respite care to families who so dramatically need it, I take my hat off to them.
WA Day
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (13:39): Today is WA Day, a day on which we celebrate the great land of opportunity that our state has been for so many for generations. We acknowledge that this opportunity came at a huge cost for the Aboriginal peoples of the state and recognise that we have a deep obligation to close the gap on access to health, education and employment. At the same time we can be very proud that we have created a very inclusive and optimistic culture. Western Australians readily embrace new arrivals, be it eastern staters or those from Europe, Asia, Africa or America. Thirty-seven per cent of Western Australians were born overseas and more than half of the population has at least one parent born overseas.
The community is aspirational and in general enjoys the economic prosperity that has come with the boom. We enjoy the highest average wages and the lowest unemployment of all the states. But we are also a community that loves its natural environment. West Australians strongly back stopping of logging in old-growth forests, the World Heritage listing for the Ningaloo Reef and the protection of the Kimberley coast. We have long punched above our weight in music and the arts and have in WAAPA an educational institution that is ranked in the top 25 of its class in the world. I like to think we have a community that is practical about development we need to secure our prospects but prepared to hold the line to ensure that we protect the future. (Time expired)
Lindsay Electorate: Great Walk
Ms SCOTT (Lindsay) (13:41): In the name of charity 10 local businessmen set out on Tuesday, 20 May for a mammoth 170 kilometre walk from Bathurst to Blaxland. Now in its sixth year, the Great Walk was founded by local men Jonathan Green and Mark Mulock. This initiative actually started out over a few too many beers in a local pub and has now raised over $700,000. The 2014 walk, which concluded five days later on 24 May, is anticipated to raise close to $110,000, which will be allocated to a number of local charities which make a real difference to our community. These charities include the Nepean Hospital Infants Ward, Springwood Hospital Auxiliary, Penrith Community Kitchen, Riding for the Disabled, and Sailability. I would also like to recognise football legend Mark Geyer, who has now walked on three occasions. I also want to recognise the other walkers, Rob Wearn, David Crossman, Trent Baker, Greg Nelson, Tony Bowden, Graham O'Kell and Cameron McInnes. Initiatives like the Great Walk Foundation from a local pub concept are now being incredibly beneficial and supportive to the wider community and represent the generosity and community spirit of the Nepean Valley, which I am so proud to represent. We are a wonderful community and we are always willing to dig deep to support a good cause. I congratulate the walkers on what is another very successful walk.
Throsby Electorate: Broadband
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (13:42): On Saturday I met with a group of concerned residents from Tullimbar in my electorate. The purpose of the meeting was to talk about the absence of reliable broadband services in their area. The residents are not without a sense of irony because they have set up a Facebook page called NBN Action for Tullimbar Residents. Unfortunately, a lot of them cannot access the Facebook page because of the absence of decent broadband. There are two problems. There is a significant shortage of broadband ports in the greenfield development estate of Ridgeview. This has forced many residents to have to access their broadband via wireless services, which provide a very weak signal at the best of times.
Mr Fletcher interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN JONES: I am hearing a lot from the parliamentary secretary, but they had 11 plans and were not able to implement a single one of them. What is most galling is that on top of this residents are watching NBN trucks pull cable through the suburbs without an internet service to the new suburbs up the road. It is not a luxury. At the meeting there were small business people, kids who could not do their homework and grandparents hoping to keep in contact with their kids from the other side of the world. What they want is a real NBN solution, not this second-rate hologram that is on offer from those opposite.
Lyons Electorate: New Norfolk Morning Tea
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (13:44): Recently I had the pleasure of attending New Norfolk's version of Australia's Biggest Morning Tea. Located in the beautiful Derwent Valley, New Norfolk at the southern end of my electorate has a population of about 5,000 but 150 people turned up for the fundraising morning tea at the town's RSL club and more than another 50 ordered morning teas to be delivered that day. Coordinator Elsie Raynor and her team, led by drivers Mavene Mann and Lesley Reggett, raised $4,090 from this year's morning tea, which they have donated to the Cancer Council of Tasmania to go towards medical research.
This is the 18th year in which New Norfolk's Can Hope Cancer Support Group has held its Biggest Morning Tea. The group was set up in 1997 by Sue Stops, a cancer sufferer who wanted to provide support for others in her community. It has raised almost $35,700 for cancer research since then. The Can Hope group has not restricted its talents to cooking delicious fundraising morning teas. It also supports the oncology, neo-natal and paediatrics wards at the Royal Hobart Hospital by supplying hand-knitted beanies, scarves, rugs and knee rugs for patients, as well as stuffed toys for the treasure chest in the paediatrics ward. The group has also developed a rose garden in the beautiful Arthur Square in New Norfolk, with a bench seat for quiet contemplation. I want to acknowledge in this place Can Hope's outstanding contribution to their community.
Windgap Foundation
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:44): I wish to congratulate the staff, volunteers and generous donors to the Windgap Foundation for their gala ball on 12 May, which raised $125,000 for this wonderful association. Windgap was formed in 1953 by parents for intellectually disabled kids who could not get access to local schools. They established a premises in Coogee and named it Windgap after the name of the particular premises in which it was housed. The foundation supports people with intellectual disabilities to live their life with independence and integrity through its residential business enterprise and day program service.
Windgap empowers people in our community living with disabilities. Through their training programs, they provide the skills, competence and confidence for people to live independent lives. In the words of Ken Clapp, who is the oldest client and the longest-term client with Windgap in our area: 'I have my own life.'
Windgap is a wonderful community organisation. Their very famous Diamonds Choir recently performed the national anthem at the Botany council's Anzac service. Windgap runs a business program, so I encourage businesses throughout Australia to look up the services of Windgap and to get involved in them. Anyone interested in watching the Soccer World Cup in our community should come down to the Eastlakes community centre at 8 am on 4 June and watch it with the Windgap Warriors.
Encore Theatre Company
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (13:44): Recently, my electorate of Bass had the opportunity to be dazzled and enchanted by one of our local arts groups, the Encore Theatre Company, perform its rendition of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera. For Encore, the production has been a resounding success. Over 10,000 people attended the three-week session, which smashed their previous record of 7,000 people for their production of Jesus Christ Superstar.
The Phantom production team, headed by director, Belinda King, are to be commended for the highly theatrical and professional experience they provided. Furthermore, the stars of the show—Dean Cocker, Amelia Reynolds, Mathew Garwood—and their supporting cast delivered captivating performances night after night. They demonstrated once again the wealth of theatrical talent that we have in Northern Tasmania. Mathew Garwood is currently proudly representing Tasmania in TheVoice television program. Special thanks go to major sponsors—the Heritage Isle Credit Union, Invermay Newsagency, and the Launceston Council, whose support made it possible for the production to take place at the historic Princess Theatre. The next production being undertaken by the Encore Theatre Company is their version of Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds in July. They have also enticed British actress Sue Hodge to star in their October-November production, The Vicar of Dibley. I look forward to both productions.
Apprenticeships
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:48): Last week my office was inundated with phone calls and letters from apprentices in the electorate who had just received the following letter from the CVGT AusNAC Australian Apprenticeships Centre. The letter states:
On 13 May 2014, the Government handed down the 2014-2015 Budget. As part of the Budget, changes to payments for Australian Apprentices were announced. The Tools For Your Trade programme will cease from 1 July 2014.
It goes on to say:
To support apprentices, the Trade Support Loans programme will be introduced.
It further states:
Once we receive more information regarding … the Trade Support Loans, we will provide you with this information …
So what did the government do on budget night? They scrapped a program that local apprentices need and said that there was a plan for a future program but they did not have the details on it. What are apprentices getting in touch with me about? Why are they upset? They do not know how they are going to buy their tools on 1 July, because the government have no plan. They have scrapped a program that was working.
In my part of the world, most of the course work these days is done online. The Tools For Your Trade program was being used to purchase computers so that people could do their online work. The program was also being used to purchase the tools that apprentices needed. I call on the government to rethink this measure and reintroduce it, because this program was working.
Queensland: Premier's Sustainability Awards 2014
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (13:44): The Queensland Premier's Sustainability Awards 2014 were presented over the weekend. I am honoured to take this opportunity to highlight some great and innovative technology within my electorate of Ryan. Local businessman Tony Rees was presented with the Leadership in Sustainability Award for his company Groundworks and its product ecoblanket.
Ecoblanket is a world-first hose-on groundcover that controls erosion and provides a mix of compost and seed to large-scale landscaping, remediation and building projects. Specialised machinery can treat thousands of square metres a day, spraying a specially designed mix of seed and compost, with a 90 per cent germination rate of the cover crop within a few days of application. Ecoblanket is a revolutionary concept that allows for the hosed-on mixture to readily and rapidly provide groundcover. This allows for significant reduction in soil loss, while allowing for sediment and erosion control, and this is in addition to the fact that the product incorporates 100 per cent recycled organic material, with tailored seed blends. This allows the product to be area specific, allowing for rejuvenation of native plants and great environmental outcomes. It is an example of Direct Action in action.
Commuters travelling along the freeway during the Legacy Way construction can see this wonderful innovation for themselves. Congratulations to Tony Rees and the person who does the real work, his wonderful wife, Lynn. I am delighted to stand before the chamber and acknowledge another great innovation provided by a company within my electorate of Ryan. (Time expired)
Parramatta Electorate: Health
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:44): In the Holroyd local council area—a council area which I share with the member for Greenway—19 per cent of residents are obese, 52 per cent are overweight or obese and 10 per cent have diabetes. They are also part of the wider Western Sydney community, where people present with heart attacks on average 10 years earlier than the rest of Sydney.
It is because of figures such as these that the Labor government and the states came together to form the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health to start work to ensure people stay healthy rather than continuing along this path toward very poor health. The Healthy Communities initiative, which funded $703,607 to the Holroyd City Council to support physical activity and healthy eating programs, was part of that important agreement. Unfortunately, as in so many other valuable programs, the current government has abolished this agreement by the end of the year, and that program will cease.
This is a visionless act that believes you can reduce the health costs in the long run by cutting programs that keep people at risk of very poor health staying healthy. It is an act without vision and incredibly short-sighted. This program includes free and low-cost exercise programs, cooking classes and nutrition talks in a number of languages, including community speaking languages such as Arabic and Dinka, and training bilingual fitness instructors. I urge the government to rethink this appalling act.
Pension Assistance
Mr WHITELEY (Braddon) (13:53): The last two Labor speakers continue this deceit and the misleading of the Australian public. I want to speak this afternoon on the pensioners in Braddon, who are the victims of a campaign of deceit by the Labor Party. I call on those opposite immediately to stop their scaremongering and to tell the truth. Older Australians deserve to be treated with respect and not to be used as political pawns by the opposition in their desperate attempt to score political points against the government. Pensioners deserve better.
It is astounding that this very party, which has misled the Australian people over 500 times that they would deliver a budget surplus yet created a debt and deficit disaster, are now lying about the budget to the Australian people in opposition. They created the debt and deficit disaster in government and they are stopping at nothing to protect their debt and deficit legacy into opposition.
The truth is there will be no changes to pensions in this term of government—no change to pensions till September 2017. Pensions will continue to increase twice a year, and you know it and continue to mislead. I call on those opposite to stop the rubbish, stop the crap, stop the deceit, stop the misleading and stop using little old ladies to forgo your—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Order! The member for Braddon might withdraw that other word.
Mr WHITELEY: I withdraw.
Education
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (13:55): This weekend I held a mobile office in Calwell in the south of my electorate, and constituents spoke to me about the very many concerns they have following the Abbott government's budget of broken promises: the increased fuel tax, the GP copayment and the thousands of public service job cuts, to name a few. But there was one thing that united almost everyone I spoke to, and that was outrage at the proposed changes to higher education. I heard this outrage from Canberrans who had never been to university themselves but who had aspirations for their kids and grandkids to one day have the opportunity. I heard these concerns from Canberrans still paying off their HECS debt and wondering how they will cope with the significantly increased interest they will have to pay from 2016. I heard these concerns from Canberrans who had always considered themselves lucky to have such great universities right here in their own city but who now fear that their children will never have the opportunity to study at those universities.
Canberrans are united against the Abbott government's changes to higher education. They know it will make university study inaccessible to people from low- and middle-income backgrounds. They know it will create a two-tier system where only the very rich can access our best universities. They know these changes will saddle our kids with enormous debts, preventing them from ever entering the housing market or getting ahead in life. They know these changes will be bad for our country and take us back to the haves and have-nots of the fifties.
Brisbane Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms GAMBARO (Brisbane) (13:56): I rise to announce the Abbott government will invest $1 million to address troublesome black spots in the Brisbane electorate. This funding will help the Brisbane City Council carry out upgrades to the Milton Road-Hale Street exit in Milton and the Bridge Street intersection in Wooloowin. This funding was one of my election commitments in the 2013 federal election, and I am delighted to be able to deliver on this promise for the people of Brisbane.
The upgrade works at the Milton Road-Hale Street exit in Milton will address a serious safety problem where 16 accidents have been recorded over a five-year period. The funding will be used to install new signal pedestals and a new meridian strip to prevent red light running at the Milton Road-Hale Street intersection.
The Bridge Street and Hudson Street intersection in Wooloowin is also a high-risk traffic area. There have been more than 30 accidents recorded over a five-year period. The funding will address this high number and improve traffic flow.
The Abbott government is committed to improving the safety and usability of our roads. The $1 million investment will result in commuters spending less time in traffic and will contribute to saving people's lives. It will provide inner-city residents and commuters with an increased sense of security with these critical road safety improvements. I am committed to improving safety and addressing congestion, black spots and rat running through the inner city. (Time expired)
Immigration and Citizenship
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (13:58): At 20 past three on Friday afternoon my office received email notification that the non-contributory parent visa category and other family visa categories, including aged dependant relative, remaining relative and carer, would be abolished today. This email also explicitly stated that, as a result, last Friday was the last day to lodge applications for these visas before they were abolished. That was less than 40 minutes notice for people who have already spent months preparing visa applications to bring family here from China, India, Sri Lanka or, indeed, any other country to live here with their families.
This is an act of unspeakable cruelty and cowardice. Hardworking low- and middle-income migrants now have no avenue to reunite with their families in Australia unless they can produce up to $125,000. Many people in my community are heartbroken by this change. They have been working hard on their application and, try as we might to let many people know, 90 minutes was not enough time for them to complete their applications. People like Teresa Carvillo, who had been working hard to submit her application, now know it is in vain. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection has betrayed ethnic communities and made sure that many will now never have the chance to live with their families and loved ones again. This is an outrage—a complete shame—and people like Teresa and her partner, who wrote to me, said, 'It's not a very ethical way to treat people' (Time expired)
Electorate of Lyne: State Emergency Service
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:59): On Saturday I had the honour of attending the Taree City and Port Macquarie SES unit awards, and I want to congratulate all 362 SES volunteers on the mid North Coast. For over 59 years State Emergency Services members have assisted—(Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Earlier today the Minister for Communications said about the budget and the government: 'I don't want to comment on my colleagues in that manner, but some of these measures are complex and often they may be difficult to explain.' Will the Prime Minister endorse the Minister for Communications' statement that his colleagues are making mistakes in trying to explain this budget?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:00): The Leader of the Opposition should not verbal the Minister for Communications, who said no such thing. He said no such thing. The truth is that there is no easy way to sort out the debt and deficit disaster that members opposite left us. There is no easy way, but this government has explained to the Australian people how we will fix Labor's debt and deficit disaster. This is a good budget, an honest budget and it is the right budget for this time. Now that this government has explained how we would deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster, the Leader of the Opposition should explain how he will deal with Labor's debt and deficit disaster.
Mr SHORTEN: I seek leave to table the document I was referring to. It has not been published yet.
Leave not granted.
Economy
Ms SUDMALIS (Gilmore) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of what steps the government is taking to strengthen the Australian economy? How will all Australians benefit from a government prepared to make the decisions that our country needs?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:02): I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and I wish to assure her that this government is taking important steps to strengthen our economy. We are faithfully implementing our election commitments. Stopping the boats will save some $2.5 billion over the next four years. Scrapping the carbon tax will save the average household $550 a year. Building the Roads of the 21st Century will be a massive boost to productivity, because people will not be stuck in traffic jams. We are tackling Labor's legacy of $1 billion a month in dead money—just to pay the interest on Labor's borrowings. We are getting the budget back under control. That means that health and education programs, pensions and other social security payments will be sustainable in the long term.
This is a budget for saving, but it is also a budget for building with the largest infrastructure spend in the history of the Commonwealth. There is the East West Link in Melbourne, the WestConnex and NorthConnex in Sydney. There is the North-South Road in Adelaide; there is the Gateway upgrade to the Bruce Highway in Queensland. I know the member for Gilmore will also appreciate this: we are restoring Defence spending.
It is a budget for living within our means, but it is also a budget for playing to our strengths. The Medical Research Future Fund will, over time, double Australia's medical research spend, and this is an important area of comparative advantage for our country. Some eight Australian Nobel Prize winners, such as Howard Florey the inventor of penicillin, have been medical researchers. Four Australians of the Year in the last decade, such as Professor Ian Frazer the inventor of cervical cancer vaccine, have been medical researchers. These investments will give us the treatments and the cures of the future—the treatments and the cures that our people and people right around the world need.
What we are doing is investing less in short-term consumption so that we can put more into long-term investment. That is the overall philosophy behind this government's budget. We are getting on with the job that the people of Australia elected us to do—not to make the easy decisions, but the necessary decisions for our country's future.
Veteran Support
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the last election the Prime Minister said that it was unfair to apply the CPI only to the pensions of those who had risked their lives for our country. He promised veterans that loyalty goes both ways. Now the Prime Minister is cutting the indexation arrangements for 140,000 veterans back to CPI. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise and where is his loyalty to our veterans?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:05): Again, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should not promote falsehoods in this House. We promised that the DFRDB and the DFRB pensions would be indexed by CPI or male total average weekly earnings, whichever is the greater.
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: We have absolutely delivered on the policy commitments we took to the election.
Budget: Infrastructure
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (14:06): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on what new projects, not funded by the previous government, will be funded through the $50 billion infrastructure investment announced in the recent budget?
Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) (14:06): I thank the member for Barton for his question. He will be watching with great interest and enthusiasm as he sees the benefits of the coalition government's $50 billion infrastructure expenditure rollout in his own electorate through projects like WestConnex, an $11 billion project and perhaps the biggest infrastructure project that our country has seen.
I have noticed that members opposite are not so enthusiastic about this roads program. Some members opposite have claimed that we are not really providing much more money than Labor had intended to spend or, in the case of the member for Grayndler, there are only two extra projects that we are funding above what Labor had intended. The reality is that the member for Grayndler got that wrong as well. The reality is that we have a $16 billion commitment above what Labor had committed to roads and infrastructure prior to coming to office. The reality is that we are getting on with the job of a substantially boosted road infrastructure program that will make a real difference for Australia. So, on top of the two projects that the member for Grayndler was referring to, let me mention the East West Link, a $3 billion commitment in Melbourne; Adelaide's north-south corridor, an extra $394 million; the Perth freight link, $866 million; the Northern Territory roads project, $77 million; the Toowoomba range crossing; and the WestConnex project. Of course, he completely forgot the whole of the $2.9 billion commitment to Western Sydney—all forgotten—along with the Roads to Recovery program investment, which Labor is voting against in the House of Representatives, the national highway upgrade program for $229 million and $300 million for the new bridges program.
When you look at what Labor actually promised to do, the reality is that there were often so many conditions attached that they knew it would not happen. Yes, they were prepared to fund the Gateway Motorway in Brisbane, but only if it was tolled; they would fund the WestConnex, but only if it was not tolled; they would fund South Road in Adelaide, but only one end; and they would never go near the Toowoomba range. What about the Pacific Highway? Yes, they would do something there but only if New South Wales paid half, something they never asked when Labor was the state government in New South Wales. The Bruce Highway? Again, only if Queensland paid half, and even then there are 27 projects that we are funding on the Bruce Highway that Labor would not go near. This government is getting on with the business of building the infrastructure of the 21st century; Labor only talks.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:10): I would like to advise the House that we have in my gallery Mrs Mas Ermieyati, who is a member of the Malaysian parliament for Malacca. We bid you most welcome.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Veterans
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (14:10): My question is to the Prime Minister. In 2012 the Prime Minister told the national RSL conference:
If it’s inadequate just to lift Centrelink pensions by the Consumer Price Index, it’s even less fair to apply solely that index to those who have risked their lives for our country. Loyalty goes both ways.
Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise not to change pensions, by applying the consumer price index to the pensions of 140,463 veterans?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:11): Again I would say to the member opposite that we made a commitment that DFRDB and DFRB pensions would be indexed by the higher rate, a commitment which the former government made in opposition but failed to deliver on in government. We made that commitment in opposition and we have delivered on it in government.
Mr Dreyfus: Loyalty goes both ways!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs is warned.
Budget
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (14:11): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of fixing the budget and repairing the debt? How will the government's economic action strategy reduce debt over the next decade?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the honourable member for his question. As a new member, he knows how important it is to address the legacy of debt and deficit that has been left behind by the previous Labor government. If we do not take action now the debt that will be apportioned to every man, woman and child in Australia within 10 years will be $25,000—in total, $667 billion. The interest bill on that debt will be nearly $3 billion a month, and 70 per cent of the money that we pay in interest goes to people living overseas, because they have lent us the money to pay for Labor's programs, particularly over the last six years.
At the moment of course we are paying $1 billion in interest, and 70 per cent of that, over $700 million each month, goes overseas to pay people the interest on the debt. When confronted with that, Labor says, 'Don't worry, if we were re-elected we would have got the budget back to surplus.' The fact is that that is plainly untrue. That is not just our observation in the budget papers; the secretary of the Treasury identified that that was plainly untrue. When we tried to peel back exactly how they managed to make this claim, we saw that Labor used an assumption that they would reduce government expenditure to two per cent growth in real terms. That is a magical number, because they left 3.7 per cent growth. They said, 'Don't worry, we would have got to two per cent.' After we have done what we have done in this budget, after all the argument about co-payments and the pensions, after all the arguments about cuts in health and education, we have only got that expenditure down to 2.7 per cent. We have brought it down from Labor's 3.7 to 2.7 per cent growth, but Labor said they would get it to two per cent growth. How did they do with it? What a magic pudding it is!
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: Labor were miraculously going to go further and harder than the coalition in cuts to the budget in order to bring it back to surplus.
So let us get it right: Labor is not just opposing $40 billion of savings that we have in our budget—which gets it from 3.7 per cent to 2.7 per cent—but Labor is opposing $20 billion before the budget, including $5 billion that they took to the last election. So, they are not only opposing everything we are doing and everything that they promised at the last election but they would need to find tens of billions of dollars to meet their target. It just shows you that they are complete hypocrites.
Military Superannuation
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's pre-election policy on the indexation of military superannuation, which says:
It is scandalous that military retirees do not enjoy the same indexation arrangements as other people who have retired.
Why, then, has the Prime Minister increased indexation for some military superannuants to include a wages benchmark, while at the same time reducing the indexation arrangements, for all other veteran pensioners, to the CPI?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:15): Clearly the former minister realises the error in the questions that were being asked previously. The truth is that no military pensioner will receive a worse rate of indexation than a civilian one.
Coal Industry
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. Scientists tell us that to protect our future we need to keep most of our coal in the ground, but last week you told big miners that you could think of few things worse. With global warming the biggest ever threat to the Australian way of life, why are you adopting a policy of appeasement? Prime Minister, why are you a climate change Chamberlain when we need a Churchill?
The SPEAKER: I call the honourable Prime Minister. He will ignore the last part of the question.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:17): Like the member who asked me the question, I want to protect the environment. But unlike the member who asked me the question, I do not want to destroy the economy in the process. Even the Labor Party finally worked out that any environmental policy that closed down the coal industry was a policy that no sensible Australian government could follow.
I am all in favour of protecting our environment but I will tell you what else I am in favour of: I am also in favour of economic growth—not just in this country but right around the world. If we are going to have economic growth—not just in this country but right around the world—it will require energy. It will require energy, and by far the most efficient and effective source of baseload energy is coal.
It is interesting that members of the Labor Party are now cheering-on their Green coalition partner. Let the coal workers of Australia know that Labor members of this parliament, by the interjections, are agreeing with that Green up there. They want to close the coal industry down. We want the coal industry to be an important part of Australia's economic future, and the world's, for the benefit of us and for the benefit of people everywhere.
Budget: Public Policy
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (14:19): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the importance of stability and consistency in public policy. What other approaches are there to management of the budget?
Mr HOCKEY (North Sydney—The Treasurer) (14:19): I thank the honourable member for Capricornia for her question.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: I really do hope those opposite listen carefully to the answer, because it is hugely important to be consistent and predictable in relation to public policy. That is why, as the Prime Minister said before, we went to the last election promising veterans that we would lift the indexation arrangements in relation to particular payments.
Ms Plibersek: No cuts to pensions!
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney will desist.
Mr HOCKEY: And we have delivered. Unlike Labor, which went to a previous election promising to lift indexation and, when it got into government, walked away—they were inconsistent—we are consistent. In the budget we said that we are going to have a Medicare co-payment to make it sustainable. The Labor Party, once upon a time, believed in Medicare co-payments. In fact, in the 1991 budget speech the government said:
The Government is therefore reforming Medicare to change benefit arrangements to slow the growth in the use of medical services and to assist the medical profession to lift the quality of care available from General Practitioners.
So the Labor Party, once upon a time, believed in co-payments in Medicare; now they do not. How does that sit with them previously saying that they believed in co-payments for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme? In fact, they invented the co-payment for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in 1990.
And when they were last in government the Labor Party were imposing a co-payment fee on pensioners, of $6 per script for the first 60 scripts—$360. Now, they are so outraged about a co-payment for pensioners that they are opposing, for pensioners, a $70 co-payment over 10 visits to the doctor. So what is the consistency there? There is no consistency.
But wait: there is more. In 2009, the Labor Party froze indexation of the upper-income thresholds of family tax benefits A and B and the baby bonus for three years. So in government they wanted to freeze family payments. Now they are in opposition they want to oppose a freeze on family payments. In the 2011 budget, the Labor Party again froze indexation of supplements for three years; now they want to oppose the freezing of supplements. The Labor Party, in government, introduced indexation of fuel excise; now they want to oppose the indexation of fuel excise.
The Labor Party, in government, introduced fees for universities. Now they are opposed to changes in universities. I well remember. It was the Labor Party, of course, that increased the pension age to 67. Now the Labor Party want to oppose it going to 70. You see, it is their hypocrisy, because the Labor Party has no core principles. There is no light on the hill.
Budget: Pensions
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. Before the election the Prime Minister said it was not fair to apply the CPI to the pensions of those who had risked their lives for our country. The Prime Minister is now cutting the indexation arrangements for 84,202 war widow pensioners to CPI. Why did the Prime Minister break his promise to veterans and war widows?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:22): We made a specific commitment to people on DFRDB and DFRB pensions and we have honoured that specific commitment—we have absolutely honoured that specific commitment. I make the point that I made in answer to the earlier question from the member for Lingiari: no military pensioner will receive an inferior rate of indexation to a civilian one. Unlike members opposite who make commitments to veterans in opposition which they break in government, we make commitments to veterans in opposition and we have absolutely honoured them in government.
Budget: Higher Education
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (14:23): My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister explain how the government's higher education reforms recognise both the private and public benefit of university education and how the costs of that education should be fairly shared between student and taxpayer? What support can the minister cite for this approach?
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (14:24): I thank the member for Forrest for her question. I think she would agree, as would most Australians, that there is both a private and a public benefit to higher education qualifications in this country. Most obviously, the public benefit is manifested in a more productive workforce and a growing and productive economy. But there is also a very obvious private benefit. There has been much research done that shows that people who have been to university live longer; they are healthier; they enjoy a 3.3 per cent unemployment rate as opposed to a 7.8 per cent unemployment rate for those people who leave school at year 12 and do not get a qualification; and they will earn $1 million more over a lifetime, or 75 per cent more, than those Australians without a qualification.
Sixty per cent of taxpayers do not have a higher education qualification and yet they are paying 60 per cent of the cost of tuition fees of students who are at university. So 60 per cent of Australians do not go to university and yet out of the goodness of their own hearts they pay 60 per cent of the tuition fees of students who go to university. Those students will go on to earn 75 per cent more than Australians who do not go to university. So our reforms rebalance the approach, the contribution, between students and taxpayers to around fifty-fifty. Students can borrow every single dollar of that up-front and we are asking them in these reforms to pay back at an interest rate which is the same as the taxpayer has been good enough to pay on their behalf in borrowing the money.
I am not alone in recognising the private benefit that comes from higher education. In a book that was released a couple of years ago one writer in this House said:
I clearly remember being among a distinct minority of university students who supported paying for our degrees through HECS. I supported it because I could see the inherent logic. Our incomes would be higher because we had been to university.
Some members might think I am talking about the member for Fraser and they would be incorrect. In fact, I was not; I am talking about the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon. He recognises the private benefit in university education. But let us not leave Dr Leigh out, because he wrote in his book:
A deregulated or market-based HECS will make the student contribution system fairer, because the fees students pay will more closely approximate the value they receive in future earnings.
So there are Labor members who recognise the private benefit and they expose the extraordinary hypocrisy at the heart of Australia's No. 1 whinger's complaint about higher education reform. He should get on board with the member for McMahon and the member for Fraser.
Budget: Pensions
Ms MACKLIN (Jagajaga) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said before the election:
If it is inadequate to increase Centrelink pensions by just the consumer price index, it is even less fair to apply only that index to those who have risked their lives for our country. Loyalty goes both ways.
I also refer to page 203 of Budget Paper No. 2, which shows a cut of $65 million to veterans pensions. Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promise to veterans?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:28): The shadow minister, in common with some of her colleagues, is attempting to demonstrate that there has been some breach of promise. There has been none. We made a commitment to DFRDB and DFRB pensioners. We made a commitment to those people in those particular military pensions who previously were indexed at only CPI that they would be indexed at CPI or MTAWE, whichever was the greater.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister is referring to a different election commitment to the one that was specifically read out in the question.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Resume your seat. The Prime Minister has completed his answer.
Asylum Seekers
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Will the minister advise the House how many successful people-smuggling ventures have arrived in Australia this year and what has contributed to that outcome? Minister, could you explain the impact on the budget because of the outcomes the government's measures to control our borders have achieved?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) (14:29): I thank the member for Fisher for his question. He has served on the government benches of two governments now that have been responsible for successful border protection policies. I can advise him that there have been no successful ventures this year—none at all over the first five months of this year. That is in stark contrast to the first five months of last year, where I can inform the member there were 156 such ventures, more than a venture day and an average of over 2,000 people arriving every month and over 10,000 over that period. The saving to the budget is $2½ billion.
Mr Marles interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corio will desist!
Mr MORRISON: When I was driving into Parliament House today, there was a car in front of me that had a bumper sticker on the back that said: 'Don't blame me. I voted Labor.' I am not going to blame Labor for these results. They have got absolutely nothing to do with them. We are not going to blame the Labor Party and those who supported the Labor Party for the border successes that this government have been able to achieve. And there are a range of other things that I am not going to blame the Labor Party for.
I am not going to blame them for cutting a billion dollars in regulatory costs off business. The Prime Minister and the member for Kooyong are achieving that. I am not going to blame Labor for attacking Labor's debt and deficit disaster. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance are doing that. I am not going to blame the Labor Party for getting Sydney's second airport underway and spending $2½ billion on infrastructure in Western Sydney. The Minister for Infrastructure is doing that. I am not going to blame the Labor Party for groundbreaking education reforms for higher education. That is being done by the Minister for Education. I am not going to blame the Labor Party for approving more than $500 billion—that is half a trillion dollars—in project approvals, because that is being done by the Minister for Education. I am not going to blame those opposite for two new trade agreements with Korea and Japan, because that is being done by the Minister for Trade. I am not going to blame those opposite for fixing the mess on the NBN disaster, because that is being done by the Minister for Communications. I am certainly not going to blame those opposite for the job we have done on stopping the boats, because that is as a result of the policies of those on this side of the House.
We know their messes when we see them and we get about the job in government of fixing them. It is what the Nationals and the Liberals do. We fix Labor's messes. We are very good at it. We have done it many times before. The Australian people know that when you elect a Liberal-National government, we fix up Labor's messes.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the policy work on the $20 billion medical research fund did not begin until April this year, just weeks before the budget was released? Does this confirm that the Prime Minister is just making this budget up as he goes along?
Mr Hockey interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will desist!
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:33): I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to suggest that somehow a six-week gestation period was inadequate—this from a political party that cooked up the National Broadband Network on the back of a coaster on a VIP flight. Really and truly! The Medical Research Future Fund is a policy based on endowment funds that were created under the former government and for which there is an abundance of precedent in Australian government. If members opposite were more interested in government and less interested in grandstanding, and if they were more interested in policy and less interested in politicking, they would know that well.
Carbon Pricing
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. I remind the minister of the Queensland Competition Authority's report published last Friday that the state's power prices will be around eight per cent higher on 1 July if the carbon tax remains in place. Why must the carbon tax be repealed as soon as possible and who is standing in the way?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (14:34): I want to thank the member for McPherson for what is a very timely question. Today we have seen the opposition rediscover a love of truth in election promises and rediscover a concern about cost of living. It is a very interesting proposition, because you will remember that before the election they suddenly decided to terminate the carbon tax. Why would they have wanted to terminate the carbon tax? They wanted to do it because they believed that it would lower prices. They wanted to do it because they believed that it was hurting families. They wanted to do it because they believed that it was hurting small business. Well, if you are concerned today about cost of living and if you are concerned today about so-called truth in election promises, start by making yourselves honest and start by giving Australian families a $550 a year reduction in taxes. Right now, we can reduce the cost of living for Australian families by $550.
These are the people opposite who before the election would talk like Liberals and after the election vote like Greens. When it came to terminating the carbon tax, what was it that they did? They voted to keep the carbon tax. What occurs on 1 July is that the carbon tax goes up by five per cent. What will occur as a consequence of that? There will be more pressure on electricity, more pressure on gas, more pressure on refrigeration, more pressure on fuels and more pressure on Australian families and businesses. So what we know is this: if you want to save Australian families $550, let's do what the ALP said before the election and terminate the carbon tax. That is what they said. That is what they can do. And I want to make this statement: that we will be bringing back the carbon tax legislation in time for the Senate to consider it in the first two weeks of the new sittings, but if the ALP is willing to give an iron-clad guarantee, as they did before the election, that they would terminate the carbon tax, we will bring it back earlier.
Most interestingly, we saw the impact of that with the Queensland Competition Authority's announcement last week. They set out two tariffs, one with the carbon tax and one without, and the difference was this: it was a difference, just in electricity terms, of $178 for a family of four without the carbon tax, and $246 a year for a family of six without the carbon tax. So, if you want to reduce the cost of living, get out of the way; stand with us and abolish the carbon tax, and stand for what you said before the election and terminate the carbon tax.
Budget: Health
Ms KING (Ballarat) (14:37): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comment yesterday that 70 per cent of GP visits at the moment are bulk-billed. Is the Prime Minister aware that the latest figures show that the bulk-billing rate is in fact 83.6 per cent? How can the government introduce a GP tax when the Prime Minister does not even know how many Australians rely on bulk billing for medical treatment?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:38): I stand by my comments, and I simply point out to the shadow minister who asked the question: if it is right and proper for a modest co-payment to be applied to people getting PBS drugs, how can it be wrong and immoral for people to be charged a modest co-payment for a visit to the GP?
Ms King: Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a question about the bulk-billing rate and his failure to actually know what it is and Australia's reliance on it. Perhaps he could answer that question.
The SPEAKER: That is an argument. There is no point of order. The member will resume her seat. The Prime Minister will continue his answer to the question as put.
Mr ABBOTT: This issue of the so-called the unfairness of co-payments—
Ms King: 'So-called'!
Mr ABBOTT: Well, how can it be unfair when Labor imposes a co-payment on Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme drugs? How can it be fair for Labor to impose a co-payment and unfair for the coalition to impose a co-payment? This exposes the utter, absolute and total hypocrisy of members opposite.
We all know that the father of the Medicare co-payment is Bob Hawke; we all know that the mother of the Medicare co-payment is the member for Jagajaga—
Ms Macklin interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist and withdraw that remark.
Mr ABBOTT: We all know that the son of the Medicare co-payment is the member for Fraser. I have discovered that a kind of cousin of the co-payment is in fact the member for Hunter, who said that the co-payment decision was a very brave one, but it was justifiable; it was a decision designed to address the ever-burgeoning cost while maintaining the scheme's most basic aim: affordability. He was talking about the PBS, but what is right for the PBS is right for Medicare as well.
Ms King: Madam Speaker, I am just seeking leave to table a transcript of the Bolt Report where the Prime Minister stated that the bulk-billing rebate for GP visits was 70 per cent.
The SPEAKER: I made a ruling about requesting for leave to table.
Mr Pyne: It's on the public record.
Ms King: It might assist the Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: It is a moot point whether the actual transcript is on the public record; certainly the words are. So I think we will say it is on the public record.
Medicare
Dr STONE (Murray) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is moving to protect the universality of Medicare and strengthen our health system?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for her question and I thank her very much for the work that she does, particularly in relation to FASD.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley is warned! You are warned.
Mr DUTTON: She is a leader in that area, and I acknowledge the very important work that she does. The universality of Medicare is important, and this is what the Hawke government had to say when they introduced a co-payment: 'The government has not changed the universality of Medicare.
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield! You are the worst serial offender!
Mr DUTTON: Medicare services have always been financed by a combination of tax and the Medicare levy based on the relative capacity to pay, and, secondly, patient co-payments, which may of course be waived at the doctor's discretion.'
Mr Champion interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield is warned.
Mr DUTTON: The reality is that, when the Hawke government introduced a co-payment, they did so because they wanted to see Medicare sustainable. Labor can pretend that they can rack up debt for ever more, that they can give free services to all Australians, and that somehow the party can continue on. The reality is—and the Australian people know this: it can't; it just can't. Ten years ago we were spending $8 billion a year on Medicare; today we are spending $20 billion a year. As a Commonwealth, we spend $65 billion a year on health; the Medicare levy raises $10 billion. I want to make sure that, as our population ages, and as we get medical services, new technologies, DNA testing and genomics testing—all of this, which will be important for us to fund into the future—we have a sustainable Medicare.
The Labor Party believed in well-thought-out public policy, once upon a time. When Labor were in government, they put money into GP super clinics. They put it into wasteful programs, including increasing the number of people in the health bureaucracy. But it was not always the case. Back in the Hawke years, Jenny Macklin, as the head of the policy department that advised Brian Howe at that point, said that a co-payment was necessary to make Medicare sustainable. They do not like it but it is true.
Ms Macklin: It is not true!
Mr Burke: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer to a new standing order which was introduced after the election, for which currently there is no precedent. Under the amendment to standing order 68:
If a Member has given a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation and another Member subsequently repeats the matter complained of, the Speaker may intervene.
The Minister for Health is now precisely providing information which the member for Jagajaga has previously explained to the House is false. And I do ask you, on that basis, to intervene.
The SPEAKER: I would say that the member for Jagajaga has been interjecting saying misrepresentation and I have pointed out to her that there are other forms of the House to deal with that question. However, on the question of standing order 68, I will consider the implications of standing order 68 and not rule on it straightaway, but in the interim the Minister for Health has the call.
Mr DUTTON: All I can go to are the words of Brian Howe, the then health minister, who introduced a co-payment and relied upon advice from the then head of the health directory within the Labor Party, Jenny Macklin. Brian Howe introduced a co-payment. Bob Hawke supported a co-payment, because he wanted sustainability of Medicare.
We know the member for Fraser—he is in some sort of protection racket at the moment; he has not been out in the press—was a daily offender out there in front of the cameras; he loves the cameras. But they have had him in hiding for the last week. We know, as the son of Bob Hawke, he is here as the defender-in-chief of Medicare's sustainability. He wants a co-payment. He has written about it, and the Labor Party should listen to one of their up-and-coming member's wise views within the Labor Party. He deserves listening to. (Time expired)
Higher Education Contribution Scheme
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister: yesterday the education minister said that higher interest rates on student loans would not apply to current students. Prime Minister, is this correct?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:56): From the middle of 2016, people will pay the long-term bond rate capped at six per cent.
National Broadband Network
Mr IRONS (Swan) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Communications: will the minister update the House on NBN Co's performance connecting premises to its fibre network, particularly in my electorate of Swan; how will the government deliver the NBN sooner and more affordably; and what impact will this have on the government's management of the budget?
Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth—Minister for Communications) (14:57): I thank the honourable member for his question, because there is nowhere in Australia—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wakefield, I would remind, is warned.
Mr TURNBULL: where the Labor Party's denial of reality is more evident than in the honourable member's electorate where in July 2013 it was announced that 92 per cent of the premises the NBN had claimed to have passed with fibre—do it once, do it right, do it with fibre—could not be connected. Even if the residents rang up their retail service provider and said, 'Hook us up. We've seen Senator Conroy on the television. We want to be admitted to the new internet nirvana,' nothing could happen. There was no way they could be connected.
As at the time of the election, 78 per cent of all the premises Labor claimed to have passed with fibre could not be connected. Some of them simply because they did not have any lead in, and so it would take months and months to hook them up; and others because there wasn't even a multiport in the street and there was no foreseeable way in which they could be connected
We have seen Labor deny the reality of the budget. We have seen them deny the mess they left us in—the $667 billion of debt—but that is a fairly straightforward level of denialism. But there is a deteriorating taxonomy of denialism, when you actually move into a parallel universe—in this case, the parallel universe of Conrovia—where you not only deny the facts; you create an alternative make-believe set of facts and you actually decide. You incentivise a business to pass premises with fibre, regardless of whether they can be connected, because any normal cable business would have as its primary objective to connect people. Why, Madam Speaker? I will let you into the secret: because if you connect people, you can actually get them to pay you something. The Prime Minister is onto it, but there was nobody in the Labor Party that was. What an extraordinary parallel universe they lived in.
But of course it is not the first time: Lewis Carroll summed this up very, very well. It was a sort of pre-Conrovian parallel universe, and I am reminded of that highly rational woman Alice who was speaking to the White Queen. She says to the White Queen:
… one can't believe impossible things.
And the White Queen says:
I daresay you haven't had much practice … I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Thankfully, we are no longer on the wrong side of the looking glass; we are now in the real world—the real world of cleaning up your mess.
Budget
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister—
Government members interjecting—
Mr CLARE: earlier today the Minister for Communications labelled remarks from conservative commentator Andrew Bolt as 'demented', 'crazy' and 'unhinged'. Andrew Bolt then said:
If only Turnbull had spent half this charm fighting for Abbott’s Budget.
Prime Minister, who is right: your friend Andrew Bolt or your 'frenemy' Malcolm Turnbull?
Mr Pyne: It is all very amusing but it is not within the standing orders. It is not a question to the Prime Minister. It is not within his area of responsibility and therefore the question should be ruled out of order and the next questioner called from our side of the House.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House has actually made a very serious point, but nonetheless I have let a wide-ranging interpretation of the standing orders be a feature of the way I have ruled on these matters and I will give the Prime Minister the call.
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (14:51): I was delighted to be shoulder to shoulder with the member for Wentworth and the Minister for Communications selling the budget—all of the benefits of this budget—just on Saturday at the Victor Chang medical research institute, an institute which will be one of the many beneficiaries of the Medical Research Future Fund. In any dispute between a member of my front bench and a member of the fourth estate, I am firmly on the side of my frontbencher.
Education
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (14:52): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Education. Will the assistant minister outline what measures the government has taken in the budget to improve children's literacy skills and encourage the teaching of foreign languages?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Assistant Minister for Education) (14:52): I thank the member for Banks for his question. I visited him in April at a childcare centre managed by the Chinese Australian Services Society and I want to congratulate them on the good work that they are doing in Western Sydney, as is the member for Banks. This is a part of our election commitment to revive the teaching of foreign language in schools. As we all know, it is much easier to learn a foreign language when you are small than when you are big. So the coalition has promised nearly $10 million for the Early Learning Languages Australia trial to test the effectiveness of providing preschool children with early exposure to a language other than English through online learning programs. It was a very positive election commitment. Children at up to 40 preschools services will participate in the trial.
It is important that we recognise the importance of early learning of foreign languages. We recognise that the children involved in this initiative will grow up to participate more and more in a world of work and play that is increasingly integrated and interconnected with our region, more so than ever before. The Liberal and Nationals parties understand the regional flows of trade and investment much more so than Labor. This policy fits well with the coalition's higher education reforms, which also recognise the importance of our students reaching out and living and working in a globally connected world more so than ever before because we face increasing international competition. We need new skills to succeed in the global economy. Improving the take-up of foreign languages will help young people to export businesses and strengthen our economy by giving them the ability to deal with overseas customers and partners.
Labor has not progressed beyond the prehistoric insular view of education policy. It is time for the Labor Party to wake up and recognise that our students are competing with the rest of the world. Unless we act now, we will be left behind.
Budget: Trade Support Loans
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (14:55): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to page 172 of Budget Paper No. 2 that states the government's trade support loans will attract interest. I also refer to the industry minister's statement in question time on 15 May 2014 that trade support loans are interest free. Prime Minister, which is right: the budget paper or the industry minister?
Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Industry) (14:55): I am delighted to answer this question. There is no doubt that the loans are interest free. It gives me an opportunity to highlight the great regard and delight from industry in relation to the trade support loans. The loans, as the shadow minister knows, are indexed annually with CPI. These loans will offer apprentices the opportunity to receive, over four years, $20,000 which they can use for whatever purpose they like.
Ms Bird: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. I point the industry minister to the words in the budget paper, which say 'concessional interest rate'.
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume her seat.
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: Perhaps, for the shadow minister, I need to repeat: the loans are adjusted with CPI. She may view that as an interest adjustment. Actually, what is happening is the loans are maintaining their real value year-on-year. It does not detract from the fact—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr IAN MACFARLANE: That is exactly right. The reality is that, on CPI, the indexation will be, on current Reserve Bank estimates, between 2½ and three per cent. Those over there, who we know have no understanding of money and finance, may like to equate that to an interest-rate. If they do, it is still more than half the interest-rate for other loans. The reality is that the value of trade support loans in the hands of the apprentice, where they finish their four years, is estimated to be in excess of $12,500, more than double the tools for the trade.
Economy
Mr WOOD (La Trobe) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister explain how the government's economic action strategy will assist the 12,200 small businesses in my electorate of La Trobe?
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (14:58): It is great to see the member for La Trobe back in this place. At last the La Trobe electorate has once again a great champion for small businesses in our city east of Melbourne. The member knows, as we all know on this side of the House, that we need to actually fix the budget to create the stronger economy that we need and to improve the prospects for our small businesses and our family enterprises.
I shared with this chamber last week the devastating updated figures about the number of jobs lost in our small businesses under Labor. There were 519,000 jobs lost in small businesses in Australia under the previous Labor administration. Just as we know the budget could not keep going on the debt and deficit trajectory that we had inherited, small businesses know that we could not keep going with the policy settings that Labor had implemented that inflicted such pain, such difficulty and such a loss of employment right across our economy.
The good news for those 12,200 this businesses in La Trobe is we actually have a plan, the only plan, to not only fix the budget mess but to energise enterprise in this country to see what we can do decisively do to stop this loss of employment that is causing such hardship and loss of livelihoods right across our economy and right across our continent.
So getting the budget right and creating the right economic conditions is all important for building the confidence for small business to grow, and to create the jobs.
It has been terrific to see the chamber movement, support that initiative. So many of those people are close to small business and know what the Abbott government is doing is exactly what the small-business men and women need: fixing the debt and deficit disaster, building a strong and prosperous economy, getting those conditions right so that people can make the choices to invest to grow their businesses, to create economic and employment opportunities. It is a considered and consistent plan. It is predicable; it is positive; it is the solid platform that small-business men and women are looking for.
Not only are we getting the budget back on track but the specific measures within the budget see us invest in our future capability. In the member for La Trobe will be interested in the incentives; cutting the company tax will help 800,000 of our small businesses. We are ending the carbon tax. The Minister for the Environment very eloquently outlined how it will reduce the cost of doing business and improve people's livelihoods. It will also relieve the cost pressures on our consumers across the country.
But there are also specific programs, like the Demand-Driver Infrastructure program for tourism and the Plan for Safer Streets program. And who could forget the enormous investment in infrastructure: the East-West Link in Melbourne, which will not only carry commerce and commuters but will help inject more opportunities for our nation.
This a budget plan that small business needs. It is the only plan that is on the table. Small business knows they cannot afford more of Labor. Labor should simply get out of the road and let us get on with the job of rebuilding the small business economy.
Budget
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (15:01): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments on the $80 billion cuts to hospitals and schools: 'We are not talking about next week or next month or even next year. We are talking about changes in three years' time'. How can the Prime Minister not know that these cuts start on 1 July, in 28 days? The Prime Minister is making it up as he goes along. How can he understand how much it is hurting Australians?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:02): Let me make it crystal clear to the member who asked the question: public hospital funding increases by nine per cent this year, nine per cent next year, nine per cent the year after that and six per cent in the final year of the forward estimates. That is the truth. The only difference between us and members opposite is that we are slowing the rate of growth of public hospital spending in the final year of this budget's forward estimates because we think that public hospital spending, along with everything else, should be sustainable.
It is not easy to deal with the debt and deficit disaster that the Labor Party left us. It is not easy to deal with a situation where our country is paying $1 billion in dead money every single month just in interest on the borrowings. It is not easy to deal with this. But this government will do what it was elected to do and get the budget back under control.
As for the specific measure that the member who asked the question is concerned about, this is something that the former government cut. This is a cut that the former government made. It was not there in the pre-election fiscal outlook. It is a Labor cut, and I say to the states and territories: 'Know who is responsible for this: it is them. It is members on the other side of the House.'
Work for the Dole Program
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (15:03): My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I cannot hear the question. One moment. There is too much noise in the chamber.
Mr Husic interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Chifley will leave the chamber under 94(a). He was warned twice.
The member for Chifley then left the chamber.
Mrs McNAMARA: My question is to the Assistant Minister for Employment. Will the minister update the House on recent research into how job seekers can improve their employment prospects? How does this research back up the importance of the government's new Work for the Dole program?
Mr HARTSUYKER (Cowper—Deputy Leader of the House and Assistant Minister for Employment) (15:04): I thank the member for her question. And let me say it is great to have a wonderful new member for Dobell who is passionate about the interests of her electorate and who is passionate about the interests of young people in Dobell and creating opportunities for our young people. I was delighted on Friday to visit the Central Coast Wetlands Pioneer Dairy, a great local community project, driven by great volunteers, with the support of a Work for the Dole team, sponsored through Break Thru People Solutions.
It was a great project. The local member introduced me to a number of motivated job seekers who have been working on that program, and they said to me that Work for the Dole had changed their attitude to the workplace. We know the members opposite hate Work for the Dole. It is in their DNA to hate Work for the Dole.
Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Gorton will desist, and withdraw afterwards.
Mr HARTSUYKER: But Work for the Dole is a program that can deliver great community outcomes and deliver great skills to young job seekers. When I spoke to the participants, they were glowing in their praise of Work for the Dole and the way in which Work for the Dole had changed their attitude to work and the workplace. I spoke to a young man called Aaron. When Aaron started his placement, he initially he did not travel too well. He had a bit of trouble getting involved in the program. But over time his skills developed, and every day he used to enjoy getting up and getting on with the project and being part of delivering the outcomes at Pioneer Dairy.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HARTSUYKER: I am pleased to report to the House—the members opposite might not be interested—but I am pleased to report to the House—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Gorton on a point of order.
Mr Brendan O'Connor: The minister is referring to a Work for the Dole program that was actually put in place by the previous government—
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member will resume his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr HARTSUYKER: The members opposite will not want to hear this, but Aaron was able to tell me that he had secured a job, which was great news, through Work for the Dole. We know the members have spent their time running down the Work for the Dole program that they inherited from the Howard era, but this government is committed. I announced phase 1 last week of the revamped Work for the Dole which will scale up the Work for the Dole program. And today I released a survey, and that survey said:
Making basic adjustments to their attitude and physical presentation is the most effective thing that many young job seekers can do to improve their employment prospects.
That is why we are increasing the amount of Work for the Dole programs available. That is why we are increasing the number of opportunities for young people to develop the sorts of skills which have been run down under the members opposite.
We believe in the ability of Work for the Dole to deliver the skills that young people need to get a leg up in the workplace—to get that start that they need; to deliver the skills that employers want. We on this side of the House support Work for the Dole. The members opposite in their time in government ran down Work for the Dole.
Budget
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong—Leader of the Opposition) (15:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to mistakes explaining the budget made by the Treasurer, by the Minister for Education, by the Minister for Industry, by the Minister for Social Services and by the Prime Minister himself. If the Prime Minister and his cabinet cannot get it right, how will they ever understand how much their budget of broken promises is hurting real Australian families?
Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Prime Minister) (15:08): It is so typical—
Ms Macklin: There are three of them behind you.
The SPEAKER: The member for Jagajaga will desist. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr ABBOTT: It is so typical, I regret to say, of this opposition leader—
Ms Owens: So typical for this government to get it so wrong.
The SPEAKER: The member for Parramatta will desist.
Mr ABBOTT: and this opposition that they have a political critique but not an economic critique. The reason for that is that this budget is a serious attempt to address the economic disaster that members opposite created. This budget is a real plan, a real economic action strategy, to deal with the predicament that this country faces as a result of six years of incompetence and dishonesty from members opposite. We have a plan for the future of our country. All the Leader of the Opposition has is one long complaint—no solutions; all complaint. That is why the people of Australia can trust this government.
I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (15:09): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I do.
Leave granted.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: In an article published in the Weekend Australian on Saturday entitled 'O'Connor silent on tugboats' it was reported that I was not willing to comment upon the Port Hedland dispute. This was a complete misrepresentation of my reply to a question at the AMMA conference in Perth on Friday. In fact, in reply to the question I said:
It is incumbent on parties to sit down and resolve differences.
And I added:
We'd rather see resolution rather than any conflict.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (15:10): Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (15:11): I rise to speak in relation to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. In so doing, it is important to think about the purpose of paid parental leave. It has been pleasing to me to see the shift in consensus in this country in the last decade. I remember very well the then Labor opposition in the early 2000s bringing forth to the Australian people a policy of paid parental leave and that being widely opposed by Liberals and Nationals across this country. It took a Labor government to introduce paid parental leave, as you know, Madam Speaker, and that followed on from a Productivity Commission report that Labor commissioned in government that considered a paid parental leave scheme.
It is important to consider what the Productivity Commission report had to say about paid parental leave. The Productivity Commission made some remarks that are very pertinent to the present debate in respect of paid parental leave broadly and the mechanism for administering paid parental leave, which is the subject of the bill before us today. The Productivity Commission, in considering paid parental leave, looked at a few objectives for a paid parental leave scheme. The starting point was: why have a paid parental leave scheme?
The Productivity Commission looked at a few objectives, as I said. The first objective was child and maternal health. Obviously there is a child and maternal health objective in the sense that paid parental leave is aimed at assisting parents to stay at home and bond with newborn children if possible while removing some of the stress that comes from going for a long period of time without an income, which of course most people—myself included—would not be able to manage in terms of the household finances for very long. Another issue that was taken into account, and an objective of paid parental leave, was the equity issues. In simple terms, women tend to take longer breaks from the workforce than men and, as a consequence, end up with less superannuation and less income over the course of a lifetime.
The third key objective that was considered by the Productivity Commission was the labour force benefits of a paid parental leave scheme. There is the obvious workforce participation of a paid parental leave scheme, in that it provides an incentive to stay in employment both to qualify for the paid parental leave scheme and then, once the person has had a child, to continue in employment to remain qualified for the paid parental leave scheme. There are also other workforce benefits—first and foremost of which is the one that is the subject of this bill and the debate of this bill, which is workforce attachment.
I have been listening to the debate today and I note that some the Liberal-National members who have addressed the bill have claimed that it is a small business measure and that there is no workforce attachment benefit to retaining the administration of paid parental leave in the hands of the employer. I turn to those comments. Firstly, the bill is not a small business specific measure; it is a bill which takes from all employers the administration of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme and returns it to the Commonwealth, therefore demonstrating and signifying to the people who use the scheme—employers and employees—that really the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is not an incident of work but an incident of welfare. It is a very unfortunate message to be sending to people because, as I have said, one of the considerations and objectives for paid parental leave was attachment for the person taking the leave to their workforce.
Attachment is so important for a number of reasons. Firstly, skills can be eroded by long absence from the workforce. We know that in paid parental leave legislation there are keep in touch days that are important for keeping the person in touch with the workplace on an ongoing basis. Secondly, there is the out of sight, out of mind issue which arises when people take long periods of leave from the workplace. There I am talking about things like promotion—if a promotion opportunity arises and somehow the person on parental leave is not informed or a promotion opportunity arises and it is advertised only in the internal newsletter and the newsletter is not sent to the person on parental leave, or the management of the firm considers an efficiency restructure and surprise, surprise, it is the person on parental leave whose job magically appears to have become redundant in that process. All of those things are concerns for people who go on parental leave. People on parental leave are concerned about making sure they will have a good job to go back to when they return. There is legislation in place but it is not just legislation. It is not just rule based compliance that is important in normalising absence from the workforce to look after children and in making sure that people who take those absences are not disadvantaged. As well as rules based compliance with the right to return to the same job or a job of equal status, as well as the right to take absences in the first place, as well as the right to have those absences recognised as a normal incident of working life for parenting aged people, culture is needed. Rules alone are not enough to develop that approach by employees and employers. You need to have a culture where it is a normal part of life for people to be absent. Part of building that culture is keeping people in touch with the workplace and attached to the workforce during long periods of absence. That is why workforce attachment is an important issue.
I heard someone say before that they did not really understand workforce attachment, that they thought it was something the Labor Party had made up to justify opposition to this bill. In fact, if you look at the history the Paid Parental Leave Scheme in this country and if you look back at the Productivity Commission report you will see that attachment was one of the key issues considered by the Productivity Commission in considering the payment mechanism, by which I mean in considering whether it should be the employer who administers the paid parental leave as part of payroll or whether it should be administered by a government department as part of the welfare system. The Productivity Commission had this to say about why it would be best for employers to administer the scheme, in other words, to keep workers on the payroll as part of the ordinary business, not some special category over here whose pay is being administered by the government and, as I say, it becomes out of sight out of mind. In its report, the Productivity Commission said:
The more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements—
The Productivity Commission suggested that this would benefit employers:
… promoting employment continuity and workplace retention … signalling that a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life.
That is the rationale that the Productivity Commission had in deciding to recommend that the payments should be administered by the employer rather than by the federal government. The Productivity Commission addressed some concerns about the administrative burden for employers saying:
… it is arguable whether there would be any material addition to administrative costs, not only for large employers with access to sophisticated payroll and human resource management systems, but also for smaller firms because (as acknowledged by some participants) the probability of an employee actually being on parental leave at any point in time would be quite low.
What is being said there is that in a small firm, in a small business, there is a low number of employees, that it is not the norm for an employee to be on parental leave; quite the contrary, it is an exception across the course of the employee's lifetime. So the incidence of employees being on parental leave was relatively low, according to the Productivity Commission. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library for including in the Bills Digest some responses to a survey conducted of employers in respect of how they found the Paid Parental Leave Scheme to be administered. Tellingly, 74 per cent agreed that paid parental leave had been easy to implement. Of course, while some employer associations had raised concerns about employers having to administer the payments, it is certainly the case that in the course of the inquiries before the Paid Parental Leave Scheme was introduced there was some acknowledgment of the benefits of that workforce attachment consideration.
The Australian Industry Group, as the Bills Digest acknowledges, ultimately said that it understands the logic behind the government funded parental leave payments being channelled through employers for employees who are not short term and who remain attached to the enterprise, that such an approach should reinforce the employee's link with the workplace and achieve better return to work outcomes. So again we see the workforce attachment concerns. Obviously coming from a business background, I was in a law firm which was a private business. Like most private businesses, we had a concern about ensuring that our human resources were managed. It was very clear to me, as one of the leaders of that business, that retention is a vitally important issue for business. You hear different figures being bandied around but one of the figures suggests it can cost $70,000 when you lose an employee—to recruit, to replace, to retrain to reskill the replacement.
It is easy to see how important it is to seek to retain employees whenever that is possible. Work force attachment benefits should therefore not be discounted as a benefit to business for what, according to the research, appears to have been a burden that they have found easy to implement.
Of course this bill is not, as I said earlier, a bill about small business. It is a bill that applies to all businesses. It has been a bit mischievous of government MPs to suggest that Labor does not have any basis to reject this bill because all it does is help small business. We know that small businesses need to be able to devote time and energy to grow. That is why, during the election campaign, we campaigned to enable businesses with fewer than 20 employees to have Centrelink administer their paid parental leave payments. This bill does not just apply to small businesses, as has been mischievously implied by people opposite. It applies to all businesses other than those who opt to pay their paid parental leave payments themselves.
We say that there is a sensible balance needed to maintain the relationship, the work force attachment, with the employees while they are on paid parental leave, versus the resources that are needed to comply and to administer the payment. The bill that is presently before the House simply does not strike the right balance. We will move to amend the legislation in the Senate to ensure that only businesses with 20 employees can have their paid parental leave administered by Centrelink. It is consistent with our pre-election policy. To apply the rules so that there would be a move to administration by Centrelink only for small businesses is consistent with, I believe, the private member's bill of the small business minister when he was in opposition.
The fact is that this bill goes much further and does not strike the right balance. That is why we will seek to move an amendment to it in the Senate. When you think about what can only be described as a surprising move by the government to introduce a bill that does not strike the right balance, that goes further than the previous private member's bill, that contradicts the Productivity Commission's own recommendations around work force attachment, you would have to say that this is another example of the Abbott government's failure to get its priorities right.
It is disappointing, in the broader context of paid parental leave, that we are seeing yet another example of that priorities problem this government seems to have. I have spoken in this House before about the issue of priorities when it comes to paid parental leave. You see this gold-plated Rolls Royce paid parental leave scheme that the Prime Minister has come up with, and his only concession to the arguments of fairness and equity that have been raised has been to reduce the threshold from $150,000 per annum earners down to $100,000 per annum earners. That means, still, that people who are earning $100,000 or more per annum—even if they earn $1 million or more; it is not capped—will be paid $50,000 if they have a baby versus someone on a lower income who will be paid a lower amount. We know that this income replacement process for paid parental leave was squarely dealt with by the Productivity Commission in its 2009 report. We know that the Productivity Commission expressly recommended against a full income replacement scheme in that 2009 report into paid parental leave. Yet, unfortunately, the Abbott government is pushing ahead with this inequitable scheme, where people who earn more get more government assistance and people who earn less get less government assistance.
This is in the context of a budget where we are going to see indexation to pensioners changed so that pensioners end up suffering. We are going to see cuts to health funding in the sense of people receiving a lesser rebate when they go to the GP, the GP tax on people who formerly would have been bulk billed, and the ability for the states to levy the emergency department tax. All of these changes, not to mention, of course—and I have spoken about it recently—deregulation of university fees and higher debt burdens on university students, show that this government's priorities are twisted.
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (15:26): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I have been an advocate for change in this area ever since the policy was explained to me. The hysteria that has been whipped up by the opposition and those on the other side really beggars belief because ultimately this is a measure of equity. This is about providing low- and middle-income women with the best opportunity to go and have a family, because that is really important. It is also about providing them with the best opportunity, if they so choose, to get back to work.
There have been many misunderstandings. The principal misunderstanding relates to how this measure will be funded. In large part this will be funded by a levy on the biggest tax-paying big business in our country. I find it quite interesting that those on the other side see that as a bad thing. It will particularly help low- and middle-income women in the work force. It particularly will help those women that are involved and employed within small business. Why should not those people who choose to work in small business have the same opportunities that are offered to women that work in big business, to women that work in the Public Service? Why is it that cleaners, teachers and shop assistants should be disadvantaged under the current arrangements? Why is it that those on the other side would oppose these measures?
It is a policy that will support new babies. The evidence shows that the first six months of a baby and a mother bonding are the most vital and the most important. It is also important to understand that superannuation will be paid on this fair dinkum scheme. You do not have to look very far. Most people do understand that women, when they retire at the end of their working lives, have less superannuation than their male counterparts. It is simply untenable. It gives women every reason to have a family. That is so important for Australia. It is so important for them. It gives those women the very best opportunity to re-enter the work force if they so choose.
This is in fact a workplace entitlement. This is not welfare. It is a productivity measure. It is good economic policy. It is not welfare. As Australia's population ages, goodness knows, the evidence is clear for anyone who would want to look, anyone who would listen, that we are going to need many people back in the workforce paying taxes and working. This, in a productivity sense, will support women getting back into the workforce, and indeed we are going to need them. Importantly, we will remove the responsibility that currently lies with small business to be the pay clerk for government within this scheme. It means that low- and middle-income mums are indeed the winners. They are the winners when they are spending time with their families, with their new babies, and they are winners at the end of their working lives, when they also will have access to superannuation at a similar level to what their male counterparts enjoy.
But there is more. For the first time, this will allow small-business employers to be able to compete for quality female employees alongside big business and the Public Service. This is an enormous opportunity for small business to expand. We know what an important part of the Australian economy it is. We know about the damage that was done to small business under the previous government and the number of businesses that failed due to the carbon tax. These are measures to support what we understand and we know to be an important part of the Australian economy—that is, the small-business sector. Indeed, this is a policy of equity.
If you do not believe me, others are saying similar things. I believe that perhaps Eva Cox has the definitive argument for immediately passing and implementing this Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill. For those including me who are too young to remember, I take it on very good authority that Eva Cox was one of the Australian women's warriors who emerged from the feminist revolution that swept this country in the 1970s, along with people like Germaine Greer, Elizabeth Evatt and Ann Summers. In the early 1980s, she was also an adviser to the respected Tasmanian Labor senator Don Grimes when he was the federal opposition spokesman on social services.
Eva Cox has never been at any time a darling of this side—the Liberal Party. Despite her obvious political colours, she strongly supports the coalition's Paid Parental Leave scheme. Why? Because she understands how much it is needed by Australian women who must work as well as care for their children. Cox, indeed a hardline feminist, says yes to the scheme because of the deeper, more significant reasons which Tasmanian and Australian women who were working and trying to raise a family all at the same time in the 1970s will know and agree with, whatever their political persuasion. That generation of women had been arguing and advocating for such a scheme since the early 1970s for themselves and their daughters, who are our new generation of women in the workplace.
Incorporating paid parental leave with other workplace leave entitlements normalises parenting in the realm of employment. Taking paid leave to have a baby reinforces the notion that it is quite legitimate to be an employee and to be a parent. It is a vital ideological step in shifting attitudes about what makes an ideal employee. The Australian workplace culture needs to acknowledge the fact that in the 21st century all of us are human beings with different responsibilities, and better aligning our paid work with outside obligations is a good measure of a healthy society and will, importantly, boost productivity.
This scheme, I repeat, is a workplace entitlement. It is a productivity measure. It is not about welfare. The legislative amendment for this scheme that we are debating today is closer to an industrial work entitlement that normalises paid parental leave than the current scheme. It is longer, 26 weeks instead of 18, and that is because all the data, all the information, shows that the first six months a mother has with her newborn baby are the most important—and children are indeed important. We need mums to have babies, and we also need mums, if they so choose, to be taxpayers as well again.
I also found it interesting that Cox described the media debate that has surrounded this initiative as 'a sad illustration of both the tenor of current political debates and continuing bizarre attitudes to women in paid work'. Should not those opposing this policy remember and acknowledge what Cox and her feminist colleagues have been campaigning for for nearly four decades? She says:
Too much of the discussion has been emotive, often sexist and deeply irrational.
The most offensive idea to those against the scheme seems to be that a handful of 'high-earning women' would continue to receive their salaries while whilst having a baby. When was the last time that this level of anger applied to high-income men taking annual leave or long service leave? Why is it different? Why is it different because they are women having babies? It simply does not make sense. Or is there still—
Ms MacTiernan: It's about who's paying for it.
Mr HUTCHINSON: Indeed. Big business is paying for it. Is there still in Australia discomfort with the idea of high-earning women? Perhaps those on the other side simply do not like the idea that there are high-earning and capable women in our midst.
Ms MacTiernan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Member for Perth!
Mr HUTCHINSON: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I would urge those on the other side to listen to academic and feminist Eva Cox and acknowledge that what she is saying is indeed true. We need to normalise women as employees in the workforce and as mothers, and this Paid Parental Leave scheme will go a long way towards doing that.
I acknowledge that this has been the Prime Minister's passion. I also acknowledge that, in the light of a tough budget and a difficult circumstance that we have inherited, he has looked at the scheme and been prepared to make some concessions. I acknowledge him for that. Sadly, we are all being asked to help fix the debt and deficit disaster that was left us by those opposite in the Labor Party.
I remind the House again that this Paid Parental Leave scheme will benefit, most of all, low- and middle-income mums. It will help small business employers. It is a productivity measure, not a welfare measure. It is indeed a workplace entitlement. Just in the same way that I receive my superannuation and, when I go on annual leave, I received the same entitlement as my wage, the same measures should apply if somebody chooses to go and have a family.
This is good for Australia. It is a matter of equity in the 21st century. It is good for working women. It is good for babies. We know that. The data shows that. It is good for small business employers. It is good for families. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I acknowledge also that you understand very well how important families are to a cohesive society. But most of all this is good for Australia. It is about our ability as a nation to have people in paid employ to be able to pay, and to pay sustainably, for the services that we all expect to receive from government in the future. I urge those on both sides of this place to support this bill before the House today.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (15:39): I rise to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. If you listened to the previous speaker, you might think that this was the bill that actually introduces the rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme of the Abbott government, but actually it is not. In fact, it is likely to be some time before we see that bill, because, even though it has been a central, core promise—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Ms OWENS: A signature policy, says the minister sitting opposite—it actually has not managed to make it to the budget. Even though the coalition have been in government for eight months and they have known about this scheme—and presumably they have had all the time in the world to work it out—it is still actually not in the budget. It is in the contingency reserve, so we are told. It is clearly not developed enough at this point to be solid enough even to be in the budget, let alone to be in a bill before this House. This bill actually deals with how the current Paid Parental Leave scheme is paid. It was interesting to hear the member for Lyons talk about this not being a welfare payment, because the purpose of this bill is to transfer the payment from business to Centrelink. This bill makes the Paid Parental Leave scheme a Centrelink payment. It is quite interesting that they do not see it as a welfare payment, although it will be going through Centrelink.
The current Paid Parental Leave scheme was introduced in 2011 by the Labor government. It was Australia's first Paid Parental Leave scheme, and I consider it to be one of the Labor government's quite extraordinary achievements. Since then, it has benefited more than 340,000 families. An additional 40,000 dads and their partners have benefited from dad and partner pay since it came into effect in January last year. The scheme was designed to benefit all Australian families, but particularly it assisted those on low and middle incomes, many of whom were in casual and part-time work. It pays 18 weeks at the minimum wage. Around 55 per cent of working mothers had no access to paid parental leave at all before Labor's scheme was introduced. Today, access to paid parental leave stands at around 95 per cent of all working mothers. It is interesting to note that the median income of these women is around $45,000—so the median income of 95 per cent of working mothers is actually less than the amount of the Prime Minister's scheme, which is $50,000.
The new scheme will come with a cost of $5.5 billion a year. That is $21 billion over the forward estimates. One of the reasons why those of us on this side of the House have a difficulty with the size of this scheme being $5.5 billion a year is the cuts that the government is making in order to afford this extraordinary $21 billion hit over the forward estimates. We are seeing a slashing of family payments, cuts to pensions, cuts to health, cuts to education, and a $7 co-payment on GP visits. On the one hand, the people who are least able to afford it are being well and truly harmed by this budget of broken promises, but, on the other hand, the government has found $21 billion over the forward estimates for this rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme.
I want to speak mainly about this particular bill because it is a really interesting bill. There will be some people out there that are not particularly interested in the figures that sit behind this bill, but I think it is worth having a look at how the government came to their conclusions and what they covered in the regulatory impact statement that supports this move of the Paid Parental Leave scheme from business to Centrelink. They really are quite interesting. I have to say it is some of the most amusing maths I have ever seen. If it were not for the fact that a government have relied on it, I think I would have spent more than the 10 minutes that I spent laughing when I first read this regulatory impact statement. The figures that they use to support their claims about savings in red tape as the rationale for moving the Paid Parental Leave scheme from business to Centrelink are not just rubbery; they are complete rubbish. By the time I have finished going through this, I do not think anyone out there who understands maths at all will disagree with me. I suspect there are not many on the other side that actually understand maths or they would be a little embarrassed by this.
Minister Billson claims that moving the payroll function of Paid Parental Leave from business to Centrelink will save $48 million per year. For that to be true, the public sector—Centrelink—must be able to deliver payroll services to employees of a business more cheaply than the business itself can, even though the business already has set up the payroll, already knows when the person is going on leave, already has their tax file number and has already been producing group certificates. It is already set up; just the amount changes for 18 weeks.
According to the regulatory impact statement, it is cheaper for Centrelink to set up all of those things and pay a person whom they have not paid before than it is for a business. In fact, it is 31 times cheaper for Centrelink to set up the payroll and pay a person than it is for a business, which already has it all set up and has already been paying the person. Thirty-one times cheaper! If that were in fact true, then I would suggest that many businesses should outsource their payroll to Centrelink, because 31 times cheaper is an extraordinary result.
According to the regulatory impact statement, for Centrelink to pay a person for 18 weeks it would cost $28, yet for a business to pay that same person it would cost $880, even though the business has already been paying that person a wage, so the payroll is already set up. Centrelink sets it all up and manages to do it for $28.
I have calculated those figures, because there were no totals in the RIS, based on the 50,000 people who had received paid parental leave each year in the two years leading up to the regulatory impact statement. The numbers seem to be slightly higher than that, which means that Centrelink would be able to do it for presumably less than $28. But, again, that is an extraordinary achievement. It flies in the face of all the arguments that the private sector is far more efficient than the public sector. In order to get these results, you have to realise that the government has seriously fudged its figures.
According to the regulatory impact statement, the median cost of administering the Paid Parental Leave scheme for business is $1,783. That is actually written in the regulatory impact statement. But the median is the mid-point of a series of numbers. That means half the businesses must be paying less than that and half the businesses must be paying more than that. But, if you look at the series of numbers, you will see that over 80 per cent of respondents put the cost at less than $1,000. So if 80 per cent of the respondents put the cost at less than $1,000 and half put it at less than $250, the median cannot be $1,783. It cannot be nearly twice as high as the 80th percentile. It simply cannot. It must be closer to $250.
The regulatory impact statement also says that the median number of hours for a business to implement the Paid Parental Leave scheme is 22 hours. But the median cannot be 22 hours, as well over half the results show fewer than 15 hours. These are not fudged figures; this is profoundly flawed maths. In fact, it is not maths. A high school student would be able to drive a truck through this. It cannot be the case that the median is 22 hours if over half the respondents say that it takes fewer than 15 hours.
Forty-six per cent of respondents said it took fewer than five hours, and the government comes up with a median of 22 hours. This cannot be true. I think the STEM education level in our parliament is seriously lacking. I would suggest that the government start doing something about it, because this is not just shonky maths; this is fantasy land. It is a basic misunderstanding of words such as 'median'—
Mr Chester interjecting—
Ms OWENS: The interjector says, 'Swanny was good with numbers.' I never saw the ex-Treasurer do something as extraordinarily bad as this. This is extraordinary.
Mr Chester interjecting—
Ms OWENS: I will leave the interjection, because clearly the interjector does not understand the maths, either, or he would be a bit embarrassed at the moment, rather than trying to make excuses for the government.
The government claim to be removing red tape. But, in this case, they are simply moving it. Moving the burden of red tape does not save the bottom line, although the government claim that they are saving $48 million. It simply moves those costs to another department. That $48 million figure is calculated on some of the most extraordinarily fraudulent maths that a high school student would get a giant F for. In fact, a grade 8 student would get a giant F for this maths.
Fifty-four per cent of employers disagreed with the statement that organising payments for the Paid Parental Leave scheme has been time consuming. Only 29 per cent stated that additional costs were involved in implementing the scheme. Of those reporting additional costs, 94 per cent of employers stated that those arose from extra workload that they took on themselves, rather than from purchasing new payroll systems or hiring extra administrative staff. Seventy-four per cent of employers said the Paid Parental Leave scheme was easy to implement. If it was so onerous, as the government claims, why did 11.7 per cent of businesses that did not have to pay parental leave do so when the requirement, according to the government, was so onerous?
Labor introduced a Paid Parental Leave scheme, back in 2011, which, as I said, we were very proud of. We set it at 18 weeks at the minimum wage. We deliberately began this program in a modest way because it had to be sustainable. We started it in a modest way. We also wanted to have further discussions with the community, women, families and childcare centres about where we went from there. We were already hearing from women that issues such as superannuation and child care in the longer term were as important and, for some of them, more important than paid parental leave. So we knew we had a rather complex world to negotiate. We knew there needed to be a lot more discussion with parents and with childcare centres about where we went with this program in the future. Unfortunately, the current government has not had those discussions. We are already hearing loud and clear from women that the childcare issue is a far greater impediment to returning to work than paid parental leave. Of course, childcare costs last for an incredibly long time. They can last for 12 years or more. Again, there is nothing in this budget that gives women hope that child care will be a focus of this government; neither have we seen this government focus on superannuation. In fact, we have seen a delaying of the increase in the super guarantee levy by a number of years. So, again, the issues that women are talking about have been ignored by this government. It is a thought bubble of the previous opposition leader, Mr Abbott, turned into a core policy and a signature policy, and a refusal to waver from that policy, in spite of extraordinary feedback from the community that there are other issues that are far more important than this.
I have also heard from some of the childcare centres in my electorate which are also concerned about this rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme. If you think about it, it is really obvious that if a woman, who already has one or two children, is given six months on full pay under the Paid Parental Leave scheme, she will take both of those children out of child care. Again, I am not arguing whether that is good or bad for the family. What I am saying, though, is that there is considerable concern within the childcare sector that this rolled-gold Paid Parental Leave scheme will affect their viability and their ability to continue to offer childcare services.
There are a number of elements that I think the government have not considered—let's face it, they have not yet introduced it, because they still do not have the numbers; they are still working on it eight months later—when they put this program together.
Again, I just want to point out that this particular bill and its regulatory impact statement, and for that matter its explanatory memorandum, include some of the shonkiest maths I have seen in a long time. When the government tries to claim $48 million in savings from this move, we need perhaps to get 13- or 14-year-old maths student to redo the calculations. I am sure they can do a better job. The median is the midpoint in the series of numbers. If 80 per cent of the numbers are under 500, the median cannot be 1,700. It just cannot be. It is shonky maths and a shonky program.
Dr STONE (Murray) (15:53): What an extraordinary presentation, from a woman of all people, and I will go to some of those absurdities espoused, notions like: 'Wouldn't it be terrible if a woman who was getting full paid parental leave took her other child, perhaps a toddler, out of the creche or childcare centre? That would be terrible for the business of the childcare centre.' How extraordinary. Wouldn't it be better for that woman to be able to have both her children home in a period of paid parental leave? So I think we need a lot of heavy thinking about how we have such an extraordinary representation from the Labor Party to try and defend what was a very mean paid parental leave introduced with no superannuation consideration. Don't they understand that women are most likely to be in poverty in their older age because they have had gaps in their employment while they went away to bear their children? Continuous superannuation is critical for women to be able to remain independent in their older age. Here we have a Labor government at the time saying, 'No, women don't need super. Men do but not women.' Therefore their very mean, cheapskate paid parental leave scheme paid only the minimum wage to all women, even those who were already receiving much higher returns in paid parental leave because they were in the Public Service or in the defence forces or in the insurance or banking sector. Apparently it was going to be somehow enough for all women to be only paid the equivalent of the minimum wage, with no superannuation and for a miserable 18 weeks.
It was one of the most shameful pieces of Labor Party policy. I remember the poor unionists hiding their heads in shame, particularly those giants of women amongst the Labor union movement who had fought for years for a paid parental scheme. They were in corners in Parliament House saying, 'How are we going to defend this? What can we do? Perhaps it is best if we say nothing and hope they will fix it as fast as possible.' The good news is that the coalition has fixed the problem of cheapskate, inadequate paid parental leave that Labor gave us. I have to say that this amendment is in itself purely administrative and not much to do with the overall policy, so I will not deal with it straightaway. I think it is very important to remind ourselves that, if a woman expects to have her full salary paid when she leaves the workforce to have a child, she may then be accused of somehow being grasping, asking for too much, expecting something gold-plated, when that is exactly what a man expects and gets if he takes recreation leave, sick leave or long service leave. Why should a woman who is bringing forward the new generation of Australians be expected to accept much less as an industrial standard than what has been enjoyed by the general population of the workforce most of this century, and certainly since the 1970s?
This is an extraordinary situation where we see the Labor Party, who like to beat their chest and say it is all for workers and all for women, and when you look at the reality of their policies it is actually the reverse. They do everything they can to make sure that the oppressed and underpaid continue in that circumstance. So we had this extraordinary reaction when the now Prime Minister announced there would be full income replacement paid to women for six months for paid parental leave, not the miserable minimum wage for just three months, and the scream from the Labor sisterhood went up. I found it extraordinary, and this presentation we have just had from the other side of the chamber reinforces how low some of them can go in abandoning women who are members of their party and expected a lot more, a lot better.
This particular amendment just deals with the administrative burden on business where the paid parental leave legislation required them as bigger businesses to administer the parental leave themselves. From 1 July 2014 employees will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services unless an employer opts in to provide parental leave paid to its employees and an employee agrees for their employer to pay them. The previous speaker became quite excited about the fact that she thought the numbers were wrong. I think that is quite irrelevant. The point is that, if you can have the minimum of additional red tape and administrative burden on our small and larger businesses, isn't that a good thing? It has to be a good thing. Centrelink is set up with its computer-aided systems to be able to deal with this payment in an efficient and effective way, and I say: what a good idea.
Unfortunately, under Labor there was so much red tape and additional burden of administration that numbers of our small businesses literally went under. They could not cope with the form filling, the duplicated rubbish that was requested of them day after day, particularly in the aged-care sector, where women who had entered that workforce wanting to use their skills of empathy and care in their relations every day with their elderly residents instead found themselves filling in forms, more and more and more paperwork. Often they were not of English-speaking backgrounds, so we had great carers leaving the aged-care workforce because Labor killed them with the burden of red tape. We are not going to perpetuate that nonsense and you will be aware, Deputy Speaker, that one of our main aims in this government is to slash the administrative burden, the rubbish red tape that was added to the legislation under Labor's watch.
Let us get back to paid parental leave itself. I find it extraordinary—and I think most of us have received these emails, or perhaps it is mostly women members who do. We get these emails, sadly from older women, saying, 'I didn't get paid parental leave. I coped. Why can't they? This is really silly.' I say to those women, 'Good on you, but you didn't have electricity in the 1950s either and maybe you didn't have a telephone in those early days, and we do not simply say, you didn't have it so in the 21st century the rest of the human population can't.' I think that is a nonsense argument but you get it fairly regularly in emails.
When I ring these older women and talk to them for only a couple of minutes, I find they soon start to tell me about their granddaughters and the difficulties they have in trying to work full time because they need two incomes to keep up with their mortgage payments, to pay for their car and to perhaps pay for their kids school fees. They feel sorry for the burdens that working women now have to bear and how they are trying to do it all—have the babies, raise the children, look after the disabled, look after elderly parents and parents-in-law, and still have a career that is fulfilling and where they can reach their full potential. Those conversations with older women usually end up with us both in furious agreement that, yes, paid parental leave is not only important but necessary for women in the 21st century.
I was amazed when the previous Labor speaker said that she has been out consulting, or someone in the Labor Party has been out consulting, and women have said no, they would rather focus on child care and superannuation. I can understand the superannuation issue. Labor refused to give superannuation to women taking parental leave. I imagine those consultations were a furphy and perhaps nothing happened at all. But to suggest that women out there are saying, 'We want child care sorted not paid parental leave,' is absolute rubbish. What women are saying to me, including my two daughters who between them have six children, is this: 'We need both. We have to have efficient, cost-effective, adequate and flexible child care, but we also have to have adequate time off when we have our babies, at least six months, on our replacement salaries so that we can bond with our babies, breastfeed our babies and have our youngest out of child care for that six months so we can form a proper family when those newborns come into the household.' Of course, you can also have a father participate in this Paid Parental Leave Scheme if they wish. I just find that what Labor is suggesting is absurd—that either you support child care or you give mothers adequate paid parental leave. What a rubbish argument. Would you ever suggest that men in the workforce can either have full pay for sick leave or trade off their long service leave? It just would not happen. Why is it that women are supposed to cop all of this?
I am not proud of the fact that Australia was one of the last countries in the OECD, along with the United States of America, to have a statutory paid parental leave system. It was a very long time coming in Australia. If you thought we had women who had to go back to work the day after they had their babies, that in fact was not the case, because the private sector and the Public Service moved to fill the gap because we did not have a statutory paid parental leave scheme. But before Labor introduced its mean and lousy 'no superannuation, only three months' scheme, we had women who were lucky enough to be in the Public Service being offered paid parental leave on full pay. Likewise, women in the defence forces in any higher paid positions were offered full pay replacement during their parental leave. It was just bad luck, according to Labor, that if you were a part-time worker or in a lower paid industry like accommodation, cafes, restaurants or retail you just missed out, that it was just tough. I will give you the statistics.
In 2005, 76 per cent of women employed in the public sector in their last main job while pregnant used full-pay, paid maternity leave compared with just 27 per cent of women employees in the private sector; 80 per cent of women whose last main job while pregnant was in government administration defence and 68 per cent of those in education used full pay, paid maternity leave. And there were much higher levels in the finance and insurance industry. However, the industries with the lowest proportion of female employees with paid parental leave were accommodation, cafes and restaurants and there only 14 per cent of women got paid parental leave and in retail it was only 21 per cent. Instead of Labor looking at those statistics and saying, 'That's not fair. Those poorly paid women and those part-time women should have had decent paid parental leave as well,' Labor had every woman in the workforce reduced to a minimum wage for only three months as a paid parental leave entitlement and no superannuation. How extraordinary. No wonder union women hung their heads in shame and hoped it would very quickly morph into a better scheme. Sadly, it did not and it is up to the coalition to put a decent scheme on the table.
The coalition's Paid Parental Leave Scheme provides that women receive the entitlement, as men receive in their various work entitlements, of the equivalent of their wage for incomes up to $100,000 for up to 26 weeks. I am very sad to say only about two per cent of the Australian women in the workforce earn more than $100,000, but at least up to that level women will be paid a full replacement salary. They will also receive their superannuation. So they are not going to have this gap, this stop/start business that Labor was more than happy to endorse.
Women will have a better chance of having an independent older age. The reality for women in Australia is that they are more likely to be alone in older age through divorce, being widowed or never having married. Fewer women now are marrying or permanently partnering. We know that at least 30 per cent of women over 30 now will not be marrying. There will be more who will need to independently pay for their old age. We know women are going to have a long older age after retirement. A girl born today will live on average to 100 years.
For Labor to have been happy to deny women superannuation payments while they take leave to nurture their newborn I find disgusting and unconscionable. I do not know how the women in the Labor Party can sit in this chamber and make speeches saying that it is all okay. I do not know how they can get excited about whether the cost-benefit analysis or whatever all adds up. I am sure it does, but I am amazed that that is the focus of their attention and not the fact that under Labor's scheme people would not get their full wage even though their mortgage reflected their full wage, along with a partner's wage, and would only get 18 weeks and would not get access to super. What an extraordinary scheme, for a country like Australia which happens to take some pride in the idea of equity and a fair go.
Of course I strongly support this amendment. I also ask all of those out there who keep sending me emails or suggesting to me: 'How dare a woman want full pay when she takes parental leave! How dare they consider getting superannuation!' to stop and think about the incredible sacrifices women do make when they choose to have a child during their career—to think about the extra work they take on: raising children, managing a career, and looking after their partners and lots of others in the community as well. I salute the women of Australia. I think they do a magnificent job. And I really want to see our coalition paid parental leave scheme start as soon as possible.
Mr PALMER (Fairfax) (16:08): When a woman received less historically, it was not from the government. It is not the government's role to use taxpayers' funds and distribute them to citizens according to their wealth. It is not the role of a government department or the government to pay employees in the private sector. Is this the Liberal Party's creeping socialism? The Liberal Party wants to extend the role of government—to make it bigger and give it more functions—to pay paid parental leave. The government expands. Liberals used to believe in smaller government, not larger government. Liberals used to believe in lower taxes, not higher taxes.
We need a childcare revolution, but if you listen to the Treasurer of Australia, Australians cannot afford that—we have got to balance our budget. Then how can we waste $20 billion on what is primarily the responsibility of an employer to an employee? So when is the Treasurer going to introduce a childcare revolution? And what happens to this country when we introduce paid parental leave, abolish the carbon tax, abolish the mining tax and cut everything to nothing? Do you think we will get the economy moving that way? What happens after all those goals are achieved?
The Prime Minister is attempting to win popularity with the women of Australia. But it will not work. The women of Australia know the Prime Minister. And his untruthful government does not care about them. Paid parental leave is no substitute for a desperate single mother who cries herself to sleep each night because the money is not there and she will be unable to support herself or her children in the future. Australians need to care more about the children who are being born here, and give them a decent life rather than put them in hardship.
Paid parental leave was, for a long time, a matter between an employer and an employee. It was a cost of business negotiated between employees and employers. There are, in this country, many children that do not have a home or a bed to sleep in every night. Adults can decide what they want, but all of us have an obligation to care for our children. The payment of money to wealthy women will not give their children a better life. It will not mean that they are more loved, that they grow up better or that they will have a greater contribution to make to our society. There are so many single mothers, and single fathers, who struggle every day to look after their children, who struggle for a better standard of living for their family, and who are being persecuted by the government, which is lessening and lessening their entitlements as families.
But the age of entitlement has arrived. It is the age of entitlement for wealthy Liberal women, as against normal Australians who may live in the regions or may be stay-at-home mums; for them, the age of entitlement has arrived. What happened to the age of entitlement for everybody in this country? Why is it for only a select few? All citizens, regardless of wealth, race, geography or gender should not be discriminated against. All citizens need to be equal under the law. Why should Australian citizens and businesses be taxed, and working women discriminated against, just so that the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff can receive a massive benefit when she gets pregnant? There is an argument that women on lower incomes in less advantaged circumstances should receive greater support for themselves and their children than wealthier women in better circumstances. There can be no reason why wealthier women should receive more money when they are pregnant than women on a lesser income.
If there was any doubt about the Prime Minister's misogyny, that doubt has now been removed by the introduction of this bill. How can it be that there are so many capable and competent female members of the government on the backbench, and such a lack of representation of women in cabinet? That is a matter of serious concern. Role models are important for our society and for our children. We need strong women in cabinet and a lot of them, so that we have role models—
Mr Brough: Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not do this lightly. I do not wish to offend the member for Fairfax, but he has just made a reflection upon the Prime Minister which is totally inappropriate and I would ask him to withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): The member for Fairfax would assist the chamber if he would withdraw the reflection on the Prime Minister.
Mr PALMER: Well, seeing as you ask me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Fairfax.
Mr PALMER: We need strong women in cabinet and a lot of them so that we have role models for our children and so that they can contribute to the debate in the nation. To pay a greater benefit to wealthier women and a lesser rate to poorer women only lessens these poorer women and the respect that they have for themselves.
Citizens are discriminated against by this legislation. Palmer United senators have resolved not to support this legislation in the Senate. A stay-at-home mum working hard every day for her family and Australia would get paid nothing under this legislation. It discriminates against people from the country, people in the regions, who may be engaged in a family farm—they would not be recognised as being entitled to the same benefits as a woman lawyer, a Liberal Party voter, living in the city. Regardless of the income of their mothers, a mother's love is what sustains our children. The content of a person's character is far more important than the size of their bank accounts or how much money they are earning each week.
The cost of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme has been estimated at $20 billion for the first few years. Yet they say we have a budget problem. This measure would pay 50 per cent of a free university education for all our students in the country. The cost of one year's unemployment is equivalent to the cost of 12 years' education. A strong education policy is not only good social policy; it is great economic policy.
How can we divide our people into rich and poor? How can the government declare a class war? The former Labor Treasurer declared a class war against me during the last parliament. We need to unite all Australians and unite them for a common purpose. All Australian babies are created equal, with the same rights as all Australians: the right to a fair go; the right to life in an independent country.
How can the government pay more money for babies of wealthy Australians and less money for babies of poorer Australians? What sort of message does that send to Australia? What sort of a message does that send to our neighbours in the region? We need a more compassionate and caring approach that deals with the rights of all our citizens. We want all women to be loved and respected, put in cabinet, allowed to participate in all the important decisions of the government. How can the Liberal Party reduce tax on the one hand and introduce new taxes not just in the form of paid parental leave which will be taxing our businesses but a debt tax as well, which is an imagined, illusionary tax when there are no real debt problems in Australia.
The Liberal Party is the party of Bob Menzies, Malcolm Fraser, Harold Holt, John Gorton and John Howard; the party of low taxation; the party which now increases tax. Shame on the Liberal Party! Shame! Shame on deserting the hopes and aspirations of all its members! The government should be ashamed of what it has done to all its members. Let's not divide our community. Let's not put a different monetary value on our children. We need to unite our country rich or poor, black or white, men or women.
Tomorrow is another day. Let's make it a new day for all our children, for all our businesses and for all our women. The Greens need to stand up for the rights of working women. To neglect our children is a great folly. In neglecting our children regardless of the commercial circumstances of their parents, we are neglecting Australia. We cannot be wealthy while our country is spiritually poor. As it was said:
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:16): I rise to speak on Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, which is an administrative bill unrelated to the proposed policy referred to in the previous member's speech. This legislation removes the mandatory requirement of employers to administer the government funded paid parental leave. From 1 July, the Department of Human Services will pay eligible employees directly, unless an employer indicates they wish to opt in and the employee wishes for them to pay the paid parental leave.
This is a policy we took in the lead-up to the 2013 election to make a number of changes to the existing paid parental leave scheme in order to lift the cost burden on employers, particularly small businesses. These savings in compliance costs to Australian businesses are estimated to be up to $48 million annually.
This government made a commitment to the Australian people that we would cut red tape and continue to implement measures that alleviate the various burdens placed on our small business sector. If we are to grow and strengthen our economy, we have to reduce compliance costs—it is self-evident. Complex red tape costs businesses hours and money off their bottom line. If we want to let small businesses grow, the best thing we can do is reduce their costs.
There has been a significant impact on a number of small businesses in the electorate of Lyne that have been forced to close. In a regional area the vast majority of our employers are small to medium enterprises. We have a few government enterprises that employ hundreds of people, a couple of large health contractors that employ many people and a couple of businesses in the manufacturing industry that have upwards of 150 employees. The vast majority are all small businessmen and women with small numbers of employees. The costs of compliance and red tape really affect their bottom line, and that is precisely what happened under the previous government. The current scheme that pays $662 a week for 40 days is foisted upon the employer to administer, and that is what this legislation is addressing, not the issues that the member for Fairfax was referring to.
If we achieve what the previous coalition government achieved—the encouragement of small business—we should get our economic activity in the small business space up and bring the unemployment rate down, which currently in my electorate is close to six per cent and in the youth unemployment space is double that. If you are a small business and your compliance costs are over $1,000, that could be employing new young employees. The suite of measures that make up our paid parental leave will help reduce compliance costs, particularly for these businesses. It will allow them a lot more flexibility. We spoke about taking over the role of paymaster in the 2013 and 2010 election, and this amendment is just keeping faith with that.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry support these measures. Their CEO, John Osborne, has highlighted the increased cost burden that was placed on small business. He said:
Small business people should not be forced to be the unpaid 'pay-clerks' for government schemes. This responsibility should be funded and administered by government.
He went on to say:
The Abbott Government is trying to do the right by small business in cutting red-tape and the Opposition should support this.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed their members and, of the 1,700 businesses that participated, 84½ per cent either agreed or strongly agreed that the government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. Similar support has come from other peak bodies, including the Australian Industry Group, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Australian Mines and Metals Association, who came out quite strongly during the 2010 Productivity Commission inquiry into paid parental leave.
To put things in perspective in these surveys, the Australian chamber did a different survey of small, medium and large businesses, and 501 businesses responded to the survey. Seventy-one per cent of respondents recorded additional costs as a result of this scheme: 25 per cent said at least one to two hours per month; 24 per cent said from three to five hours per month; 22 per cent, 15 hours or more. And the costs as a result of that are up to: $250 for some employers; from $250 to $1,000 for 21 per cent of the employers; and for up to 20 per cent of employers with large schemes to administer and with many people of varying situations, over $1,000.
The introduction of the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 honours our commitment to the Australian people to simplify things and let the government administer a government scheme. It is smart, it is sensible and it is important legislation that will reduce compliance costs. If there are employers that still want to administer it, by agreement, they can. But most people do not want the hassle of yet another scheme or another compliance burden on their business. It is part of our commitment to reducing red tape and I commend this bill to the House.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (16:23): Doesn't this perfectly summarise how confused this government is when it comes to its priorities, how mixed up the messages are that they are sending to the Australian public? Just today, in this parliament, we heard from the government and from the Prime Minister about why it is that the indexation of pensions needs to be cut, why it is that schools and hospitals need to be in the firing line of multibillion-dollar cuts and why it is that low- and middle-income Australian families have to pay the price for this government, which is saying quite the opposite thing now to what it said before the election?
We know that before the election there was no emergency. Before the election there were going to be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC, and all of those promises have flown out the window. Yet we stand here in this chamber today debating this piece of legislation to spend over $20 billion of taxpayers' money in order to put in place a scheme which would see millionaires getting paid $50,000-cheques from the government for having a baby. This is what this government is trying to sell to the Australian public.
I stand here and say that this is a ridiculous proposition which people in the community that I represent are quite rightly angry about. They are quite rightly angry about the fact they are paying again and again through the government's new taxes, which they promised they would not introduce. They will be paying every time they go to the petrol station and they will be paying every time they go to the GP yet their neighbours, who do not need the assistance, will be getting up to $50,000 for having a baby—how ridiculous.
I want to make very clear that I am a very big believer in paid parental leave schemes, absolutely. But those schemes have got to be sensible public policy. They have got to be well targeted and they have got a be an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. We were incredibly proud that it was Labor who introduced this country's first paid parental leave program. I would also say that I was deeply ashamed as an Australian that we were so far behind the rest of the world when it came to having such a scheme in the first place. When Labor came to government, we addressed that. We got the Productivity Commission to look at the benefits of paid parental leave programs and we introduced a sensible policy which was appropriately targeted and which saw over 95 per cent of all women in this country eligible to access paid parental leave. We also know that the median income of people accessing Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme sits at $45,000. It is a scheme that is making sure that those who require assistance the most are those who get it. This government wants to tell us that the age of entitlement is over but it seems that is only true when it comes to pensioners; it is only true when it comes to the sick; it is not true of wealthy families who want a $50,000 government check just for having a baby.
I want to outline why it is that I believe these priorities are incredibly wrong. We know, for example, that if we want to look at boosting women's workforce participation, there are a number of very important debates that we should be having in this parliament. If we want to look at the evidence of what really makes a difference when it comes to increasing women's workforce participation, it is not giving $50,000 cheques to very wealthy families who do not need it when they have a baby; it is making sure we continue to progress an affordable, quality childcare system in this country. But at the same time that we are seeing this proposition of over $20 billion in taxpayer funds for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we are seeing cuts and more cuts when it comes to the childcare system.
The research shows that across Australia what parents, and particularly mothers, are often battling with is out-of-school-hours care. Unless you can find a job that lines up with the hours of school, you will find that is very difficult. Many women are falling out of the workforce because they cannot access a childcare spot. We know that the majority of jobs across Australia do not finish when the school bell rings at three o'clock. Families need real solutions. But what does this government do? This government cuts $450 million from out-of-school-hours care. There was $450 million to provide additional places to make sure that all parents, particularly more mothers, had solutions when the school bell rang, to make sure that children had more options and more support in out-of-school hours care so they could have a more enjoyable experience.
Just recently, I had the chance to catch up with my nearest and dearest friend, an old mate from high school who has three children. She had been out of the workforce with her children for a number of years. Now they are all at school, she was just offered her first job in many years. She turned to me and said, 'I do not know what I am going to do because I have been offered a job working two weekdays and a Sunday. I cannot find an out-of-hours place. The school is full and has no more places.' She has called upon the grandparents, who have kindly agreed to look after the children on one of those days. But there just was not a solution for the other day. She was going to have to turn down that opportunity for employment.
So I say to those opposite: if you are serious about coming in here and saying that you believe in increasing women's workforce participation, then when you make your contribution on this legislation to spend over $20 billion of taxpayer funds, perhaps you can outline why you support cutting $450 million from out-of-school care; perhaps you can outline whether you think that is a way we are going to increase women's workforce participation.
This is an ever-increasing problem. In the last 10 years the number of children in out-of-school care has grown by 100,000, with 30,000 more children attending in just the last 12 months. We now have 335,000 children attending out-of-school care around Australia, and this government wants to turn their back on them and make it harder; make waiting lists longer, and make more parents have to turn down employment opportunities because they simply do not have a choice.
As if that was not bad enough, all of the research also shows that, if you want to look at where support for children makes the biggest impact on decisions about returning to work, it is with low- and middle-income families. They are the ones in a really touch-and-go situation about whether they can get childcare assistance and whether it is worthwhile returning to the workforce, or whether they are simply just working to pay childcare fees. We know that these are the families that need assistance with the cost of care, and we know that without financial help many of these families will have one of their parents prevented from working.
Yet just a couple of weeks ago, in this place, in this federal budget, we saw that $230 million is being cut from the childcare benefit, a means-tested payment—unlike the Paid Parental Leave Scheme which we are currently debating—and from the childcare rebate. This Prime Minister wrote to every childcare centre across the country in the lead-up to the election telling them that a pause in indexation was a cut that would have a devastating impact on that cost of child care. We know that a $230 million cut pales in comparison to the $5 billion being spent on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme put forward here, every each and every year.
The Department of Education has confirmed that the changes to the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate will negatively impact around 500,000 families, who could be out of pocket by up to $6,000 per annum. So tell me how it makes any sense whatsoever for this government to be saying that they have to cut, and cut hard, from the programs and assistance that those on low- or middle-incomes rely upon, that they have to cut, and cut hard, and impact our pensioners, our sick and our most vulnerable, while at the same time we can have a debate in this chamber about spending this level of taxpayer funds on a scheme that is not targeted, is not means tested and will see taxpayer funds going to families that simply do not need it. How does that make any sense whatsoever?
Unfortunately that is not the worst of it. There are 500,000 families around Australia that will struggle to find that up to $6,000 per year that this government has cut in the budget in the next financial year, and there will be many more families the year after that and the year after that.
We know that modelling by Early Childhood Australia shows that the changes will leave a family on $135,000 a year up to $6,000 worse-off per child a year by 2017. We also know that a family currently on a combined income of $75,000 will go backwards by $4,143 per child. So, at the same time that a family on a combined income of $75,000 will go backwards by $4,143, as a direct result of a decision of this government, a family on upwards of $1 million can be $50,000 a year better off. This is ridiculous policy. It is policy that is not well thought out. And it is policy that shows that this government is out of touch with the priorities of Australian families, is out of touch with the measures which would increase women's workforce participation, and is out of touch when it comes to their confused and mixed up messages.
It is not just about spending an enormous amount on paid parental leave whilst cutting out-of-school care and cutting the childcare benefit and the childcare rebate; we also see that one of the biggest hits in this space will come to family day care. Family day care is a form of care that has been very popular in Australia for a number of decades. It is a form of care that can be more flexible than centre-based care because we know that in family day care it can be delivered in the home of the carer or in the home of the child in the family. We also know that it can be lined up to match with the hours that people actually work. You can have a family day carer that comes and works overnight if you do shiftwork. You can have a family day care that changes their hours as your roster changes so that your workforce participation is not impacted on. Yet we know that this government has massively slugged family day care with cuts.
Family Day Care Australia estimates that the $157 million of cuts which were announced in the budget by this government will increase fees by $35 a week. I would very interested to hear from members opposite—particularly those National Party members in this place who have a number of regional families relying on family day care when there are no other options available—why they think that slashing $157 million and ensuring that fees rise by around $35 each and every week is the priority so that they can deliver over $5 billion a year in their non-targeted, non-means-tested Paid Parental Leave Scheme. This is absurd.
We also know that Family Day Care Australia has confirmed that much of the care provided is in remote, rural and regional areas and is often in areas where other forms of child care are not available or are just not sustainable. This is really important. And that is not the only change to the community support program that will threaten the viability of the sector. It is the sudden backflip by the government that has really thrown the sector. Only two months earlier, the hapless Assistant Minister for Education announced changes to funding which she assured the sector would only impact new services that apply. But this was simply not true. How will this government explain to the teachers, explain to the nurses and explain to the police officers why their paid parental leave for millionaires is a bigger priority than new family day care services to cater for the need for affordable and flexible child care for so many families?
Unfortunately, these are not the only hard cuts to measures that are put in place to increase workforce participation. One of the most despicable cuts that this budget has put in this space is to a program that is probably little known to many families across Australia. It is the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program—affectionately known as the JET program. This program helps those who are currently on welfare payments to access child care so that they can go to work or go to training so that they get a job. If there is a government that cares about boosting workforce participation, these are the individuals that you should be wanting to help—getting people off welfare and into work. But what has this government done? It has cut this program—a program that is specifically targeted to those people who need it the most.
I simply will not listen to those opposite say that the priority should be $20 billion on a paid parental leave scheme that will benefit millionaires at the same time as they are cutting the very assistance that everyday Australian families in the electorate that I represent absolutely reply upon. This is the best example of how mixed up this government's priorities are. (Time expired)
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:39): I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I did listen to the member for Adelaide's contribution. Whilst I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do apply a wide discretion in taking on the contributions of different members, the bill we are speaking about today is the bill that relates to the abolition of the pay clerk process which is currently required of business—and I did not actually hear the member mention that once during the 15 minutes of her contribution. So let us get to the topic at hand today, which is that very important red tape reduction measure. This has, of course, been championed by the Minister for Small Business for some time—going back a couple of years, in fact, when he moved a private member's bill.
The importance of this measure is, frankly, self-evident. One of the key priorities of this government is to get the administrative burden of red tape off the backs of Australian business. People who are in business have a huge number of matters to attend to. They need to win customers; they need to develop products; they need to plan for their future; and, indeed, they need to hire the best staff. None of that is easy and it all takes time. The thing you want in business is to be burdened by non-value-adding processes that just simply tie you up in knots and do not help you to build the future of your business. Sensibly, the government has taken the decision to remove that administrative burden off the backs of Australian business and, indeed, non-profits and to have the government manage that process for them.
That to me would seem to be very sensible and a very unobjectionable sort of measure. It is very difficult to understand why anyone would be opposed to that. To the extent that we care about business and to the extent we care about the economy, you would like to think that there would be a shared goal of making that as straightforward as possible for small, medium and larger businesses. We all know that some degree of compliance is a necessary part of the system, but we want to minimise it and we certainly do not want to put unnecessary burdens on small business.
When this matter was discussed in the Senate back in March, Labor and the Greens sought to amend the discussion so that it would only apply to businesses with 20 or fewer people. They question is: why would you do that? I cannot think of any sensible reason that you would do that. I listened earlier today to the member for Hotham—who generally makes some quite sensible contributions. But today she said that she was concerned that this would sever the link between the employer and the employee in relation to the payment of this particular amount. It is very unclear about why there needs to be a link and why it is a problem to sever that.
What are the sorts of links we want between employers and employees? We want them to have the time for an employee to come forward with a great idea for the business and to say, 'What if we do it this way?' or 'What if we create this new product?' or 'What if we try to win this customer who we perhaps have not focused on as much as we should have?' That is what we want the relationship between employers and employees to be about. We do not want the relationship to be one of filling out forms, ticking boxes and spending that time at seven or eight o'clock at night when there are much better things to be doing than filling out forms on behalf of the government. I am genuinely mystified as to why the opposition would not support this measure. It is interesting that so many of those opposite speaking in this debate have not actually mentioned this specific legislation. In fact, the member or Adelaide did not mention it at all and others touched on it very tangentially in their remarks.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed business and asked that simple question: do you think you should be required to be a paymaster for this sort of payment? Unsurprisingly, 84 per cent of businesses said, 'No; we should not. Frankly, we have better things to worry about and we shouldn't be required to spend all of this time on this compliance measure.' In fact, those organisations identified a cost of $1,783 on average—quite a precise average—to implement the PPL. Those opposite will maybe say that $1,783 is no big deal. Well, it is a big; it is a very big deal. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, many small businesses in particular are simply struggling to make ends meet and to keep the doors open. The place where small businesses often sacrifice is the salary that they pay to themselves, as the operator of the small business, when things are not going so well. That $1,783 could well be the difference in direct income to the owner of the small business, many of whom are on very modest incomes.
There is a $48 million saving nationally, including importantly $4 million for the non-profit-sector. Just as business does not want to be tied up doing non-valuable things, neither does the non-profit sector. It is a $4 million saving for them. Should employers and employees collectively decide that they would like to continue with this payment arrangement—and I am not quite clear why they would—and elect to do so, they can. But the general position with the passage of this bill will be that businesses do not have to worry about this anymore—and that can only be a good thing.
There have been some interesting contributions in this debate. The member for Shortland earlier today comprehensively rejected the idea that only people who earned over $100,000 per year should be encouraged to have children. I support her in that. I am not sure what relevance it had to any legislation that is before the House, but I am looking forward to seeing the Hansard on that one.
This is a very straightforward measure on red tape reduction and is consistent with a much broader red tape reduction agenda on behalf of the government. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like other members of the House, were here earlier in the year when the member for Kooyong brought forward a wide range of red tape reduction measures. Again, reducing red tape is one of those sentiments that we all seemingly agree on at a high level; but it is interesting that, when it gets down to the practical reality of reducing red tape, we see very different attitudes on the different sides of the House. A great initiative on that repeal day relates to job service providers, who provide a very important function in the community. Previously, they had to keep paper documents of all of their various contacts with potential job seekers and so on. In this day and age, the hard drive is really all you need. So it is a very sensible change to allow those records to be submitted electronically. Similarly, universities, which are such an important part of our society, are no longer required to submit those duplicative reports about how they are using their facilities, offices and so on. This is a very important red tape reduction measure. There are a wide range of red tape reduction measures, and this bill is an important contributor to that.
As others in this debate have raised the broader issues around a paid parental leave, I thought I would do so as well, because there are important contrasts here. The coalition in a very sensible and cautious manner has provided in the budget for a sustainable economic future—a sustainable future where we live within our means and where we are conscious of managing things carefully so as to secure that future. When you do manage the budget carefully, you are able to make investments in priority areas, and paid parental leave is one of those areas. The levy on large businesses, which substantially covers the cost of the scheme, is how it is funded. There is really a very clear distinction here. The Labor Party says that, if you earn more than a minimum wage, when you get pregnant and need to take leave, you should take a pay cut. That is the essence of their position. Let us say you are earning $45,000 or $50,000. What those opposite say should happen is that you should take a substantial pay cut for the purpose of going on maternity leave. They do not make that argument in relation to holiday pay. They do not make that argument in relation to sick leave. But they do make that argument—and in fact that is their legislation—in relation to maternity leave.
Think of the example of a woman who perhaps obtains a job on $45,000 a year. She works hard. She owes commitment to that organisation. She is promoted a couple of times and gets a couple of pay rises. She is perhaps working full time and is paid $55,000 or $60,000 a year. She is then required to take leave for maternity purposes. Under those opposite's policy, she then takes a very substantial pay cut for the purpose of being on maternity leave. It is important to understand that this relates to women who are earning average incomes—$45,000 according to the ABS—across both full-time and part-time employees. This is about the average. It is a significantly higher amount for full-time employees. What those opposite say—and we need to emphasise this, because it is a very important point—is: 'Take a pay cut. Take a big pay cut, while you go on maternity leave.' For people who are earning $45,000, $46,000, $47,000 or $48,000, this is what the ALP thinks should happen.
We know that the position of those opposite is not taken on economic grounds. The notion that those opposite would put forward anything on the grounds of economic conservatism is absurd. They are, after all, the people who have not passed a surplus budget since 1989, when, as we discussed the other evening, Kylie and Jason were still singing duets. So it is a very long time ago.
So it is not economic grounds; it is ideological grounds. Those opposite think that everyone should be paid the minimum wage when they are on maternity leave even if they are earning a little bit more than the minimum wage. Why would those opposite, who claim to champion the interests of ordinary working Australians, say to those ordinary working Australians on average incomes: 'Take a pay cut. Take a big pay cut'? I do not understand that. Indeed, in the OECD, which those opposite are often keen to quote, only two nations do not have a replacement wage system for maternity leave. That is certainly worth noting.
The legislation before the House is a very good piece of law. It will save Australian businesses $44 million in compliance costs. It will save the non-profit sector some $4 million in compliance costs. It is absolutely consistent with our broad goal of getting the monkey of red tape off the back of Australian business.
Government needs to know its place, and that place is not to impose unnecessary burdens on those who create productivity. Governments do not create economic activity. Governments do not create wealth. Businesses create wealth. Individuals create wealth. Government must judiciously use some of that wealth for taxation purposes, but what it must never do is impose unnecessary burdens on small, medium-size and larger businesses. That is what the current legislation does, and it needs to be changed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Craig Kelly ): I remind all members that this bill is the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and there is a requirement to be relevant to this legislation. I give the call to the member for Scullin.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:54): Thank you. I will do my best to speak in accordance with that injunction. In starting off I make it very clear that I am rising to speak in opposition to the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I note in doing so that this is not the first time this House has had to deal with this aspect of paid parental leave legislation as the government previously introduced the measures that are the substantive component of this bill as part of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013. I note that the Senate made some very sensible and welcome amendments to that original bill to remove the requirement for employers with fewer than 20 employees to have to pay their employees' paid parental leave instalments. This is consistent with the promise Labor took to the last election to get the balance right in this important area of public policy. I understand that amendments to similar effect will be again moved in the Senate to give effect to that promised balance.
Labor's approach to this issue strikes the sensible balance between an employee's need to maintain a relationship with their employer whilst they are on maternity leave on the one hand and giving small businesses the option—the choice, the freedom, we might say—of having their PPL administered by Centrelink on the other. However, the legislation that is before us takes this some several steps further. It abolishes the role of the employer in its entirety. Members opposite seem almost wilfully blind to this when speaking of small-business concerns. It is interesting that, before the election, the then Leader of the Opposition repeatedly said in this place and in others that he wanted paid parental leave to be treated 'as a workplace entitlement, not just a welfare one.' Not for the first time, the effect of this statement seemingly expired at 6pm on election night.
Moving administration of all paid parental leave to Centrelink regardless of a business's size clearly encourages the view, to say the very least, that paid parental leave is a welfare entitlement, and this is the inconsistency that lies at the very heart of the coalition's scheme. It goes against its very rationale. Indeed, so do almost all the public utterances of seemingly its only sponsor, the now Prime Minister. I guess this was made very clear in the contribution of the member for Banks, whose contribution about different treatment of sick leave and annual leave from Labor's position on paid parental leave in the current debate shows how fundamentally members opposite are missing the point.
In his second reading speech, the minister alluded to the administration of paid parental leave as unnecessary red tape which hinders innovation, investment and job creation. I encourage the minister to demonstrate any specific examples or provide evidence of where administration of the scheme has actually done any of these things. I think he will struggle. The ideology of red tape reduction warms the heart of members opposite and of all of us in this place. For the benefit of the member for Banks, we oppose unnecessary regulation, but it is a very rare thing to see evidence to match the government's rhetoric.
Again on the contribution of the member for Banks: he talked about the very different attitudes to red tape reduction. We do have a different attitude to members opposite: we support evidence based regulation. Last year the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of Queensland conducted a survey of 501 employers for the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Members opposite may be interested in these findings. The research found that 54 per cent disagreed with the statement that organising payments for PPL has been time consuming. Only 29 per cent of employers stated additional costs were involved in implementing the scheme; and, of those reporting additional costs, 94 per cent stated this arose from extra workload they took on themselves rather than from purchasing a new payroll system or hiring extra administrative staff. In terms of staff hours required to process paid parental leave, 25 per cent of employers reported one to two hours were needed, 24 per cent said it required three to five hours and 22 per cent reported it took 15 hours or more. Costs to organisations implementing paid parental leave were minimal, with estimates ranging between $1 and $250 for 45 per cent of employers, between $250 and $1,000 for 21 per cent of employers and over $1,000 only for 20 per cent of employers. Seventy-four per cent of employers agreed that PPL under Labor had been easy to implement. This research entirely undermines the government's already very weak case supporting this legislation. So much for that. So much for all the contributions of members opposite.
Indeed, so much for the assertions of letting small business decide. The member for Deakin in his contribution called the suggestion by Labor members bizarre that these arrangements that are the subject of this bill might somehow impact in a negative way on a mother's connection to her workplace. He said he did not know where the evidence was. I would simply say that he did not look very hard. Similarly, the member for Banks misunderstands the importance of this fundamental connection. The member for Hotham, criticised by the member for Banks, understands this much better. Regarding employers making paid parental leave payments, I remind the House that Labor acted on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, which in 2009 found:
… the more that parental leave arrangements mimic those that exist as part of routine employment contracts, the more they will be seen by employers and employees as standard employment arrangements.
The Productivity Commission, a body that members opposite are generally pretty keen on when it comes to matters of workplace relations reform, suggested this would benefit employers in two ways. Firstly, it would promote employment continuity and workforce retention. Secondly, it would signal that a genuine capacity to take a reasonable period of leave from employment to look after children is just a normal part of working life.
In a later submission to the Senate inquiry into the exposure draft of the bill that introduced the PPL scheme, the AI Group was also supportive of the employer paymaster role—as it has been named and criticised since—arguing that it:
… understands the logic behind the Government-funded parental leave payments being channelled through employers, for employees who are not short term and who remain attached to the enterprise. Such an approach should reinforce the employee's link with the workplace, and achieve better return to work outcomes.
We are already seeing that sort of outcome through the experience of over 340,000 women who have been participants in this scheme.
It is opportune to remind members that in January 2011, Labor introduced Australia's first ever paid parental leave scheme and, as I said a moment ago, since then not only have 340,000 families benefited from the Paid Parental Leave scheme, but an additional 40,000 dads and partners have done so since it began in January last year— unfortunately, a little too late the birth of my second child. Labor's scheme was designed to benefit all Australian families but in particular those on low and middle incomes, many of whom are in casual or part-time work. We cannot forget nor gloss over the fact that around 55 per cent of working mothers had no access to any paid parental leave before Labor's scheme was introduced. In occupations like hairdressing, people had very limited choice but to return to work at a time that did not give them a full range of choices around the birth of their children. Labor's scheme fundamentally changed that, and I think it is changing how Australian society, as well the Australian economy, is functioning, since today access to paid parental leave stands at around 95 per cent of all working mothers It is interesting again to reflect that the median income of those women is around $45,000. As the member for Jagajaga said in her second reading speech in 2010, Labor's scheme was:
… fully costed and funded by the government. It is fair to business and fair to families.
That statement was true then and remained so, but the same cannot be said of the coalitions scheme.
When members of this government talk of tough choices, fairness does not feature. It never features. In the policy incoherence at the heart of this bill—the welfare versus the workplace entitlement confusion—there is a golden thread that we can trace through the government's decision making; and this is the perverse insistence that those least able to should contribute the most. This is the 'shared sacrifice' members opposite talk about. While some women will, of course, benefit from this scheme, how does it sit against other budget impacts on Australia's women such as the sustainability questions we so often hear about in this place? Fundamentally, how tough was the choice? I think about a non-means tested payment of up to $50,000 versus very large imposts on women who are much less well-off. When it comes to affording fairness to women in Australia, it is clear that this government has failed. I think also of the disproportionate impact on women of the repeal of the low-income superannuation contribution, the impact of the cuts to the rental affordability scheme on housing security for women and the increased cost of family day care and the disproportionate impact of cuts to income support and freezing indexation payments on women. Was it a tough choice to go ahead with this scheme in that context? Sadly, it does not seem it was very difficult at all.
One matter that has not been much touched upon in this debate is the consideration of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, which sought advice from the minister on the impact of the coalition's scheme on employees with salary sacrifice arrangements currently in place. The question is whether the removal of the requirement for employers to provide government funded parental paid leave may limit the right to social security and the right to just and favourable conditions of work; and, if so, whether such limitations are permissible. The Human Rights Committee noted the minister's statement of compatibility for the bill:
… does not address the question of whether the bill's potential to result in reduced after-tax income for employees with salary sacrifice arrangements may indirectly discriminate against women, given that the majority of paid parental leave recipients may be women.
I look forward to the minister's response to this question.
There is an enduring sense that this legislation is not just incoherent, but is ill-conceived and not fit for purpose. The fact that last time it was buried in the middle of an omnibus bill where it rated a few short paragraphs by the Minister for Social Services is indicative of this slipshod approach to a fundamentally important area of public policy making. This time, of course, the minister has devoted slightly more attention to this matter, but ultimately it is a re-hash of the same bad, unfair policy and he still has not got the details right. When I had the opportunity to speak about this policy previously, I thought it might be a good time to raise this fundamental question of fairness in the allocation of the finite resources of the state according to need and broader social purposes. In the aftermath of this cruel budget, when the coalition is cutting so much for so many, it raises many questions about the priorities of this coalition government. So the coalition's Rolls Royce, gold plated paid parental leave scheme, which would replace a perfectly good paid parental scheme that is already doing so much for so many, is a $5.5 billion extravagance and will cost more than $21 billion over the forward estimates. So much for the rhetoric again of sacrifice!
Pensioners, schools and hospitals could all do with these funds, but this government is cutting funding to these and many other areas of need—for example, to child care, most obviously in relation to this debate, which is of course the real key to our employment participation challenge now that we have paid parental leave on the statute books. Why is there a budget emergency for low- and middle- income earners but not for high-income earners, which seems to me to be the fundamental proposition underpinning the government's insistence on returning again and again to this legislation? It seems that the age of entitlement, whatever is said by members opposite, remains alive and well, while that age of opportunity that was briefly a figure of coalition sound bites is just that, a sound bite at odds with mean short-sighted policies directed at those doing it tough through no fault of their own.
The coalition seemingly has been happy to break every promise it made before the election, sometimes with much enthusiasm. But the one it seems obsessed with keeping is the one which involves paying the wealthy up to $50,000, with no means test, for having children. It is paying the rich and taking from the poor. There is no excuse for this. It is unjust and unfair. Labor stands opposed to this bill for the practical reasons that I have outlined in this speech, for the fact that the minister has not acquitted all his responsibilities, particularly those arising from the human rights committee, in terms of the evidence base that is presently before us, but fundamentally because it is unjust and unfair.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:08): With great pride and enthusiasm I support this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, which takes a burden off small businesses in my electorate, thousands of small businesses that, no matter how much they wish to support paid parental leave in this country, have been burdened completely unreasonably by the previous government's attempts to make life even more complex for them.
Paid parental leave is something that, like any economic intervention to support our workforce, should be brokered through government and should be paid direct to the employer as other entitlements are. In this case what we see with this bill is an ability for employers to pay only where there has been an election to do so and where the employee wishes that payment to be made directly from the employer. This opens up for small businesses in my electorate the opportunity not to have an additional red-tape burden placed upon them, which has been a recurring message over the six years of the previous government.
In this great chamber we should be able to stand shoulder to shoulder, regardless of the party we are members of, and say we are united for gender equality and united in seeing labour market participation for women. We should be united around ensuring we have female contributions to our economy, both nationally and globally. We should be united in seeing that the informal and unpaid work done by women should be paid at least at a fair wage and that those who are getting paid a minimum wage should have every opportunity to be paid a wage that eliminates the gender gap. Of course, that is not the case if the highest value you place upon a woman who takes time off to have a child is the minimum wage. By holding to that ridiculous proposition one actually increases the wage gap for women. We need to make sure that gap is closed, not opened any further.
I think it is the view of everyone in this chamber that women should be able to rise to senior positions in their professions and occupations with minimal hindrance. Most typically that occurs with interruptions for having children. We know that the transition since the seventies has been from a single-income family and household to, in most cases now, at least a 1.2- if not dual-income household. The real world now is that second adults are joining the workforce simply to be able to afford what one income could do three generations ago.
It is an economic argument that all of the OECD has woken up to. All of the OECD admit that their calculations for parental leave should not be based on the minimum wage. In fact, there may be only one other economy in the world that does that. Every other economy has understood the importance of women earning a replacement wage that equates to what they were earning while at work when they take time off to be a parent. The last thing we want is small business to be burdened with the additional impost of having to run an administrative program that is effectively nationwide and that, effectively, should be brokered by the government that is funding it.
We know that, even as recently as last week, the APEC Women and the Economy Forum strongly reaffirmed this importance at a meeting in Beijing from 21 to 23 May of eight of our 10 largest trading partners. The APEC ministers, heads of delegations and senior officials identified that limits on female workforce participation represents at least an $89 billion challenge every year amongst APEC members. Australia is not an insignificant part of that. We know that in countries like Japan at least nine per cent of GDP is held back because of low female workforce participation. In the US it is around five per cent and in Australia estimates as recently as early this year indicate that just getting our female workforce participation up to OECD average levels could represent a boost in excess of $10 billion. These are huge figures compared to the cost of providing paid parental leave. Yes, funding paid parental leave fairly and equitably actually pays for itself, pays that dividend back to the GDP through participation.
There are of course three elements to this debate. The first one is the economic, which I will go through in great detail. The second one is the entitlement side of the debate. The third and probably most colourful has been that the paragon, the party that argued for decades that they were shining light for workplace entitlements, suddenly found it utterly impossible to pay a woman what she is worth and found that the minimum wage was good enough for no other reason than that the other side of politics came up with the idea. That is right, the Labor Party has appallingly placed the burden on small business to broker this dreadful arrangement and at the same time will deny the huge majority of working women earning more than the minimum wage a fair replacement wage when they are raising a child.
The greatest challenge we have for closing the gender pay divide is ensuring the continuity of employment for women in Australia. The propensity to return to work after having a child is directly linked to retaining a payment that stops if you do not go back to work. It is one thing to leave work and have no payment or to leave work and have some part payment, but under a system that pays you your replacement wage that continues from before you had a child it is the realisation after six months that the payment is about to stop unless you go back to work that has the extraordinary pull effect to bring highly trained, qualified, talented women back to the workforce. And a minimum wage system simply cannot achieve that. Paying a woman a minimum wage is a cheap way out that does not bring women back to the workforce. I am sure that everyone on the other side of the chamber feels that, deep in their hearts, but simply because it is not their idea they are unable to support it.
There was one of those rare moments in Australian politics where the Greens, when debating the way Greens do for means testing, argued that maybe the cut-off should be a little lower. But the Labor Party did not argue that. They descended into even more disappointing depths until they reached the nadir of their argument by, during the election campaign, referring to millionaires getting the Prime Minister's paid parental payments and the administrative burden of small business having to do it.
I thought it would be interesting to ask my community if there were any millionaires out there, in their late 20s, having children. Were there any millionaires out there deciding to have a baby? We went looking for them but could not find any. Where are those elusive, ephemeral millionaires who are having children? Somehow they did not turn up anywhere that I was looking. I was only looking in an outer-metropolitan marginal seat; perhaps they are living somewhere else. Perhaps all those millionaires having children are in Labor seats. It is an outrageous, egregious abuse of public payments to see $50,000 being paid to a woman—a woman who would earn $50,000 anyway in that time—to come back to work and keep earning $50,000 after having a child! What a gross injustice that was, according to Labor.
The fact is that nearly every other OECD economy does it just that way. But do not let any facts from the rest of the OECD spoil a great argument or a great smokescreen. Put it on the record: every one of the members of parliament sitting on these rows on this side of the chamber believes that women in the workforce, just as they get their annual leave and their sick leave, should get paid parental leave at wage replacement. Everyone on this side believes that.
Let Hansard record the Labor Party's appalling position on what women are worth in the workforce. Believe me, if we take the burden off small business having to administer the payment—as this bill does today—and if we pay women precisely what they are worth, or what they earn prior to having a child, for the six-month period while the WHO recommends they should be bonding with their children, and then pay them to return to work, the continuity of career will mean that, for the first time, this nation can hope to reduce the gap in superannuation earnings between men and women at the ends of their careers.
That is not a small issue. We have had the Labor Party go on and on about superannuation savings for women. They recognise that they have $87,000 less superannuation to their name by the end of their working lives. The main reason for that is the interruptions to their working lives while they have children. So why would we not support women in every possible way to return to the labour force? We want the brightest and most productive minds coming back to help with the skills shortage. We are, effectively, a high capital-low labour ratio economy. We need every person we can get to reduce the need to import labour.
Here is a federal opposition nickel-and-diming Australian women and saying that no matter what they earn women are not worth a cent more than the minimum wage. I do not mind a completely open, clear, transparent debate about whether a program can be means tested. I am no great fan of means testing, but I welcome the opportunity to have that debate. But, no, that is not what was pushed by those on the other side of the chamber; it was just the preposterous argument that this money was being cleaned out by millionaires. We had not met any; we had not seen any. None has ever put her hand up and identified herself—no, no, no. Most of those high-income-earning women work in the large corporations, where they are already getting paid parental leave. There is no real change; instead of getting it from the company direct, the company pays the extra 1.5 per cent to the government, who pays it to the woman anyway. There are no millionaires, there, scooping up money they do not get already. So, they are working for large corporations or they are working in the offices of judges, parliamentarians and other high-paid public officials—they are senior public servants. I do not know too many millionaires there, either, to be honest, but they have public parental leave arrangements at—wait for it!—wage replacement.
Then we heard the preposterous reason for trying to burden small business with this unnecessary imposition. The realisation was that people in the public sector were able to double dip under Labor's scheme. Good, hard-working people in the private sector were lucky enough to get some low-level, minimum wage arrangement by Labor. But what did Labor do when they were in government? They said that if you were in an enterprise bargained paid parental scheme—such as the staff in this building are in—you could take that payment and then, over and above that, go ahead and take a second lot of paid parental leave at the minimum wage. So, even right now we have staff in our own offices taking paid parental leave not once but twice for the same child, under the Labor scheme. How does that stand up for equity? It is double-dipping—two lots of paid parental leave. It is great if you can get it but it is not fair if you cannot access it.
So for the great party of fairness we see double standards again. I do not mind having a debate about paid parental leave and how much working women deserve. I have no doubt that someone on the minimum wage will earn the minimum wage while they are on parental leave. So let there be that incentive. Let people seek out the best possible jobs, knowing that they will get wage replacement if they are to have a child. And let the scheme be administered not by the small business but by government.
The point of today's bill is that employing a woman should never be a risk. Employing a woman should never be something to be avoided. The whole point of this is that small business can say there is already a significant interruption in employing someone who takes parental leave, but they are prepared to brook that because they know that there will be wage replacement funded predominantly by large corporations and delivered by government. And the administrative burden does not fall on them.
Concocting a minimum wage scheme that is run by small business would have to be done by a party that has never run a small business. It would have to be done by a party where no-one has ever worked in a small business. And it would have to be done by a party that thinks a working woman is only worth the minimum wage. Frankly, I find it embarrassing in the 21st century to share the chamber with such an old-fashioned view. Women are worth more than that.
I think anyone who deals in the community with women returning to work after having a child would appreciate two things. One is wage replacement for the obvious reason that you can maintain those household commitments that are not easy to change. You cannot just downsize your house for six months while you are having a child: 'Because I'm being paid the minimum wage, I'll just take a bedroom off the house and reduce the mortgage!' How preposterous!
Secondly, the Labor dream of emancipation of working women was to not pay them superannuation under paid parental leave! Where did that come from? No superannuation while you are taking your paid parental leave. What does that mean—that while you are having children you don't need any superannuation? What a preposterous argument. Small business to wear the burden; no superannuation; and then, finally, as if there was any evidence of expert advice on that side of the chamber, out came the minimum wage but just for 18 weeks. That is all you get. After 18 weeks it all runs out. How on earth have they worked this out on the Labor Party's side of politics? Now working women are worth only 18 weeks, despite WHO recommendations to the contrary, at the minimum wage; no superannuation; let small business where the burden; and, if you have an enterprise bargaining agreement in government, you can double dip.
I thought there were smart people in politics and I certainly hope there are smart minds putting together policy. You could not have concocted a more distorted and a more vengeful approach than paying a working woman less than she deserves and less than she earns. I am ashamed that that policy exists. I feel very, very strongly that small business should not wear that burden. I support this bill strongly.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:24): I want to highlight a couple of things before turning to the substance of the policy at hand here. First, we have had a couple of speakers say that speakers on this side of the chamber were not addressing the substance of the bill, so I am very happy to first turn to the substance of this bill. One of the speakers opposite actually said that he doubted speakers on the side had read the bill. I have read the bill and I have read the EM. The first thing I can point out is that there is an issue with the financial impact that is in the explanatory memorandum.
On page 3 of the EM the financial impact is said to be '$0.7 million over five years'. But then when you go to page 4 it says:
The additional cost to Government to implement the measure is $7 million over five years.
It repeats that on page 16. What sort of competence do we have from a minister who puts an explanatory memorandum on the table that has a decimal point in the wrong place—an additional zero and a decimal point? Is it $0.7 million over five years or $7 million over five years? Figures matter in this. I just cannot fathom the incompetence. I thought perhaps there was an issue on the website but then I checked the explanatory memorandum here on the table. How can we have this situation? This makes a difference to what the financial impact of this bill is.
But more than that, it makes me actually question the veracity of some of the other figures in this explanatory memorandum, which those opposite have been parroting. In 'Analysis of cost/benefits' on page 17 it states, amongst other things, that the 'Total by cost category' for 'Administrative Costs' is '$48 million (savings)' and repeats that in the 'Total by Sector'. But, as the Bills Digest points out, these figures do not have references. I will quote from page 2 of the Bills Digest:
The Government's reason for making the change is to 'ease administrative burdens on business'.
The footnote says that this is from the explanatory memorandum, page 3.
The Government estimates that the total annual (national) savings to employers from removing the paymaster requirement to be $48 million., though it is unclear how it arrived at this figure.
I think any reasonable person, when they start seeing figures where one is right and one is wrong, would start questioning the veracity of the figures that are used elsewhere.
On that point, I have heard those opposite, as I said, parroting from the Bills Digest. One thing that is clearly missed by I think all of them is, if you look at page 7 of the Bills Digest it states:
While there is clearly some opposition to the paymaster role among employers, there is evidence from a Government evaluation of the early impacts of the scheme … that employer experiences in implementing PPL have generally been positive.
Again you have to question the veracity of the evidence-based policy making that has gone into this bill that is before us today. It cannot get its figures right and it cannot reference figures, yet we are meant to just believe them. This is something we have before us that obviously those opposite are happy to believe without interrogating it. I would like to interrogate it and if I get an opportunity I will.
But just the same it is the fact that it was Labor that introduced this country's first ever national Paid Parental Leave Scheme. I find it incredulous that some of those people opposite, like the last speaker, would follow a Prime Minister who said it would be over his dead body that paid parental leave would ever be introduced. We know that 340,000 women have accessed paid parental leave since it was introduced in January 2011—I will go into some of the details about my own electorate—and around 40,000 dads have accessed dad and partner pay since January 2013. Since its introduction it has been administered by employers, and the employer role was included to help employers maintain the relationship with their staff when they are on leave. That is why we adopted in the 2013 election campaign a position that would enable businesses with fewer than 20 employees to streamline administration and have Centrelink make payments to your employees whilst they are on leave.
That is the situation for the substance of paid parental leave as it stands at the moment in this country. Again, I find it incredible that some of those opposite would come up here and try to lecture Labor on paid parental leave. They cannot even get their own side to agree. I cannot believe the last speaker had the audacity to say that everyone on his side supports this policy. It is absolutely not the case. When they get their house in order then they might try and convince the rest of the electorate about it. To quote a couple of choice ones, the member for Tangney said on 17 September 2013:
I do have significant concerns … I think there are better ways to attack the overall problem: having affordable and easy access to childcare.
That is not me; that is one of their own side. The member Mitchell spoke said this morning we should not be conflating this bill with policy issues over paid parental leave—I do not think his colleagues got the memo on that one. He was very scathing saying that issues were conflated—'to conflate issues' in this debate because this is about small business. He would know because he said in his article in May 2013 in that reputable IPA Review:
Is it a good idea to levy a 1.5 per cent charge on the country's largest businesses in the current global economy? Will the new tax improve Australia as a destination for investment and make our firms more globally competitive? I would argue the opposite. Any new levy of this size will add substantially to the cost of doing business in Australia at a time when our country is already less internationally competitive than it should be.
If you want to talk about small business, even based on the members for Mitchell's eloquent writings, and if you think that large businesses are not going to pass on costs to small businesses you are in fantasyland. I could go on with that but, as the member for Mitchell pointed out, this is about a different issue. The member for Mitchell talked about youth unemployment and how easing small business burdens will help to address youth unemployment. I will tell you what would probably have helped youth unemployment rates in Western Sydney and in other high unemployment areas of Sydney: probably not abolishing partnership brokers, probably not abolishing all those other schemes which were having a very positive impact on young people, making them employable and helping them to get placements—for instance, the Youth Connections workers who have been doing incredible jobs. Labor had previously identified Greenway as an area of high need and it devoted literarily its own task force person to manage these issues. But no, she is out of a job now, despite the fact that she made—as I am sure have many others—an immense contribution.
To go on about this friendless policy, former Liberal minister Peter Reith labelled it 'obviously bad policy'. Former finance minister Nick Minchin indicated that he, too, did not support the scheme and an unnamed National described it in words which are unbecoming to this House, words I will not repeat. Take all that into consideration and take into consideration the Prime Minister's own 'over my dead body' view of paid parental leave and his view that there should be a policy directed towards women of calibre—somehow women are worth less if they are not of calibre—then put that all to one side: we have the cost to the government of $7 million over five years—or 0.7 million, depending on what part of the explanatory memorandum you read—versus the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme of $5.5 billion every year. So how is this saving money?
Some opposite have quoted business groups in support of this bill. They have indeed used these quotes very selectively. If you look at the substance of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's views on the government's paid parental leave policy, the ACCI has slammed the coalition's scheme and called for greater means testing that will 'considerably improve both the schemes affordability and fairness'—that was on 5 February 2014. Peter Anderson, then CEO of ACCI said on 19 May 2013:
It is an excessive paid parental leave scheme.
We had similar comments from the then chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, who said:
… on any measure this is bad parental leave policy and its bad tax policy.
There are no friends for the government's policy. To think this will benefit small business in the long term leaves open the whole notion of how this government approaches parental leave. The last speaker and a couple before him gave us a diatribe of what women want. I will tell you what they want. I have some figures from August 2013—which will have increased substantially since, considering Greenway has one of the youngest demographics in Australia. These figures show that 3,500 parents have been recipients of Labor's PPL Scheme in Greenway alone. When this policy went through it was certainly welcomed. I remember very clearly after my baby was born in the first six months going to mothers group and nearly to a tee every one of those women from Blacktown to Quakers Hill would say that the only reason they were able to take the extra time off with their babies was the PPL Scheme. That is what they directly told me.
We know that Labor's PPL Scheme is working. It has had and continues to have a positive impact. The previous speaker liked to bang on about superannuation. What about the low-income superannuation contribution for those earning less than $37,000? Predominantly women fall into that category. There has been not a word about that; no care whatsoever about that. This means a lot in the electorate of Greenway. Two of the top 20 suburbs receiving low-income superannuation contribution recipients—these figures will be much higher now—are in Greenway: Girraween and Blacktown. It can plainly be seen that those opposite like to talk a big game when it comes to improving women's participation in the workforce. They like to talk a big game when it comes to a lot of the other factors that enable women to participate fully in the workforce.
I heard a member opposite speak about how important child care is.
Even today in The Australian I saw an article about childcare standards. The author, Natasha Robinson, says:
I must admit that I was sceptical about the previous Labor government’s national quality reforms to the childcare sector. When the reforms were rolled out, my toddler was in family daycare, and all I saw of the reform agenda was more bureaucracy for my daughter’s carer.
But then she goes on to say there have been substantive improvements to the quality of child care as a result of Labor's reforms. She quotes someone from the Community Child Care Co-operative, who says:
I have been in the sector for 30 years and I can honestly say with my hand on my heart I am seeing better quality now than I have ever seen. We are going to see different outcomes up ahead.
Those opposite, as I said, like to talk big when it comes to paid parental leave. They like to talk big when it comes to the rights of women in the work force. As we all know, it took Labor to introduce a national Paid Parental Leave Scheme. It took Labor to do that. The policy that the government is pursuing in this regard is completely friendless. Even if you just take this bill before us in isolation, the paymaster role has seen such incompetence from this minister that he cannot even get the key figures correct. There are no footnotes and no explanations about how the savings in here were reached. You cannot take with any veracity anything this minister does, because the incompetence is quite startling.
Mrs GRIGGS (Solomon) (17:39): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 and to be able to detail why I believe this legislative change is important and why, more generally, the coalition's Paid Parental Leave Scheme will be an invaluable addition to the nation's social infrastructure now and into the future. As the Minister for Small Business said back in March, when he was introducing this bill:
This bill will implement the government's commitment, foreshadowed during the 2013 election campaign, to reduce the red tape burden and compliance costs on business by ensuring that they are not required to be the paymaster for the government's paid parental leave scheme.
This measure has drawn a lot of attention and a lot of comments from those opposite on the Labor benches over the past couple of years, both when they were in government and now as they lick their wounds over there on the opposition benches. Labor members might want to talk down this initiative and make mischief about what it means to business, the economy and so on. But time will tell them that they have got it wrong and that the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme will have a lasting benefit for all Australians.
It seems unusual that there could be any sound reason to object to legislation that removes the requirement for employers to provide government-funded paid parental leave to eligible long-term employees. Under the amendments, employers will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services unless an employer opts in to pay parental leave to its employees and the employee agrees for their employer to pay them. The abolition of the pay cheque clerk burden from the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is estimated to save businesses around $44 million and the not-for-profit sector millions of dollars a year. Aside from making life simpler for businesses, this red-tape buster will help reduce some of the negative sentiment that has been generated by the previous government's decision to put the onus on the people who provide our jobs.
As has already been stated, this measure is strongly supported by the business community. The member for Greenway was just questioning that support. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry showed that an overwhelming 84.3 per cent of businesses were opposed to being paymasters for the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. That is, 84.3 per cent of businesses said they were opposed to being the paymasters for Labor's scheme. The member from Greenway was saying there was overwhelming support for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme that the Labor Party had put through. The chamber of commerce suggested differently. This is understandable and a consequence of the failure by Labor to properly think through or implement its paid parental leave model. When we were in opposition we saw disaster after disaster in the way they implemented policy.
As Prime Minister Tony Abbott notes in his book Battlelines, the Rudd government scheme was only for women in the paid work force. But it is not funded by business as, by rights, it should be. At 18 weeks, it is not long enough to allow women to fully breastfeed their babies. As a new grandmother, I am able to see first-hand the importance of my daughter-in-law being able to be home and able to breastfeed our granddaughter. As I said, 18 weeks is not long enough to allow women to breastfeed their babies. And at the level of the minimum award wage it is actually inadequate for most families that depend on the mother's income.
We heard the member for Bowman talking about how in his electorate the mothers who have gone on maternity leave still have the same costs, particularly around the family budget, that they had when they were still working. He cited as an example that they do not just cut off a bedroom in the family home. People need to take this into consideration. I think those on the other side did not do that. In some cases, accessing the $9,700 taxed maternity leave payment will actually leave some women worse-off than they would have been with their existing untaxed baby bonus and family tax benefits.
There are other issues that have been brought up about Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme, which include that it is primarily located within the social security system rather than as part of a workplace based contributions scheme such as social insurance. It is also funded through general taxation revenue rather than a combination of individual employer and government contributions. Another fault that was identified is that it is paid at the minimum wage rather than at a certain percentage of wage replacement. Most OECD countries set a certain percentage of wage replacement, ranging from 50 to 100 per cent of wages—and that is from 'Parental leave and child health across OECD countries', in The Economic Journal. Also, one of the issues with Labor's Paid Parental Leave scheme is that it is means tested. To be eligible, an applicant's adjusted taxable income must be $150,000 or less rather than the scheme being universally available to all regardless of income. Also, although the Australian scheme is paid for 18 weeks—I mentioned that briefly—which is around the OECD average of 19 weeks, that is shorter than in a number of countries. For example, in Sweden the leave is paid for 68 weeks. That is according to the OECD's 'Key characteristics of parental leave systems'.
The Abbott government will address these shortcomings. I am pleased to be able to rise in support of this bill because I believe that what we are doing is the right thing. I would like to quote again the Minister for Small Business. Back in March, he said:
The government is committed to continuing to reduce red tape burdens for business, including new and established businesses, as a critical step towards improving Australia's productivity—unnecessary red tape hinders innovation, investment and job creation.
How true that is.
I could continue to speak for quite a lengthy time, but I think that I will leave you with a couple of little thoughts. Labor's resistance to this measure proves that they just do not get business and they really have no understanding of how unnecessary costs adversely impact on jobs and business viability. I quoted the member for Bowman before. He was talking about how, in his electorate, he was looking for the millionaires in their 20s, because this has been a major criticism that those opposite have had of our scheme. I have to say that in my electorate the average age is 33. There are not too many millionaires in their 20s having babies in my electorate either. But I think that for any woman to have a baby and to be able to have a wage replacement is actually a good thing.
Those on the other side are saying that women are clearly only worth minimum wage, and they are not entitled to superannuation. I have heard from so many women who are now grandparents that they do not have as much superannuation as they would like or as they need because they did not have the entitlements that we have access to now. A lot of these women relish the opportunity that we are providing—the fact that we are offering a paid maternity leave that is a wage replacement option and we are going to provide superannuation. The member for Greenway said that Labor's PPL is working. She is clearly saying that she thinks it is acceptable that women are only worth the minimum wage and not super. I want to reiterate that I support women being paid superannuation while on maternity leave, and I support wage replacement, not minimum wage, for women in this country.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (17:49): I rise today to speak on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I think the presentations we have had, the speeches we have had, from both sides of the chamber on this policy area certainly put into stark relief the difference in values, the difference in qualities and the difference in understanding of policies, because we have had such a befuddled presentation of logic and reasoning coming from the other side of the chamber.
Let us put things in context up front. Step 1: the government has said there is a budget emergency. That is the mantra I have heard for the last nine months: tough decisions need to be made because there is a budget emergency. I could spend half an hour dismantling that argument, but that is the prism through which this legislation was presented to the chamber by the government. Step 2: let us remember that there is a Paid Parental Leave scheme, put in place by Labor, operating right now. It is not a perfect scheme, not the most generous scheme in the world, but a scheme that does give some comfort and takes up some of the slack for the costs associated with having a child. I do not think anyone would be rushing off to have a child in order to receive that pay, but it is of some benefit.
The reality is that we did this in the context of appropriately means-testing payments associated with having a child. Deputy Speaker Vasta, I know you have had a child recently. Obviously the baby bonus was means-tested by Labor. I think when you were first in parliament the baby bonus was not means-tested. Labor appropriately brought in the fact that it is means-tested. This is a very bad example because my wife was pregnant on budget night when Wayne Swan announced it. I would have thought it might have been logical to have a nine-month lead-in, but that was not the case. My son was born on 19 January, and my wife constantly reminds me that she received no baby bonus, because it was appropriately means-tested. It was a good policy for the nation—not so good in my home!
The reality is: we have to have schemes that are affordable and appropriate. This comes in the context of a so-called budget emergency—sure, it is a AAA credit rated economy ticking over and doing quite well, with a couple of long-term challenges and some medium difficulties approaching us, but, still, that is the prism through which the minister has presented this bill. Let us have a look at the context in terms of the difficult journey for women to have a child in Australia. I am proud to say that we were one of the first countries in the world to give women the right to vote. New Zealand might have been the first, although I think South Australia—and I note the member for Mayo at the table—might have been the first in the world to give women the right to vote at the state parliament level. But New Zealand was the first to do it as a nation. Since then, progress has been difficult. In fact, it was not until 1949 that our first female federal cabinet minister was appointed, and, if you look at those photographs of cabinets back in the sixties, seventies and eighties, they are still mainly men sitting around that cabinet table. Obviously things are much better now—oh no! Sorry; the current cabinet has gone back to the 1960s.
But things have changed. When I was born, women working in the federal Public Service were required to resign when they were married. That is not that long ago. But in the last 50 years much has been achieved for women in terms of equality in education and in the workplace. There are still some glass ceilings there in terms of the number of female graduates versus the number of positions on boards and as senior partners and the like, but obviously much has changed over that time, particularly with safe contraception and access to childcare facilities facilitating more career opportunities. In 1984 the federal government banned discrimination on the basis of sex. Today more women than men are educated at secondary schools and universities, and more women graduate from university with bachelor degrees. According to ABS data, of females aged 15 to 64 years, the proportion enrolled in formal study rose from approximately 17 per cent in 2001 to 20 per cent in 2013. There is still more to be done, but nevertheless we are slowly seeing change. However, paid parental leave is not the final frontier. There are still many rows to hoe, including wage equality, where there is still a significant difference between what males and females make.
In 2009 the Productivity Commission's inquiry into paid parental leave identified a number of benefits of providing support for parents with newborn children, including: the improved wellbeing of families, and in particular child and maternal health, associated with an extended period of absence from work around the birth of the baby and secure financial support during this period; in the face of the incentives against work provided by the social welfare and tax system, encouragement of women of reproductive ages to maintain their lifetime attachment to the workforce; and the expression of community norms. This includes the view that having a child and taking time out for family reasons is part of the usual course of work and life for many people in the paid workforce, including fathers. Obviously it is all about society recognising the value of children, particularly when they are very young.
Labor has a proud tradition of bringing in policies that support the hard work of mothers, whether they are at home or in a paid job. Having had two young children during my time in parliament, I know that having a baby on the scene is both a rewarding and—as I can tell by the circles under your eyes, Deputy Speaker Vasta!— challenging time of life. New parents usually have to adapt to life without sleep as well as to the loss of an income. That is why I am proud to be a part of the Labor team that implemented legislation that supports families through the baby bonus, the family tax benefit and Australia's first paid parental leave scheme, a scheme that was responsible and fully costed and did not impose an unfair big new tax on business—a big new tax that will be passed on at the checkout, a big new tax that will be passed on at the petrol bowser, a big new tax that will be passed on by the bigger companies every time we buy their products. That is what happens. Remember all those arguments for the three years of the 43rd Parliament about how the carbon price cost would be passed on? Well, they are exactly the arguments for what will happen when the government implements this scheme and passes on those costs to big business. They will just send it straight back to their clients and customers.
A properly considered paid parental leave scheme should take into account the varying responsiveness of different groups of people to its generosity and duration as well as considering how the welfare system affects that responsiveness. A paid parental leave scheme needs to give particular attention to lower income families. The beneficial employment effects of a leave scheme are most likely to be experienced by less well educated and lower skilled females. Empirical evidence shows that higher effective wages do more to encourage these women to work than more educated, higher paid women. Poorer families have less recourse to savings, because they are just trying to manage from week to week with food and other cost-of-living increases, and they cannot necessarily support themselves on a low single income, hastening their return to work. Lower income families face the greatest barriers to work, given the incentives of the welfare system, although that is being changed rapidly at the moment.
This legislation does not support those who need it most. The reality is: it is going to reward the higher end of people that are having children, people that are not necessarily going to be looking at every dollar to make a decision about whether or not they have children. This should be seen in the context of a community that is receiving cuts to pensions and increases to petrol taxes, which are going to go up and up and up. The Queensland government has just flagged an increase of 13 per cent to electricity bills, coming on top of, I think, 23 per cent and 10 per cent before that. There will be $2.8 billion cut from our public hospitals. There will be a tax every time we go to the doctor. There will be cuts to family payments and an obscene forcing-up of the costs of university, for those smart enough to get there.
The current government wants to impose this Rolls-Royce paid parental leave scheme, while howling at the same time that we are in the middle of a budget emergency. These things jar, and you can see why the Nationals have been so insistent on changing this policy. I am hoping that they will find their voice in the next little while. Sadly, they seem to have lost it a little bit in this coalition government.
This government is hiding the true facts about Australia. As I said, we have low inflation, low interest rates and a AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies. When the Prime Minister—it might have been the Treasurer—tried to suggest otherwise, they were quick to come out and say, 'No, you are incorrect.' We are one of only eight countries in the world with this achievement.
I note that the government is doing its best to try to talk down the economy. It is having a horrible effect on business confidence. But the reality is that we are in a healthy position. The budget needs to be seen for what it is: basically a cheap attempt to justify unnecessary taxes and unfair cuts, part of the Tea Party program rolled out in the United States.
The Prime Minister has shown that he simply does not understand the needs of Australian families, by taking the axe to early education and care that parents rely on every day while funding $50,000 payments to women with a child. At the same time the government is providing a wage replacement bill, the government is also cutting funding from child care. If the purpose of this bill is to have more women return to the workforce, then surely a logical step would be to improve the availability of child care for Australian families.
At a time of record demand, with around 335,000 children now using outside-school-hours care so that parents can go back to work, the Abbott government has also cut $450 million that would have seen extra programs and places in over 500 schools.
The childcare benefit threshold will also be frozen, cutting access to child care for those who can least afford it. Indexation of the childcare rebate will also be stopped.
These are aggressive attacks on family budgets and on women who are doing their best to return to work. On top of this, we have cuts to pensions that will make life harder for pensioners, who, as grandparents, are often involved in caring for kids.
I received an email on 26 May from Lorna, one of my constituents. I will read part of what she said:
I am a pensioner 78 years old … I & many others have contributed income tax for over 40 years & have never received any of the many benefits that are now available to other generations except our aged pension.
I have been quite happy with this & do not expect more than the small increases to cope with inflation & the rebates to help with the utilities which have risen above belief. However, these are now under threat—
in fact, they are more than under threat; they've just been abolished by the decision made in the budget—
but it is OK to give the wealthier thousands of dollars in maternity leave payments. Where is the justice in this for pensioners paying fees to visit the doctor & having their benefits cut.
I never thought I would receive such unfair treatment from a Government who has such little care for its disadvantaged citizens.
Lorna certainly was a Liberal-National Party voter in the past but, from the tone and tenor of this email, she will not be in the future. She understands that it is impossible to argue budget emergency at the same time as you are providing this Rolls-Royce Paid Parental Leave scheme.
If we did a demographic analysis of Australia and saw that our population was going backwards and the budget was super healthy, perhaps we could look at this scheme. I do understand superannuation and its importance to women. I note that, overall, women miss out on superannuation because they take time out from the workforce. Labor gets superannuation; we are the party of superannuation. I could go back through the speeches of the Prime Minister, railing against increases to superannuation. This is a bloke, who, in his 50s, was saying that over his dead body would a paid parental leave scheme come in. Labor understands superannuation and the impact it has on most women, with that time out of the workforce to raise their children. The government has brought in a policy which takes away the superannuation bonus for lower paid workers, 2.1 million of whom are women.
The Paid Parental Leave scheme put forward by the government totally jars with the budget narrative they are trying to put together. Every time we hear the words 'budget emergency,' all I can hear is Paid Parental Leave scheme and Lorna's words, saying: 'Where is the justice in this for pensioners, paying fees to visit the doctor and having their benefits cut?' That is what I will hear every time I hear a speaker opposite talk about how wonderful this Paid Parental Leave scheme is. Labor is fair dinkum about supporting women in the workforce. This policy in front of us today is ill-considered.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (18:05): I rise today to support the coalition's Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. This bill amends the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. It specifically and vitally removes the administration requirement for employers to make payments to employees under the national Paid Parental Leave scheme from 1 July this year.
The bill proposes that employees be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless the employer chooses to make the payments and the employee consents to this arrangement. This amending legislation is imperative, as it will ease administrative burdens on businesses by reducing red tape. It is also fair. Currently, in most cases the government funds employers to provide paid parental leave instalments to their eligible, long-term employees. Why should businesses be burdened with this administrative task when paid parental leave is a government initiative and a government payment?
At the 2010 and the 2013 federal elections the coalition made the commitment that, under our Paid Parental Leave scheme, employees would be paid directly by the Commonwealth government, not by their employer. This bill implements that commitment. As a business owner for many years before becoming a member of parliament I have had practical and personal experiences with the paid parental leave scheme. I ran a small family-owned business in my electorate with 15 staff. In 2011 two of my staff members, both office workers, Carly and Catherine, had the great news that they were expecting in Carly's case her third child and in Catherine's case her first child. It was great news. There was the paid parental leave scheme that was brought in in 2010 that had bipartisan support, but what I would say is that the issue with it is that this was a new administrative burden for the business because the government was not making this payment directly to the mother. Our finance officer at the time probably spent about 20 hours researching what was involved with the paid parental leave scheme, how that $1,200 a fortnight in the hand should be administered, talking to the people at the Fair Work Commission, and basically setting up the payment took about 20 hours, believe it or not. Once it was set up it was a lot easier to implement, but once again it probably took an hour or so a week to make the payment, to issue the pay slip, to write everything up and so forth. So I estimate that probably would have cost somewhere between $750 and $1,000 for the small business that I was involved with.
One of the arguments that the Labor Party speakers have mentioned as to why this red tape removal bill should not be implemented is that it will break off the relationship between the employer and the employee. I would say in relation to that that is quite common for women that have had a child to bring the baby into the workplace after they have had the child, show the office workers, show the management—everyone is very excited about having a look at the new baby that has been born that the woman has carried for the last nine months. Not only do most women bring the baby into the workplace but in some workplaces, ours in particular, we do a regular newsletter every three months to our existing customers. We put photos of the newborn babies in the newsletter. It was great news, exciting news, that two of our staff has added to their family and brought a new life into the world and we put photos into the newsletter at our workplace to say, 'Look at this, customers, look at the great news. We have had a couple of babies in the family.' We also invited those women to Christmas parties. We always have a staff Christmas party and we had a little tradition in my previous workplace where wherever it was someone's birthday we would always get a birthday cake for morning tea. The rest of the women in the office and the men that worked in our workplace continued to celebrate those birthdays whilst they were on paid parental leave or maternity leave, so we were very engaging with the employees up on maternity leave.
What businesses generally think about that I will touch on in a moment, but what I say to those opposite that are blocking this bill in relation to removing this red tape is that most employers want to keep their employees. I know those opposite have strong links with the unions and that is not a bad thing in itself, but what I would say is that it is not always the case where the employer and the employee are at war. For most workplaces that are productive and are doing well and keep their staff long-term there is a good, healthy relationship between the employee and the employer. So to say that removing this red tape, removing this administration cost to small business, will somehow break off the relationship between employees and employers is completely wrong. Most employers are good people. Most employers want to keep their staff. They have spent years training them, investing in them, and it is important to point that out.
What do businesses think about this? Do they support this measure to remove this red tape? The majority of businesses do. I know that when I was out campaigning I spoke to hundreds of small businesses out doorknocking and talking. We had a platform leading to the 2013 election about removing red tape for small business. The Prime Minister often would say, 'If you have got examples of red tape, let me know what they are so we can remove them.' This is a classic example of red tape removal. All the businesses that I spoke to were in favour and thought it was a good practical thing to do. I also spoke to young women of child-bearing age and some mothers that I met out campaigning and explained about the red tape removal in relation to this measure. They also thought it was a good idea. So I see this amendment to the 2010 paid parental leave scheme as an election commitment. We very much support women and it is fantastic that even the current paid parental leave scheme is in place, let alone our plan that we want to implement later. It is a good thing and this is a matter of red tape removal.
We have heard a lot from the opposition about their support to remove the requirement for employers to make payments under the paid parental leave scheme but only for businesses with less than 20 employees. There is no reason for this amendment to apply only to businesses with less than 20 employees. The burden placed upon businesses by the current practice affects all businesses whether they are small, medium or large. In fact, many of Australia's leading business organisations support the removal of the requirement that employers make payments under the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports the measure introduced by this bill.
In a media release from March of this year, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia said:
… the Guild—along with many other employer groups—was disappointed that the [original paid parental leave] legislation was passed without any amendments to remove the paymaster role from small business employers.
I wonder why the previous government did not recognise this beforehand. We moved amendments to try to remove this red-tape burden. At the end of the day, this is about supporting parents and those parents are still supported by this amendment to the 2010 bill.
Under the coalition's Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, employees will be paid directly by the Department of Human Services, unless the employer chooses to make the payments and the employee consents to this arrangement. This may happen. We do not need to legislate everyone in. We know that governments—whether it is council, state or federal—have paid parental leave schemes in place at full replacement wage, but there are some employers and private businesses that also do this. Some businesses would be more than happy to continue the current arrangements—to continue to handle the government payment directly from the government to the business to the employee. But I do not believe that we should be legislating everyone in. I think it should be a choice. I believe in freedom. I believe in choice. I believe that people should be free to do business without the burden of managing the distribution of government payments how ever beneficial those payments may be. That is why I support the coalition's Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill today.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (18:17): Like many on this side, I rise to speak against the implementation of this government's extravagant Paid Parental Leave Scheme in this Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014, which is being introduced at a time when it is making severe cuts to some of our fundamental services. It was not all that long ago in lead-up to the last election, and you might recall this, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Vasta, that Tony Abbott said, 'There will be no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to the pension, no changes to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.' I want to put this into some perspective. Just two weeks ago we saw a very deceitful budget, one that brought down cuts to education, cuts to health, changes to the age pension, cuts to family benefits and introduced a GP tax—all initiatives that will disproportionately hurt the vulnerable.
This government argue that the cuts brought down in the budget are necessary to bring the budget into line, yet they are determined to introduce in this so-called constrained economic environment—or, as they see it, a confected budget emergency—an overly generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme that will pay high-income earners up to $50,000 to have a baby. For that, this government stands accused of having its priorities wrong.
I am a father of three and proudly a grandfather of six, with another one on the way. I genuinely appreciate the role that women play in bringing up a family. I certainly appreciate the importance of a mother's role in a young life. I must say, and my wife would have me say this if I didn't, that a mother's job is indispensable and most challenging. Balancing work and life pressures, particularly during pregnancy, are things that should not be taken for granted. We know a baby needs full-time carers and the role of parents in the early period of a child's life is absolutely critical. Apart from the emotional and physical stress that mothers experience during this time, financial pressures are probably one of the biggest concerns facing many families in my electorate when it comes to having a baby.
Having a baby is definitely a milestone in all our lives, but it does require a lot of planning and adjustment. I know how difficult it is for low-income families to maintain a household budget on a single income. When each of our three kids arrived, my wife Bernadette was not working and we relied solely on my income, which paid the mortgage, the electrical, gas and water bills and all the other household expenses. I suppose many of us did this because in those days there was no paid parental leave. So to that extent, we have moved forward and we have a better understanding of the role of parents and the need to support them. When it comes to having a family, I know the importance of having a paid parental leave scheme. My daughter accessed this when she had her four children.
A paid parental leave scheme is so important for people who come from low-income households. That is why the previous Labor government proudly introduced Australia's first Paid Parental Leave Scheme in January 2011. It provided working mums and dads with financial support during that very important time in their lives with the arrival of their newborn baby. Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we provided 18 weeks pay at a minimum rate. The scheme was designed on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission, who made it clear that a flat rate on the minimum wage payment was the fairest and most effective way of supporting mothers with a newborn. Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, 340,000 families benefited, and since January last year 40,000 dads have also benefited from Labor's initiative.
The question, though, is not about the numbers of families benefiting from paid parental leave but, quite frankly, the types of families that require that level of support. Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme was designed to benefit all Australians but particularly those on low to middle incomes, many of whom were dependent on casual and part-time employment, whereas Tony Abbott's Paid Parental Leave Scheme provides up to $50,000 for high-income earners to have a baby. Women earning in excess of $100,000 a year—possibly in professional careers, able to command high-salaried employment, and often able to receive privately-negotiated paid parental leave—are not in the same financial situation as mothers in low-income households.
My electorate, although it is one of the most multicultural electorates in the whole of the country—and I enjoy thoroughly the colour, the vibrancy and the diversity that that brings—also has a high proportion of women supporting low-income households, or coming from low-socioeconomic or disadvantaged backgrounds. My electorate and the people there are not rich, and they are absolutely dependent on their jobs to support their families. By way of information, the average family income in my electorate is $55,000 a year. You can see that, as I say, they are not rich people. So, when it comes to having a baby, the cost can be particularly overwhelming for many women and families in my electorate.
Why should the baby of a Macquarie Street solicitor be valued more highly or attract a higher degree of support than the child of a cleaner or a part-time worker living in Liverpool or Cabramatta? That is just not fair and it is not reasonable.
Mr Pasin interjecting—
Mr HAYES: The member interjects from the other side, but I do know that he is a solicitor—though he may not be from Macquarie Street—so he is probably standing up for the legal profession.
Under the Liberals' scheme, there is a huge gap between the support for high-income-earning women and that for low-income-earning women. It is not uncommon for a cleaner living in my electorate to earn about $30,000 a year. If she has a baby, she will receive $15,000, as opposed to that Macquarie Street solicitor, earning in excess of $100,000, who, if she has a baby, will receive $50,000. In other words, the women at the top end of the scale—the doctors and lawyers and other professionals—get more of a benefit than those in low-paid occupations such as cleaners, textile workers and people who work for piece rates. Again I ask: how is that fair? How is it equitable?
Some might be so kind as to call that 'middle-income welfare', but the paid parental leave that we introduced was targeted primarily at those it would help most. Ours was not a vote-buying exercise as was the one proposed by the Liberal Party in the lead-up to the last election.
Everyone knows why we have this Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and how it was introduced—and we all know about the cries of hostility from those on the other side at the time who claimed that it was not necessary, was overrated and should not occur. It was introduced because of the poll that went out that showed that Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party had lost a lot of support from women, particularly those at the higher end of the professional scale. This was to appeal to the women's vote. So let us not mince words on this. Let us call it for what it is. This was genuine vote-buying by the Liberals.
Cutting pensions, cutting family payments, freezing younger people out of Newstart allowances, penalising the unemployed by withholding their unemployment benefits for six months, imposing a brand-new GP tax, and increasing tax indexation every time you fill up your car—in that environment, an overgenerous paid parental leave scheme for high-income earners just does not make sense. At a time when this government is cutting $50 billion out of health over the next 10 years, cutting $30 billion out of education and increasing the retirement age to 70, again, the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme just does not make sense.
Talking of education, I would have thought there was common ground. Everyone here knows that education is a vital investment, and one that we must commit to if we are to safeguard our children's futures and, indeed, if we are to safeguard the future of our nation in this competitive world. But cutting another $6.7 billion out of the Gonski reforms, again, makes no sense at all. That is particularly so when, prior to the election—and you would remember the words that were used, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly—the Liberals actually campaigned on the basis of a 'unity ticket' with Labor when it came to Gonski.
I cannot see how a government can consider making cuts to the most vulnerable, the most at-risk groups in our community, while introducing an excessively-generous paid parental leave scheme, particularly given the history of the Liberal Party when it comes to paid parental leave. Maybe not all those opposite were here at the time, but maybe they should actually do a bit of research, because everybody who was in the parliament at the time knows the record of Tony Abbott when it came to paid parental leave. When he was a senior minister in the Howard government, his words were: 'Paid parental leave—over my dead body.' This is not someone who had some philosophical commitment to paid parental leave; this is someone who wanted to buy votes before an election. No wonder it took them kicking and screaming in 2010 to support Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. This is something that does not come naturally to them. It certainly was not in their DNA at that stage. To enact a scheme which favours wealthy women while slashing family benefits to less fortunate families goes to show how skewed the priorities of this government really are.
Another significant aspect of this amendment to the paid parental leave bill is the government's proposal to remove the employer's compulsory role in administering paid parental leave. I know many on the other side have spoken from a business perspective on this. This could mitigate against the employer's obligation to retain working mums after they go on maternity leave, particularly for a period of six months.
Under Labor's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, we placed a strong emphasis on employers maintaining a direct employer relationship over this period, but it also enabled mums to remain connected to the workplace during their time off. More importantly, it was also a way to ensure that women have a job to return to after their maternity term.
Australians need a paid parental leave scheme that is fair and reasonable. Remember: 95 percent of all working mums have had access to Labor's paid parental leave since it was implemented. This is fair, responsible and, more importantly, what is affordable for our economy.
The coalition scheme is going to cost $22 billion over the next four years. The economy, quite frankly, is not in a position to support such a scheme. We say it is thoroughly inappropriate. It is a proposal that is expensive and should not be introduced at the expense of basic fundamental services and benefits provided to low-income Australian families. It is not a question about being generous; this is a question about being fair. What is being proposed is not fair under the current circumstances.
Mr PYNE (Sturt—Leader of the House and Minister for Education) (18:32): I wish to speak briefly on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 to respond to some remarks made in the debate by member for Fisher earlier today.
The member for Fisher in his remarks suggested that the reason that the Paid Parental Leave Scheme as proposed by the Prime Minister was going ahead, which is not the subject necessarily of these amendments, was because of the influence over the Prime Minister by his chief of staff, Ms Peta Credlin. The member for Fisher suggested that the Paid Parental Leave Scheme as proposed by the Prime Minister had come about because of her influence over him and in order for her to benefit from the scheme in the event that she had a child.
This is a very serious allegation made by the member for Fisher, and I am speaking on the debate because, as the Leader of the House, it is appropriate that somebody senior in the government responds to the suggestions made by the member for Fisher. It is a cowardly statement for him to have made. It is a wrong statement for him to have made and it is an ignorant statement for him to have made. Whether he likes the Paid Parental Leave Scheme policy or not, there are some basic requirements in politics, and one of those is that attacking staff who cannot defend themselves in this place is off limits.
The member for Fisher is a new member to this House, and I am sure that if he had been aware of the basic tenets upon which the parliament operates, he would know that singling staff, whether it is opposition staff members, government staff members or even crossbench staff members—
Mr Danby: Fairfax.
Mr PYNE: I keep saying the member for Fisher; I mean the member for Fairfax. The member for Fisher is not responsible for any of these statements; the member for Fairfax is, however, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. It is clearly a matter of confusing seats on the Sunshine Coast, which is easy to do and, similarly, the Gold Coast where there are three seats which I can sometimes confuse.
The member for Fairfax made these statements, and I assume that he has made them not knowing the import of attacking staff members whether they are in the opposition, the government or crossbenchers who cannot defend themselves. For that reason, it is a cowardly attack and I am very disappointed that the member for Fairfax would stoop to that level.
It is wrong, because in fact the Prime Minister proposed a paid parental leave scheme first in his book Battlelines, written a great deal of time before Ms Credlin worked for him as his chief of staff. Therefore the suggestion that Ms Credlin had been the influence on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is demonstrably false as the Prime Minister wrote about it in Battlelines sometime before.
It is also an ignorant statement, because the member for Fairfax is suggesting that somehow, if the Paid Parental Leave Scheme as proposed by the Prime Minister passes the parliament, it would benefit Ms Credlin, the chief of staff; in fact, if Ms Credlin were fortunate enough to have a child, she would already benefit from a generous paid parental leave scheme, because she is a member of the Public Service. As a consequence, there is no possibility that she could benefit personally from the Paid Parental Leave Scheme being passed by this parliament.
What we are trying to do in the government by expanding the Paid Parental Leave Scheme is to help the member for Fairfax's constituents who do not currently serve as public servants and who do not have the generous paid parental leave scheme that exists in the Public Service. So the member for Fairfax's comment is an ignorant comment, because in fact, if he were to support the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, it would extend the benefits towards his constituents, who are women who give birth, in a similar way to those who currently in the Public Service receive the support of the taxpayer. For that reason, I have come into the House to clear up the statements made by the member for Fairfax. If the member for Fairfax wished to, it would be an appropriate thing for him to return to the parliament at some point and apologise to the chief of staff for making statements which quite clearly are: cowardly because she cannot defend herself; are wrong because in fact the Prime Minister proposed the Paid Parental Leave Scheme long before she worked for him; and are ignorant because the chief of staff would already benefit from the government's public service Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and the Prime Minister's proposal extends that further to people who are not currently members of the public service. I thank the House.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (18:37): It is interesting that we are debating a Paid Parental Leave Scheme when you look at the track record of this government and, in particular, of the Prime Minister. I noted the comments of the member for Fowler only a few moments ago. I entirely agree with many of the things he said with respect to the track record of this government. I would like to repeat a couple of the realities of the Abbott government's record on the Paid Parental Leave Scheme and on women more broadly. The Prime Minister himself is on record as having said on 22 July 2002, when referring to the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme:
Over this government's dead body, frankly. It just won't happen.
It is amazing what political reality can do for your beliefs in this place. Not only has the Prime Minister had a change of mind but he was going to go even further than what the previous Labor government had done when it introduced the current Paid Parental Leave Scheme. He now wants to introduce a scheme that will pay mothers who are in the workforce up to $50,000 when they have a baby. It is clear that the Prime Minister realised that it was smart politics if he was to show a little bit more respect and regard for women around the country. But the reality is that leopards do not change their spots.
Mr Robert: Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst I do not like to interrupt the member, he cannot impugn an emotive upon another member. He cannot seek to have emotive—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Mitchell ): There is no point of order. The member for Makin will continue.
Mr ZAPPIA: I made a statement and I stand by it. In other matters relating to women, and I refer in particular to the Prime Minister's own cabinet, only one in 19 cabinet ministers is a woman; only five out of the 30 ministers in his team and only one out of the 12 parliamentary secretaries are women. That reflects the position, when it comes to women, of the current Prime Minister.
The greatest criticism I have of the treatment of women by this government relates to the government's decision to take away the $500-superannuation benefit for people earning less than $37,000. Two-thirds of the people earning $37,000 or less are women so that is who he will effectively hurt the most. What was also interesting was that not one single member opposite, including the women members, took a stand on behalf of the other women who are to lose those benefits.
Coalition members want to portray themselves as the party of paid parental leave and portray the coalition's scheme, which offers up to $50,000 to a mother having a child, as a fairer and better scheme The reality is the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme has become an embarrassment to the coalition members and is an ill conceived illogical scheme the Prime Minister can now not walk away from. Indeed, I have not heard anyone outside of members in this place—who I suspect are simply following their party line—support the Abbott government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme. The Productivity Commission did not recommend it. The business sector condemned it widely. The audit commission did not recommended it—this is the government's own audit commission, a very right-wing group that was appointed by the Abbott government—nor did numerous past Liberal members of this place, including Liberal ex-leaders.
The coalition is not the party of Paid Parental Leave. Indeed, it took a Labor government to bring in paid parental leave just as it was a Labor government that brought in the minimum wage; it was a Labor government that brought in the age pension; it was a Labor government that brought in Medicare; it was a Labor government that brought in compulsory superannuation; and, as I said, it was a Labor government that brought in paid parental leave. It was also a Labor government that introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It seems that you have to look for a Labor government to have social changes implemented in this country,
The second myth the coalition members want the public to believe is that this paid parental leave policy is a workplace entitlement. The coalition is all hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. If it is a workplace entitlement, why is the minister bringing in this specific legislation that says that the government should administer the payments? If it was a workplace entitlement, it would be the workplace that would administer the payments. It is quite simple. The reality is it is not a workplace entitlement. This is the party that introduced WorkChoices, the party that tried to remove every workplace entitlement that ever existed—penalty rates, leave loading and the like—the party that is still trying to destroy unions so that workers have no bargaining clout at all, the party that wants every worker to individually negotiate their conditions so that workers will end up pitted against one another, the party that wants to drive down wages and the party that blamed workers on less than the male average weekly earnings for the demise of the auto manufacturing sector and the difficulties of SPC Ardmona. This is the party that did all those things and now wants the public to believe that it is the party of workplace entitlements. The Abbott government has never defended workplace entitlements in this country but has miraculously seen the light and is now supposedly standing up for workers in saying that they should be paid more. It is nothing but spin.
As I said a moment ago, if it is a workplace entitlement, then quite rightly it should be a matter negotiated between the employers and the employers. Some employers in the past had already done that. There was nothing stopping workplaces and employers from negotiating a paid parental leave scheme of whatever kind they wanted with their employees, if they wanted to do so. And, as I said, some had already done so.
Myth No. 3 is that the Abbott government scheme is fairer than the existing paid parental leave scheme. How can paying some mums more than others be fair? The scheme that we have, the existing scheme, treats all mothers equally. It is funded by the government; it is not paid for by the employers, albeit that some of Australia's largest companies will be required to pay an additional 1.5 per cent tax so that it can be partly funded. No other government social payment that I can think of is set on the basis of a person's income. When it comes to government payments, all Australians are treated equally. We did not pay unemployment benefits, retirement and disability pensions or the baby bonus on the basis of what a person's previous income was. Everyone was treated equally. All mothers and all babies should be treated equally, because they are equal. The Abbott government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme effectively discriminates between one mother and another. It is not fair on mothers. It is not fair on babies.
There is, however, another aspect to the unfairness that goes to the heart of this budget. How can it be fair to increase medical costs by imposing a $7 GP co-payment or a $7 X-ray co-payment or a $7 pathology test co-payment? How can it be fair to take young people off Newstart and reduce their payment by $48 a week by putting them on the lower payment of youth allowance? How can it be fair to cut pension increases by changing indexation method? How can it be fair to provide only six months of benefit each year to the under 30-year-old who happens to be unemployed? How can it be fair to increase petrol prices across the board to everyone? Indeed, how can it be fair to cut $5,500 of support to low-paid apprentices and then give them the alternative of a loan instead? To do all that and simultaneously bring in an unnecessary, uncalled-for and unfair paid parental leave scheme that pays some mums $50,000 is simply an injustice. In fact there is no social justice in the government's budget.
I have to say that this policy highlights the government's confected budget crisis message. If there was truly a budget crisis, as Abbott government members would have everyone in Australia believe, why would you bring in this very generous scheme now, when you claim that the country cannot afford it? I could accept if members opposite said it is an aspiration that we want to move towards sometime in the future. But to bring it in right now, when you claim you need to balance the budget, simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and it is simply not believed by the broader community. This scheme will cost the Australian public $5.5 billion a year or $21 billion over four years. It does not make sense.
There is another aspect of the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme that concerns me. There are many women who work within a family business or who operate their own businesses. What is to stop these people, when they intend on having a child, from artificially raising their salary so that they can maximise their paid parental leave entitlements. It can be done if you own and operate your own business or if you have set up a family business and you are effectively both the employer and the employee.
There is one final matter that I want to raise with respect to this issue that is of deep concern. That is the question: who really is going to pay for the government's very generous Paid Parental Leave Scheme? The belief is that over 3,000 of Australia's largest companies will pay a 1.5 per cent levy—and they will in a direct way. But the effect of that levy is that it will be shareholders who will ultimately pay the levy. Many of these shareholders are retired people who rely on their investments and the return on those investments. This is a concern that was reported in media articles prior to the election in September last year, with some estimates being that this Paid Parental Leave Scheme will cost self-funded retirees around $360 million a year. That is because the 1.5 per cent levy paid by companies will not attract franking credits and, therefore, shareholders and investors will miss out on those franking credits which they would otherwise have received. So, indirectly, the cost of this scheme is being heavily transferred onto self-funded retirees and investors.
The current scheme is working well. 340,000 mums have benefited from it since it has been in place, and I understand that some 40,000 dads and partners have also benefited from the dads and partners pay that was also introduced. This scheme is neither fair nor just. There is no need and no demand for this scheme, and I have heard no public outcry from the broader community to bring it in and to bring it in now. Frankly, there is no benefit to the nation if the Abbott government's generous and unfair Paid Parental Leave Scheme is brought in. It is bad policy and it should be rejected by this House.
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (18:51): Over the course of question time in the last fortnight, honourable members have been treated to a discourse of recitation of various comments I have made on the public record over time. So it seems only fair to begin this speech on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014 by quoting a set of words from 2002: 'Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this government's dead body, frankly.' That was the now Prime Minister in 2002. Since that time Mr Abbott, the Prime Minister, has shifted his views on parental leave. It is not improper for someone to shift their views on an issue—indeed, I have shifted my views on GP co-payments to now adopt the same position as that of health experts across the spectrum and the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial today. It is, however, noteworthy that the Prime Minister has shifted his view from supporting no parental leave to supporting an unfair parental leave scheme.
The nation of course already has a parental leave scheme. It was put in place in January 2011 and since then more than 340,000 families have benefitted from it, as well as an additional 40,000 benefitting from Dad and Partner Pay since it began in January last year. Ours is a scheme which benefits those on low and middle incomes. It ensures that people who are worried about whether or not their financial position will allow them to have a child are able to have a child with the knowledge that there is a scheme that supports low- and middle-income earners. This is not that scheme.
The government's scheme is a scheme which is neither fair nor reasonable nor fiscally sustainable. It is a scheme which gives the most to those who have the most, which gives $50,000 to millionaires but merely minimum wage to those on minimum wage. It is at odds with Australia's carefully targeted social safety net—one of the most carefully targeted in the OECD. A typical developed country gives twice as much in government assistance to those in the bottom quintile as to those in the top quintile. Australia gives 12 times as much to those in the bottom quintile. That is why Australia has been able to sustain a government share of GDP ratio, with the federal government being about a quarter of national income and the overall government share being about a third—in marked contrast to countries like the UK, where the government share is 40 per cent or many parts of Europe where the government is effectively half the economy.
This is a European style social program, but the government intends to finance it with a Mexican style level of taxation to GDP. That means that so many in the rest of the community have to bear the burden. If you want to pay for a European style social program with American style levels of tax, you have to make savage cuts to other parts of the community. We have seen analysis from Ben Phillips and NATSEM—part of which I tabled last week—which has shown that in 2017-18 a couple with children in the bottom quintile see a 6.6 per cent drop in their disposable income while a couple with children in the top quintile see a 0.3 per cent rise in their disposable income. That redistribution from bottom to top is the result of a 'knights and dames' approach to social policy. This is a budget for the cigar chompers and for the knights and dames, but a budget that leaves middle and lower Australia behind.
The question of a wage replacement parental leave scheme was considered by the Productivity Commission when it did the investigation that underpins the current scheme. As the member for Griffith noted in a terrific opinion piece in Women's Agenda:
The 2009 productivity commission report into paid parental leave expressly disapproved of a scheme like Mr Abbott's, instead recommending for the option that Labor implemented—parental leave at the minimum wage.
The member for Griffith then went on to quote from the Productivity Commission:
Payment at a flat rate would mean that labour supply effects would be greatest for lower income, less skilled women—precisely those who are most responsive to wage subsidies and who are least likely to have privately negotiated paid parental leave.
Full replacement wages for highly educated, well paid women would be costly for taxpayers—
the report said—
and, given their high level of attachment to the labour force and a high level of private provision of paid parental leave, would have few incremental labour supply benefits.
The report also noted that high earners 'usually have better access to resources to self-finance leave.'
As a result, the Productivity Commission recommended a scheme in which 18-weeks postnatal leave could be shared by parents, an additional two weeks of paternity leave would be reserved for the father or same-sex partner and a broad range of families would be eligible as long as they met the eligibility test. The Productivity Commission noted that such a paid parental leave scheme would generate child and maternal health benefits, promote important social goals, help establish parental leave on the arrival of a child as the normal course in the paid workforce, increase retention rates for business and reduce training and recruitment costs. Such a scheme has now been operating very successfully, and many families—including our own—have taken advantage of this scheme.
It is fair, I think, in a household like mine—which is a higher than average income household—that, when we have a child, that child is not regarded as being of greater worth than any other baby born in Australia. But the government's scheme does not do that. Their scheme effectively provides a gold plated, diamond encrusted baby bonus to millionaire households when they have a child and yet it says to minimum wage families—to the families of cleaners, checkout workers, tradies and bricklayers—that, when they have a child, that child will receive less government assistance. This is unfair and utterly at odds with the targeted social safety net that has characterised Australia. If the Prime Minister were arguing for moving us to European style structures, the way to begin would not be to start by increasing expenditure, particularly when he is cutting back on so much assistance.
The government has struggled to find a respected economist who agrees with the government's claims that this scheme—moving from a fair parental leave scheme to an unfair one—will increase productivity or participation. Saul Eslake, hardly a cheerleader for this side of the House, has noted that in his view moving to an unfair parental leave scheme, a wage replacement parental leave scheme, will not have any impact on productivity or participation.
The Prime Minister has changed his view. He is certainly entitled to shift from the view he held a decade ago, when I note he was a government minister rather than a university student, but he has made the wrong choice. He has made a choice which sees the government implementing a scheme which is being criticised left, right and centre. The Motor Trades Association of South Australia has said:
… employers must play a role in the provision of paid parental leave. … MTA SA supports the employer obligation to act as paymaster and guarantee employment.
Innes Wilcox, from the Australian Industry Group, says:
The current system works well, there's no reason it to change.
Peter Anderson, the then CEO of ACCI, said in May 2013:
It is an excessive paid parental leave scheme.
Heather Ridout, former CEO of Australian Industry Group, said:
… on any measure this is bad parental leave policy and it's bad tax policy.
And that is before we go to the many government backbenchers, the brave ones who have been willing to put their names to their critiques, and to the many anonymous coalition backbenchers who have backgrounded journalists when speaking about the flaws in the government system. The member opposite asked me to name one. The member for Tangney has said:
I do have significant concerns. I think there are better ways to attack the overall problem: having affordable and easy access to childcare.
Now there is a member who should have been happy when Labor raised the childcare rebate from 30 to 50 per cent. Senator Williams refused to rule out crossing the floor and said:
I'm gong to have discussions with the PM to see what the final plan will be.
He is a member of the Nationals who is naturally concerned at the unfairness in this scheme and at the fact that rural and regional families will, by and large, not be getting the $50,000. The member for McMahon last week addressed the National Press Club and made the point that the government's extravagant Paid Parental Leave Scheme will cost more than the budget proposals that we will oppose over the forward estimates. So if the government is concerned about fiscal sustainability, it could start by dropping its promise to implement an unfair parental leave scheme. The member for McMahon, when looking at the proposals of a government which wants to send cheques of $50,000 to millionaires when they have a baby, while cutting the pension, freezing young people out of Newstart, reducing family payments, and cutting health and education, said:
This is just wrong.
I could not agree more. This scheme is replacing a fair parental leave scheme with an unfair parental leave scheme. It says that this is the Prime Minister's signature policy. While I fully understand that the Prime Minister might have shifted his view on an issue over the past decade, and I do not fault him for doing a 180 degree turn on a position he held while he was a government minister, he has made the wrong choice. He has shown himself to be the nation's first DLP Prime Minister by putting in place a scheme which is at odds with the means-tested social safety net which has characterised Australia.
The government rails against the 'age of entitlement'. The Treasurer is happy to beat his chest about the age of entitlement, yet when it comes to making a real policy decision that would show that the government is actually willing to pass bills that uphold that 'age of entitlement' rhetoric, the government falls at the first hurdle. Indeed, the government sold this policy going in to the last election on the basis that parental leave is an entitlement. Put another way, entitlements like a reasonably indexed pension are being taken away from older Australians while for millionaires who are having a baby it is a case of: welcome to your new age of entitlement; welcome to an age of entitlement that will see $50,000 go to millionaires to have a baby while 20-somethings who lose their job are forced to go six months without Newstart—a period during which those of them who have cars might well sleep in their cars and those who do not have cars will be homeless and looking for handouts and charity from the rest of the community.
This is a scheme that has been critiqued up hill and down dale, not just by those of us on this side of the House. And that is what should have given the Prime Minister a hint as to what a poor policy it was. Those of us on this side of the House oppose it because it is unfair, but many on the other side of the House oppose it because it is fiscally irresponsible. Senator Alan Eggleston said, 'I think it should be supported, but there seems to be widespread concern that the cost is pretty high at the current time.' In August 2010 the Australian Financial Review quoted an unnamed National Party member who described the scheme as a 'heap of …'—I will not finish that sentence there. Peter Costello disapproves of the scheme, Peter Reith has said that it is 'obviously bad policy' and Nick Minchin has said, 'I've been on the record many, many times as saying that I am not a supporter of the paid parental leave scheme'.
This is a government whose budget increased the deficit this year, increased the deficit next year, increased the deficit over the forward estimates. So, for all the talk about this being a budget that does the heavy lifting, it is anything but. This is a budget that increases the deficit but then sets it out redistributing in a most un-Australian way. And after a generation when battlers have done worse than billionaires, this is a budget that redistributes from battlers to give to billionaires. This is bad policy, and it should be dropped.
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (19:06): I am pleased to sum up on this debate on the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. Those listening must be a little bewildered about what the debate is on. It actually relates to an administrative or pay clerk burden that the current scheme imposes on employers, but it seems to have been a good opportunity for members to take some broader arguments out for a run. I thank them all for their contribution—and I particularly thank those who were relevant to the bill. There was a spiritual connection, at best, to some of the remarks, but I will try to confine myself to the bill as the responsible minister summing up and look forward to the broader debate on having a paid parental leave scheme that supports smaller and medium-size enterprises in the same way that large corporates and the public sector have enjoyed for many years, and that will be a debate I will relish.
But my purpose for rising tonight is to sum up this Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. To remind the House and those who are listening of what the bill is actually about, it is about amending the paid parental leave legislation to remove the current requirement for employers to be the pay clerk for the government-funded Paid Parental Leave Scheme to their eligible long-term employees. I will go through some of the detail of that, because its thoughtfulness seems to have been lost, going by some of the contributions. This bill actually aims, from 1 July 2014, to see that employees are paid directly by the Department of Human Services, the very arrangement that operated for the first period of the former government's scheme, a period in which the former Labor government claimed enormous extraordinary success. We are seeking to re-establish those arrangements unless an employer opts in to provide paid parental leave to its eligible employees and an employee agrees for their employer to pay them. This is about an opt-in machinery. Those employers that have already incurred considerable expense to change their payroll and their accounting systems, who are of a mind to carry out that pay clerk function on behalf of the Commonwealth and whose employee wishes that to be the case will be able to continue to do so.
So for those examples raised by members opposite where people seem to be busting for this opportunity, that is not denied them. I have not found anybody that actually feels that way, although I will keep looking. I certainly have not heard of any employer organisation that is adamant that this imposition and burden should continue. But for those who are so inclined this bill enables that to continue. So there is no disadvantage to anybody, particularly mindful that a number of employers have already incurred considerable expense at changing their systems in response to the former government's mandated requirement.
This bill will implement the government's election commitment to reduce the red tape burden and compliance costs on business and on the not-for-profit sector by ensuring that they are not required to be the paymaster for the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme as a matter of course. It will benefit employers of all sizes, big and small, and importantly the not-for-profit sector as well. But small business, I am pleased to say, will be particularly pleased to know that it now has an opportunity to not incur the costs and compliance burdens by this imposition mandated by the previous Labor government. That will be a reduced compliance burden on the administration of the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. All of us know that when we have an employee taking paid parental leave it is a time of considerable adjustment. I think the Productivity Commission report characterises it as a period of dislocation. It is a time where much adjustment is already needed, and this is an unnecessary and unjustified imposition of yet another further burden on the workplace.
By cutting compliance costs, businesses large and small will have more time and resources to focus on what they do best and what we are encouraging them to do—that is, to develop their business. That is what they are there to do because that is their spirit and their purpose. We want to support that enterprise and support the creation of wealth and opportunity in employment. This is an obstacle that we can we move out of the road of employers big and small, and the not-for-profit sector.
I also table minor corrections to the explanatory memorandum. I would like to spend a few minutes touching on the particular points that have been raised. First of all there are the red tape reduction savings of $48 million—that is, on average, $1,783 per employer. That is could be well deployed into other activity—into other investments, into other opportunities for work or even into thoughtful gifts and best wishes to the lucky family. That is a serious saving. That is real. I heard some of those opposite challenging where that number came from. Ironically, it was in the former government's own report. The former government undertook a paid parental leave evaluation. Phase 2 was done by the Institute for Social Science Research for the University of Queensland. For all of the hand-wringing and bewilderment by the Labor Party about where this number has come from, it is their own number. That shows on average a $1,783 direct cost to employers. I would encourage those opposite to take account of them.
The critique went further. Wading through the contributions, I see there was the odd remark that actually related to the bill. I will seek to discuss some of those. It is worth remembering where we have come from. This measure is something that the coalition has put forward twice. It was voted down by the former government. On 20 February 2011 and 24 May 2012 we were seeking to reduce the red tape and compliance cost burden of the government's Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and we were voted down by the Labor Party. Now it is in opposition that blanket opposition has changed. Now the Labor Party seeks not to oppose this measure in a blanket sense but to reshape it so that the benefits are reduced to one-fifth. One-fifth of the benefits is all the Labor opposition is prepared to accommodate, which is quite ironic. Having been in blanket opposition and complete denial of the cost impact of their scheme on employers, Labor seem to have changed their mind. I believe the coalition has won the argument. We have made it clearly and consistently, and we have provided evidence to support it.
We are also pleased to recognise the support of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the chamber movement more generally in their Too Big to Ignore campaign. After six years under the former Labor government, where small business and family enterprises were incredibly neglected and ignored, they sought to elevate concerns. What was one of the key issues? This very measure that we are now implementing consistent with what we have advocated previously. And what did Labor do? It was on 5 March 2014. It again opposed the implementation of this coalition election commitment. This time it was not a blanket opposition but a bit of a change. What they were advocating was that that red tape reduction should be devalued to one-fifth of the benefit that we have identified.
It was a confused and complicated—in fact, a cobbled-together—position that Labor advocated. There is no clarity on who would be in or out. There are no costings. It will simply add to the burden that is carried, as the Commonwealth and the employer wonder who is going to decide whether they are in or out under the uncertain and confusing alternative that Labor advocated when they joined with the Greens to vote against this measure in the Senate. I am pleased that in this chamber Labor will not be voting against this measure. That is a wise move, but I wonder how they will again explain their conduct as they partner with the alliance team of the Greens to oppose this sensible measure.
Labor then said that in some of the research employers were not that unhappy about what was going on. That is an interesting argument. When you impose the risk of a fine of many thousands of dollars on a mandated requirement, small business and in fact all employers just get on with it. It does not mean they like it. When asked whether they liked it, I think about 85 per cent thought it served no good purpose. But these fines are significant, because, in the Labor cobbled-together alternative, there remains the risk of a $10,200 fine for individual breaches of confusing rules that Labor has yet to define or a $50,000 fine for corporates if someone cannot understand or find their way through the confusing and cobbled-together position that Labor has brought forward. So why deny the benefits? That is a clear question that Labor has failed to answer.
Labor go on to say that their position is evidence based, which is not right either. In the Productivity Commission report in chapter 8, there are contested views on the benefits of the pay clerk burden being imposed. The report asserts that there is some value, some upside, in the signal of 'the payment as a work related entitlement', but there is no evidence to back that up. It says that it would 'encourage greater employee loyalty'. That is again something that is not evidenced. And then it says it would 'improve workforce and workplace attachment'—again as a 'framing device', which is the way it is characterised in the Productivity Commission report. It is an on-balance conclusion that is hotly contested. Now we have the evidence to show what the actual costs are, and there is no evidence to support the Labor position—no evidence whatsoever. Therefore it is bewildering to hear Labor saying they are strictly adhering to the PC report, which did not give the clarity of recommendation that Labor are asserting, only then to try to amend in the Senate the very measure we are trying to put forward and then move, in Labor's terms, further away from the Productivity Commission report. They cannot have it both ways.
The staying-in-touch provisions that are part of the scheme at the moment are unaffected by this bill, so that workplace attachment argument seems to have very little merit. In terms of engaging meaningfully between the employer and the employee, no-one has ever explained to me how an electronic funds transfer amounts to a substitute for a relationship. That is essentially the argument: an EFT payment processed at the expense of the employer would somehow build the relationship and the rapport with the employee. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
On the issue of the dissenting groups in the Productivity Commission report being criticised for not being able to quantify the costs associated with the paymaster function, again, things have moved on and we actually have those factual datasets, organised and provided for under the previous government. So, again, Labor has nothing to support its position other than simple obstruction of the government's trying to get on with its election commitments. The evidence backs that measure. The facts are on the table. The arguments—in amongst the practice runs for a debate for another time—have not illuminated any of the claims that there is some deficiency in the measure that the government is putting forward. Now we have evidence to show that the on-balance conclusions from the Productivity Commission report were not wisely arrived at, and Labor itself has moved away from what the Productivity Commission report recommended by its amendments in the Senate, which I understand it will continue to pursue.
In terms of consultation, again, ACCI, the New South Wales Business Chamber, Business SA, VECCI, the ARA—any list of organisations—are saying that the government should get the clear air to implement its election commitments. It is clear that that chorus is consistent. It was clear at the time of the introduction of the scheme. It was clear at the time when the coalition twice sought to amend Labor's scheme, and it is clear now. Labor should simply get out of the road.
Finally, there was some spurious suggestion that this bill amounts to a transfer of responsibility from business to government. Let me remind this House that, in its own report—this is the Productivity Commission report—Labor is happy to overlook the fact that, on page 8.33, the Productivity Commission makes the point that both a direct payment from the Commonwealth and a payment double-handled and via the employer will not have any significant bearing on the costs that the Commonwealth needs to confront. Why? I quote the report:
… both involve a similar process for payments just with different destinations.
That evidence was backed up by FaHCSIA's presentation to a Senate inquiry at the time, which said it did not matter where it was going; the process of generating those payments was the same. What we have done conservatively in the explanatory memorandum is recognise that there will be a need for some communication and some systems changes, but in terms of the transaction cost there is an immaterial difference. So for Labor to say we are transferring the responsibility from business to government ignores the fact that the government are processing these payments anyway; they are just not sending them to the eligible employees. They are sending them to the employers, who then have to double-handle those payments, incur the costs of systems changes and try to ensure that they get it right because there is a serious threat of substantial fines if they get it wrong.
This is a clear-cut case of an opportunity to reduce needless red-tape and compliance burdens. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said on 19 March 2014:
We—
this is Labor—
are committed, in a bipartisan spirit, to the organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation.
Well, here is an opportunity to do that. I urge Labor and the Greens not to stand in the road of this again. There is no basis for doing so. Our evidence is compelling. Our advocacy is consistent. The consultation is absolutely of one voice, and that is: let the government get on with its task. I commend this bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr BILLSON (Dunkley—Minister for Small Business) (19:22): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tax Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill.
Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GRAY (Brand) (19:23): My purpose in rising this evening is to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. It is a bill that is about red-tape repeal. It is not a bill that is about energy efficiency. I think we should understand that and accept that at the very start.
In 2004 the then Howard government, with bipartisan support, considered its white paper on energy, Securing Australia's energy future. That white paper explored a whole range of matters of great interest to do with the national need for energy and energy policy. The energy white paper, in June 2004, identified the improvement of Australia's energy efficiency performance as a key part of the then Howard government's energy policy in order to achieve greater prosperity, sustainability and energy security.
Energy efficiency is about productivity. It is about lower inputs and bigger outputs. It is about lower costs. It is about doing things better. It is about doing things smarter. It is about doing things more cost-effectively. The purpose of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill 2005, which grew from that 2004 white paper, was to establish the mandatory energy efficiency opportunity assessments that were announced in that white paper. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program required corporations who use more than half a petajoule of energy to identify and assess energy efficiency options and opportunities and subsequently to report the outcomes of those energy assessments both publicly and to the government.
The EEO Program was put in place because, unlike other modern economies, Australia did not have an overarching energy efficiency program. It did not have a view of industry and energy use that could help shape the more efficient use of energy in our economy. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program was part of a framework. It took its place alongside a range of measures that pursued the benefits of using energy more efficiently. It stood alongside energy market reform, important measures that were put in place to help make our national energy market more efficient. It stood alongside the Solar Cities program, important ideas to introduce large-scale solar energy into the power supply of cities. It stood alongside improved appliance and building standards, at a time when many appliances were transitioning from older technology to new technology. In that context, television sets and TV screens become important. The TV screens of the 2004-05 era would become very hot very quickly and were very big consumers of energy. As that technology improved, those screens got better and better and began using lower and lower amounts of energy. That reduced energy consumption in the home became something that consumers took a great interest in. This program was an industrial counterpart to the domestic measures that had been in place to assist families with their own family budgets to manage more sensibly the electrical goods that they purchased.
The broad range of energy efficiency measures announced in the 2004 energy white paper had the potential to increase economic welfare and to lower the rate of growth in greenhouse emissions—so higher economic growth, lower greenhouse emissions, lower greenhouse gas intensity in our economy. These were all good measures, thoughtfully implemented by former Prime Minister Howard and his governing team, which included the current Minister for Industry, the member for Groom. These measures enjoyed bipartisan support. We often hear how measures introduced in this place become the subject of partisan debate and argument, but in 2004 when then Prime Minister Howard introduced his insightful Securing Australia's energy future white paper it received immediate bipartisan support.
I will go to some of the matters that were raised in that energy white paper, because Securing Australia's energy future became in every way the cornerstone of what happened next in sensible energy policy, designed to lower our economy's greenhouse gas intensity while lowering household bills, lowering the costs of doing business and making doing business a more sensible affair when it came to using electrons. I will quote from the Prime Minister's foreword to that very significant document, the first energy white paper our nation had produced:
The framework is backed up by substantial new initiatives, including additional incentives to encourage petroleum exploration in frontier areas; a comprehensive reform of fuel taxation to reduce the cost of fuel in business use; innovative trials of solar technology teamed with leading edge efficiency technologies to demonstrate "solar cities" of the future; a fund to generate at least $1.5 billion in investment to demonstrate low-emission technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our energy sector; extra effort to back up our world first Renewable Energy Target with new commercialisation assistance for emerging renewable technologies; and a wide ranging effort to ensure the careful, prudent use of our valuable energy resources by industry and the community.
That is the important point: 'a wide-ranging effort to ensure the careful, prudent use of our valuable energy resources by industry and the community'. That is direct language that speaks to the point of energy conservation. Energy conservation is about energy efficiency. The report goes on to say:
Improving Australia’s uptake of commercial energy efficiency opportunities has the potential to increase economic welfare and lower the rate of growth in greenhouse emissions. Increased energy efficiency reduces overall demand for energy and would also delay the need for new energy generation equipment.
This is an insightful report done 10 years ago at a time when our economy was growing rapidly, at a time when the greenhouse intensity of our economy was also growing lockstepped with that economic growth. This was an attempt by the Howard government to step back, to look at what was happening and to ask: 'What would be a light touch? What would be an appropriate set of measures that would help save business money, help reduce the cost of services to our community and, most importantly, therefore improve the economic lot of all concerned?'
That terrific report done 10 years ago asks the question: what is energy efficiency? It answers it very simply:
Energy efficiency refers to gaining the same or a higher level of useful output, using less energy input. Energy efficiency is important in both stationary and transport energy.
When we consider the repeal of this act, one might reasonably say, 'Let's repeal this act because it's failed so miserably in that cause. Let's get rid of it because, despite all of the work that went into the generation of the first energy white paper our country had ever seen, its conclusions were bunkum and inadequate. The policy framework had failed.' But guess what? The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Framework has proved to be remarkably successful. The former Department of Energy, Resources and Tourism engaged ACIL Tasman to review the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program at the end of its first cycle of operation.
The 2013 full-cycle evaluation of the program found: 'It has been successful in its objectives of raising awareness of and embodying energy efficiency practices in Australian industry.' It came to that conclusion that it had done that for a full seven years. It also concluded: 'The program had been effective in driving down emissions and had saved industry approximately $323.2 million per year in power expenses.' This was a seven-year review. This is an energy efficiency program that had saved approximately $323.2 million per year in power expenses. But the government says: 'Let's get rid of that because that is red tape. Something that has saved industry over $300 million is something that we will get rid of because it is red tape.' I fully accept that the government has an objective to remove red tape, but sometimes we do have to step back and consider the effectiveness of programs.
When former Prime Minister Howard sat down with his ministers—and former Minister Macfarlane was one of them—to conclude what would be a light touch, an insightful way of putting in place energy conservation measures, this is what they came up with and, remarkably, what they saved was over $323 million per year in energy expenses. Corporations found government regulation to have been beneficial in providing a structure and a framework for companies to embed energy management systems.
In many ways, when this legislation was introduced Australian companies were not thinking of energy efficiency as part of a pragmatic side of asset management or, for that matter, a pragmatic response to business costs. So the program alerted businesses to this very important input whose costs could be controlled. ACIL Tasman also argued that the program had delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs. One would have thought that a not unreasonable measure of the effectiveness of business regulation is whether or not the benefit outweighs the cost. ACIL Tasman did not simply conclude that the benefit of this program outweighed its costs; they concluded that the benefits of this program over the full-cycle analysis had generated savings to industry in power expenses of over $300 million.
They also argued that there is still more benefit to be gained by continuing with the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program through a second cycle. The program has significantly lifted the energy management capability and awareness of Australian businesses, with many corporations now reporting that key elements of the program are now standard business practice. We have a government, through a light touch and an insightful view, actively changing the culture of energy consumption and, one might as well say it, wastage and building better business practices. This is not simply an efficient program and an effective program, but you would have to reasonably conclude it is an incredibly insightful program. The independent full-cycle analysis report showed that corporations found that government regulation had been both beneficial in providing a structure and a framework for companies and it had also embedded energy management systems through which information and data could be used for further energy efficiency.
What kind of energy efficiencies? Those energy efficiencies were to be found in transport systems, building design, air-conditioning systems and the adoption and adaptation of new technologies. This is a successful program. It is a program that has been closed because of an ideological desire to get rid of red tape, even if that red tape delivers benefits that are lower than the costs of the administrative burden. That is a simply astonishing decision.
I hasten to add that the opposition will not oppose the government in this measure. We made very clear that the government is able to make these decisions even though we are simply dumbfounded by the logic that appears to underpin it. The government argues that the program has run its full course and it is no longer needed. Indeed, the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated reads as follows:
Through its application businesses have built up a bank of energy efficiency projects which can be considered based on current energy prices and specific circumstances. With energy prices driving companies to use energy more efficiently and the increased capacity to respond embedded in industry, the government considers this program, underpinned by the EEO legislative framework, to be no longer required.
Fantastic. So a low-cost administrative program that had generated deficiencies in excess of $320 million a year is replaced by a simple principle that says, 'Let's just put the price up. Let's let the price drive efficiency here instead of common sense, discussion, best business practice and allowing that best business practice to be shared amongst peer companies.
The explanatory memorandum goes on to say:
The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program has been successful.
That is what the EM to this bill says. It says:
It has lifted energy management capability and awareness significantly with many corporations reporting that key elements of the program are now standard business practice. With energy productivity now core business for many Australian industries, industry is best placed to define the right processes and make decisions on how best to manage energy within their businesses. The energy market has also changed …
This is a government that will get rid of your red tape even if it saves you $320 million and will bang up the price because that is a much better way of forcing more efficient practices. It argues in this explanatory memorandum that electricity in particular has been the driver for better energy management and the need for the regulatory response, the low-cost fit-for-purpose regulatory response designed by former Prime Minister Howard and his energy minister Ian Macfarlane, unequivocally resolved by the independent consideration that has taken place unequivocally concluding that this program has been not just in the benefit of Australian industry but in the benefit of Australian consumers.
The full cycle report conservatively estimates that during its first cycle analysis the energy efficiency opportunities program was responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the energy efficiency improvements in the Australian industrial sector—four out of 10 of the energy efficiency measures came from the culture and practice that had been established by a program that cost less than $20 million and a program that saved year in, year out over $320 million. We will get rid of that and just bang up the price of energy and electricity because that is a much better way of saving energy.
The evidence suggests that there is even more benefit that could be gained by continuing with the energy efficiency program through to its second cycle. It is been estimated that it could be responsible for a further 20 per cent of energy efficiency improvements that would be due in that second cycle. So this low cost, insightfully designed, consistent framework from the very first energy white paper that our country had ever produced, countersigned by former Prime Minister Howard, brought into this place by the current energy minister Macfarlane, would have produced after the second seven-year cycle a total efficiency gain of some 60 per cent. You could reasonably conclude from that that the over $320 million per year that have been saved through this program would have continued each year through that further seven-year cycle. The government argues that they are closing down the program to remove unnecessary regulatory burden, remove that unnecessary regulatory burden and replace it by inefficiency. Yes, obtaining and processing information is costly. Yes, it would be an efficient for a policy to provide further information if the cost of doing so outweighs the benefit that could be expected. This place is not into the generation of red tape for the sake of red tape. The independent review found that this program's benefits were not outweighed by the cost of administration. In its first recommendation the independent review said:
We find that the EEO program to date has delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs. Significant improvements have been seen in the performance of participating corporations against the elements of the assessment framework. Many barriers to improved energy efficiency have been reduced and the identification of opportunities increasingly integrated into normal business operations.
Anywhere else this would be seen as simply an outstanding success, not only an outstanding success but a low-cost success delivering benefits to industry, to consumers and to all concerned.
The complementary nature of the EEO program flows from it being targeted and addressing information type market failures. Such failures while reduced do still remain an important barrier, and for this reason EEO program should completed second cycle.
That was independent review's recommendation.
The program enjoyed bipartisan support. The repeal of the program will be unhindered by the opposition, but let us not pretend that that means we support the repeal of this program. It will be unhindered by the opposition. There are still more benefits that could be derived from this program. The opposition has reluctantly concluded that ultimately the government does not want to support this initiative, so in that context we will allow the bill to pass. You cannot force a government to do something it does not want to do, even if it is a program that has a pedigree second to none. This is a program that looked at an economy that was consuming energy at a voracious rate. It looked at the energy future of our economy and it concluded there are several ways in which a government can respond to the situation. One way is to keep producing energy. Another way is a low-cost, fit-for-purpose regulatory approach that brought about best business practice—and in the design of that, former Prime Minister Howard and Minister Macfarlane are simply to be congratulated.
I will say this about the bill also. I was approached today in the corridor and asked for the opposition's view of the bill, whether we would allow it to pass or whether we would oppose it. One of the practices that has grown around the current government is that they do not talk to us. No communication had taken place of an official nature to ask our view of the bill. The communication that had taken place was incidental. Our view of the bill is that if the government want to do it, we will not oppose it. But we could have engaged in a discussion with the government because I feel the government cannot be aware of the savings that amount to over $320 million a year from this light touch, fit-for-purpose regulatory approach. I feel the government could not have considered the review that ACIL Tasman had conducted at taxpayer expense, where ACIL Tasman concluded that this was an 'efficient piece of regulation whose costs did not outweigh the benefits of the regulation'. It is a real pity that such a consideration did not take place. If the government wishes to change its view then we are all ears to that view. But we do accept the need for business to be liberated and we do accept the need for the reduction of red tape. The former government exercised that intent on many occasions, reducing red tape where it could.
It is also worth quoting again from the explanatory memorandum:
Rising energy prices and the improvement of internal energy management processes have reduced the need for the EEO legislation. Repealing the legislation would reduce the compliance costs of the 464 participating businesses by over $17 million per year.
I have no doubt at all that the 464 complying companies, who would also have taken their share of the $323 million savings that were inherent in this program, would probably have thought in better consideration some pieces of regulation bring with them benefits that massively outweigh the costs.
Looking forward in the energy environment is a difficult and in many ways a flawed thing. Let me explain what I mean by that. I am a Western Australian and our capital city of Perth has enjoyed electricity reticulation of some form or other in locations for a little over 130 years. Generation started from premises in what is now the CBD of Perth and within 50 years it is said that over 140 electricity supply undertakings were offering AC or DC transmissions. Electricity was, in those days, a nascent but diverse industry in a small and growing settlement.
Electricity generation, electricity use, electricity reticulation, electricity efficiency and energy efficiency is a growing business. It is a growing part of our economy. The government had insight in 2004 and 2005 to look to energy efficiency not simply as a one-off, a stunt, a gimmick or simply a bit of padding for a white paper but to have it form the core of the first energy white paper our country had ever produced. In 104 years of the Commonwealth government, in 104 years of the Federation, never before had an Australian government attempted to take an overarching view of the economy and of its energy needs, and to conclude a view about its energy future. As I have just related, that small, historic picture of the colony of Swan River and of Perth 140 years ago and what we knew to be the energy economy of 2004 is quite different to the energy economy of today.
In 2004, the iPad had not yet been released. In 2004, we all used a PC. It was plugged into a 240-volt outlet in the wall. We now mostly use iPads or some form of palm device. I see the member for Kooyong across the table using his now. It is an efficient way of communicating. I know that he will be communicating to his department now: 'I think we've got this wrong. I think the savings to our community through this particular energy efficiency measure are so profound and, as ACIL Tasman have independently found, the costs of the regulation were massively outweighed by the savings.' That device that would be recharged from a five-volt or a 10-volt recharging device is the very incarnation of the energy efficiency that we see today across our economy.
We are an economy that is growing, an economy that is robust and an economy that is currently reducing its energy consumption. That reduction in energy consumption is from a combination of matters. It is what makes it for the first time really difficult for governments to consider what our energy future will look like and one of the reasons that the government have begun constructing a new white paper. When the government arrive in this place with its new white paper, it will seek bipartisan support for the content of that new white paper. The opposition will ask: 'For how long? Will you support the measures in the new white paper for as long as it is fashionable or will it just be a fad?' Some of the things that we do need to be done in an enduring way.
Thought and consideration, and taxpayer dollars, went into the construction of the white paper, and into the framework that was negotiated with every state and territory government in the Commonwealth. Its processes, which, in its early days, were presented to 250 Australian companies, became the processes that saved money and cut costs for 464 companies, at a cost of $17 million. I am not saying that that cost is insignificant.
The opposition will allow this measure to pass. I am not saying that the government should not cut red tape. The opposition will allow this measure to pass. But the opposition would also say to the government: 'Please—think about these measures. Think carefully about the cost that it saves, the cost that you impose, and the culture of energy efficiency and energy saving that was created from the insightful steps first taken by Prime Minister Howard, because it is that culture of innovation and energy conservation that is the real saving. It is that culture that is the real benefit for our economy. And it is that culture that is destroyed by the removal of this program.'
Mr WILLIAMS (Hindmarsh) (19:53): I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. I would like to acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Brand, as it was great to see some bipartisan acknowledgement in the House—something we do not often see—whether he acknowledged the former Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, or the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, and the work that he has done. As we have said in the House, we have acknowledged former Labor Prime Ministers Hawke and Keating, and it would be great to see a new Labor Party going forward with such bold reforms and making a coherent argument for a better future.
But I will return to the bill at hand, which repeals the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006, which was introduced by the Howard government when Australia's use of energy was very different from today. We had rising energy prices then, in conjunction with regulated energy programs, and this has driven the improvement of energy management and productivity gains in industry over the last eight years. Although we do not like rising energy prices, this has been probably one of the most positive outcomes, in the sense that it is a market mechanism for businesses to improve their operations and efficiency and use of energy.
The consultation processes that have occurred indicate broad industry stakeholder support for repealing the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program, to reduce the regulatory burden on industry, acknowledging that market forces and other regulatory measures are driving similar energy efficiency outcomes. It is great to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Josh Frydenberg, here, because he has been championing deregulation and a more efficient market and economy with fewer compliance costs. This is one example of our program overall to reduce the compliance burden on companies.
In response to these changing factors, and in line with removing regulation where the desired outcomes can be, and have been, achieved through alternative measures such as market forces, the government decided to repeal the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities program requires, as we might know, large energy using businesses to assess their energy use and identify cost-effective energy-saving opportunities. This is something that every company in Australia is now actively doing. This is what we wanted to happen, and it has occurred.
Energy prices have spiralled in the last few years, as I mentioned before. In South Australia, my home state—and it is great to see the member for Makin here today; he will know this just as well as me—electricity bills have risen 160 per cent under the state Labor government, and there are companies in my electorate who are concerned about tens of thousands in rises in electricity costs. Furthermore, and more worryingly, the average consumer faces another five per cent increase in power bills from 1 July. This price hike includes the $29.40 for Labor's solar feed-in tariffs in South Australia. A report by the Australian Energy Regulator recently confirmed that South Australian consumers face the highest electricity prices in the country. And I know why the member for Makin is concerned, because he does not want the consumers in his electorate—the small businesses that are working hard; the families that are doing it tough—to experience such high electricity costs. Well, he is right on that account.
What else have we got? We have got Labor's carbon tax that we all know too well. The cost of that to the economy was over $6 billion in its first year of operation. The carbon tax currently costs $24.15 per tonne and rises to $38 per tonne in 2019. And what has it done to emissions? Well, we know that domestic emissions under the carbon tax are projected to rise through to 2020. It has not succeeded in its objectives. And that is why we have to look at other methods, and that is why we are exploring other initiatives, whether the Emissions Reduction Fund or the Green Army.
But I want to return now to the actual bill at hand and to talk about energy management, because, as the previous speaker in this debate alluded to, companies have become quite successful in their energy management. That has become a standard business practice, whether through the use of the technology of sensor lighting or energy-saving globes, or energy efficiency. The companies have moved on, and, fortunately, this scheme has helped them. But when a scheme has succeeded, it is time to review it. And if it has done its job then why continue it? I could use the analogy of teaching a child to read or write: when they can read or write successfully, then we move on; we do not need to invest any further in those particular skills; there are other skills in other areas we need to develop.
The return on investment at some stage in the process and the scheme does diminish. Although the member for Brand laboured the fact of the successes of the program, he failed to acknowledge that things need to move on and be reviewed in an appropriate way. This is where Liberals manage taxpayers' money far better. We look at how taxpayers' money can best be spent. Compare that to our friends on the other side of the House. They like to continue throwing money around on more programs, with less diligence in the way they review them. It is almost like the denial that appears in Kafka's novels: everything goes on as if nothing has changed. We see that in the budget process that is going on currently.
But, to go back to energy management: importantly, we can now remove the regulatory burden, with annual savings of $17.7 million. This is not insignificant, in addition to all the other regulatory burdens that we are seeking to remove. The Emissions Reduction Fund that I mentioned before will help businesses and industry to take direct action to reduce emissions and improve their energy efficiency even further. The resources developed over the life of the program will continue to be made available to companies to assist them to build their energy management capacity.
The Energy Efficiency Exchange website will continue to support energy efficiency implementation by providing best practice information and other resources, so resources and knowledge are still there and still accessible for companies to utilise.
The government will continue to cooperatively explore options for improving energy productivity through the current energy white paper process. We have an ongoing series of looking at ways of doing things better, and this is one of them.
This program has done its job. It is now just an unnecessary regulatory burden on businesses for something that businesses already have market incentive to do and have as part of their core business. Repealing the bill will save $17 million, as I mentioned before, in compliance costs each year. This is important for our ongoing focus on reducing the regulatory burden and giving businesses more time to do what they do best.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (20:00): Earlier this evening the member for Brand very clearly and thoroughly outlined the opposition's position with respect to this legislation. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill will terminate the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program on 29 June 2014 by repealing the Energy Efficiencies Opportunities Act of 2006.
I point out that this was an act of 2006 brought in by the previous coalition government under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard. It was not a Labor initiative; in fact, whilst Labor, I understand, supported it at the time, it was indeed a coalition initiative. It seems quite strange that it is now a coalition government that is saying that it should be repealed—in other words, saying 'We don't need that legislation. We don't need that initiative and we are going to do away with it.'
I wonder if any of them have bothered to speak with the government members that were around in 2006—and I understand that Minister Macfarlane, who has been referred to in this legislation, was one of the people who supported it at the time. I would be interested to know what his view is on repealing this legislation.
Having said that, I will get back to the legislation before us. The program requires large energy-using businesses to assess their energy use and identify cost-effective energy savings opportunities. The program is mandatory for organisations that use over 0.5 petajoules of energy annually and may be undertaken voluntarily by medium energy users. For those organisations falling within the program, the act imposes mandatory compliance and reporting obligations. This legislation goes to the heart of energy use in this country which in turn, I believe, goes to the heart of climate change and what we as a nation can and should be doing with respect to climate change.
Labor clearly believes that the earth is warming and that the climate is changing. We accept the overwhelming body of scientific opinion that tells that man-made greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the most abundant, is contributing to global warming. We believe the scientific advice that atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are reaching dangerous levels that could have catastrophic effects on life on earth.
We accept that all nations, including and particularly Australia—being one of, if not the highest polluting countries per capita, in the world—have a responsibility to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We do not accept that global warming is a con or a worldwide conspiracy of governments and tens of thousands of scientists from around the world. Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb, on 15 May delivered an excellent address on the topic of climate change in which he defends the science of climate change and soundly dismisses the absurd views of those who deny the science.
Indeed it is both concerning and irresponsible that any government would ignore the advice of its own chief scientist and the multitude of credible government and university scientific bodies, whose advice we rely upon without challenge on all other matters. Yet on the question of climate change the advice is dismissed.
The climate change deniers are clearly in control of the Abbott government. They are not climate change sceptics but climate change deniers, because even a sceptic would take a precautionary approach to a possible risk, particularly a risk that has been identified by so many people not only in this country but from around the world. I know of no other country that openly denies or dismisses the risk that is being brought upon us by global warming and changes in weather patterns.
Indeed the Abbott government has gone to extraordinary lengths to erase any reference to climate change from its policies, its literature and government messaging. We no longer have a minister for climate change, and the government does not want to talk about climate change at the G20 conference in Australia later this year.
I say to members opposite and particularly the responsible ministers: the climate change debate will not go away just because you don't want to talk about it; and you can't make the concerns of the community go away or silence the scientists by airbrushing any reference to climate change from the government's communications.
Most members opposite are likely to be around to witness many of the climate changes that they now turn away from. Indeed some of those changes are already before us. What is the excuse going to themselves and to the people around them as to why they failed to take any action when they were in government?
Of even greater concern, however, is that the Abbott government, with the support of government members, including the member for Wentworth—and I point him out because I thought he was not a climate change denier—through legislation such as this bill is dismantling every greenhouse gas reduction initiative that is already in place. And the Abbott government does this at a time when the evidence is mounting and is more conclusive that greenhouse gas emissions need to be contained and also at a time that the rest of the world, including the two major emitters, the USA and China, are taking serious measures in the opposite direction.
I understand President Obama has only this week announced that he will bring in regulations to control carbon emissions, signalling that the effect of these regulations will see the closure of several coal fired power stations. Although the US was not a signatory to the Kyoto protocol, it has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by around 17 per cent. That is much more than Australia. In fact, per capita, CO2 emissions in the US, I understand, are now at their lowest level in 50 years.
Likewise, China is also committing to worthwhile carbon reduction strategies. Seven Chinese cities and provinces accounting for about 250 million people are rolling out emissions trading schemes. China has also set itself both a renewable energy target and a carbon emissions target. I understand that each of its 30 provinces have been given individual targets to meet as well. China is also that world's leading investor in renewable energy, and I note that Japan is also now heavily investing in renewable energy.
Yet what is Australia doing? Rather than turning necessity into opportunity, we are doing the reverse. The Abbott government wants to axe the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has helped facilitate clean energy projects of around $2.5 billion in value, reducing atmospheric CO2 levels and delivering a net positive return to the taxpayer. Similar to this legislation, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation actually returns a profit to the community yet the government wants to repeal or axe this legislation—there is simply no logic in what this government does.
The government has also cut funding to Australia's science and research organisations, many of which do invaluable research related to climate change. We know that the government does not believe in putting a price on carbon but it now even wants to walk away from the Renewable Energy Target. The Renewable Energy Target has underpinned investments in renewable energy, creating some 24,000 jobs in the process and reducing energy prices. Yet members opposite and the fossil fuel energy companies are running a scare campaign claiming that renewable energy is driving up electricity prices. A close analysis of that claim will show that it is false and that renewable energy, both in the short-term and in the long-term, will help reduce power costs. The shadow minister for the environment, the member for Port Adelaide, clearly demonstrated and articulated that case in respect to the Renewable Energy Target only recently when he gave a speech on the question of how the Renewable Energy Target has affected power prices.
Scrapping the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which I spoke about in this place only today, is also, I believe, a foolish move on the part of this government. The agency not only helps to create innovation in the renewable energy space but is creating employment and business opportunities at the same time. It also offers an alternative for those people employed in manufacturing to go into the renewable energy industry. As I pointed out when I spoke about this matter earlier today, in Germany currently there are more people employed in the renewable energy industry than there are in automotive manufacturing.
The carbon capture and storage flagship has also been heavily reduced by this government. I understand there is going to be an amalgamation of the National Environmental Research Program and the Australian Climate Change Science Program to form a new National Environment Science Program—note the deletion of the words 'climate change'. The National Low Emissions Coal Initiative is also going to be cut over the next two years. I note that there have been attempts to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as well as axe the Climate Commission. We have also seen that the government has appointed a climate change sceptic in Dick Warburton to review the Renewable Energy Target and there was also the attempt to scrap the Climate Change Authority.
This is a clear trend displayed by this government that simply wants to walk away from its responsibilities when it comes to climate change. How does this legislation affect the question of climate change? I would have thought that if you are going to have a system in place which is going to drive down energy prices as a result of the processes that major industries have to go through then in turn that would reduce their consumption of energy. In fact the member for Brand quite rightly pointed out several times in his address that it has saved industry some $323 million per year over the last few years in power costs. Compare that with the so-called $17 million it is going to save industry by deleting this process altogether. It seems as though that $17 million pales into insignificance in the savings to industry that arise.
The member for Brand also referred to the ACIL Tasman report that was done into this particular scheme. Page 2 of the report says:
While quantifying this additional impact is challenging, the weight of evidence suggests that the EEO Program has delivered a substantial additional benefit through improving the energy efficiency of the Australian industrial sector. Australian industry is also substantially more energy efficient now than it would have been had the EEO Program not been implemented. A conservative estimate is that, during the first cycle, the EEO Program was responsible for approximately 40 per cent of the energy efficiency improvements in the Australian industrial sector.
With those kinds of efficiencies it would be in the national interest, it would be in the environmental interest and it would also be in the interest of those industries to continue with their energy efficiency opportunities that this bill provides because if they reduce their power costs then clearly they also reduce their operating expenses. We know full well and we are reminded by members opposite time and time again that power costs are what are making Australian industries not competitive anymore. So if we are going to reduce their power costs then we will help them remain competitive. In fact, I have no doubt we will help them remain competitive; we will give them the opportunity to perhaps show some leadership and be able to compete with manufacturers across the world.
This legislation was introduced for that reason, for good reason, in 2006 by the Howard government. And, quite frankly, as the ACIL Tasman report says, it should continue into the future and certainly into a second phase. The report does not recommend that it is cut right now.
Energy efficiency does matter. It matters to industries; it matters to the country; it matters to business; it matters to productivity. And we have a system in place that is driving energy efficiency up in respect of the businesses of this country. I believe it is a foolish move on the part of this government to do away with—for simplistic, ideological reasons, such as: wanting to cut red tape or not believing in climate change—policy initiatives that are working for the benefit of the Australian community
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (20:15): It is a pleasure to follow and support the remarks of the member for Makin. The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Repeal Bill will terminate the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program on 29 June 2014 by repealing the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act 2006.
The EEO program is designed to address market failure relating to the availability and use of energy efficiency information. The program requires large energy using businesses to assess their energy use and identify cost-effective energy savings opportunities. The EEO program has been effective in driving down emissions, and has saved industry approximately $323 million per year in power expenses.
The independent ACIL Tasman review of the program found that it has delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs. The 2013 full cycle evaluation of the EEO program found that: it has been successful in its objectives of raising awareness of and embedding energy efficiency practices in Australian industry since 2006, when the Howard government introduced it; the program has been effective in driving down emissions, and has saved industry significant money in power expenses; corporations found that government regulation was beneficial in providing a structure and framework for companies to embed energy management systems; it has delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs; and there is still more benefit to be gained by continuing with the program through the second cycle.
Australia's backtracking of climate policy progress has been highlighted by the release of the GLOBE Climate Legislation Study in February 2013. The study of 66 countries across the globe, in which the European Union was considered one entity, found Australia is the only country to be taking negative legislative action in climate policy.
This bill is an ideological attack on policies expressly designed to combat climate change. It is a retrograde step at a time when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently released its working group III report and warned that efforts to reduce carbon emissions have not been able to stop greenhouse gases reaching unprecedented levels and that energy efficiency improvements have not kept up with economic growth. 'We have a window of opportunity for the next decade, and maximum the next two decades' to act at moderate costs, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of a Berlin meeting of the IPCC, said.
IPCC scenarios now show that world emissions of greenhouse gases would need to peak soon and tumble by between 40 and 70 per cent from 2010 levels by 2050, and then close to zero by 2100, to keep temperature rises below two degrees Celsius. The IPCC says it is at least 95 per cent probable that man-made emissions, rather than natural variations, are the main cause of global warming. Yet here we are in this country with a Prime Minster and a government who want to repeal the carbon price Labor implemented and hobble efforts to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Cuts to renewable energy and energy efficiency risk keeping Australian workers and businesses using 19th century technology to address a 21st century challenge. Indeed even in the 19th century, physicists like John Tyndall demonstrated and quantified the fact that visually transparent gases—like carbon dioxide, the Prime Minister's 'invisible substance'—both absorb and emit infrared radiation. Tyndall used these results to explain the greenhouse effect in a public lecture that he presented in 1863 entitled 'On radiation through the Earth's atmosphere'. Tyndall stated:
… it is here pointed out that a comparatively slight change in the variable constituents of our atmosphere, by permitting free access of solar heat to the earth, and checking the outflow of terrestrial heat towards space, would produce changes of climate as great as those which the discoveries of geology reveal.
Mid-19th century scientists like Tyndall understood that slight changes in the quantity of atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide could produce changes in climate as profound as those of the ice ages, discovered a few decades earlier by Louis Agassiz, the Swiss-American natural historian. Yet, today in this country, despite the additional scientific evidence and understanding accumulated over a century and a half, we have a government whose leader, the Prime Minister, has ridiculed climate change, and said that carbon dioxide is weightless, invisible and cannot be measured, and claims that an emissions trading scheme is, 'a so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no-one'.
In opposition, the Prime Minister promoted these irrational beliefs to the public. Disastrously, his government has introduced these same beliefs as policies and has directed government departments to reject the verifiable findings of scientists while accepting his delusions as fact. For example, the issues paper that informs the 2014 agriculture white paper omits any significant mention of climate change, despite the 2011 CSIRO report, Climate change: science and solutions for Australia that states, 'There is a national imperative to equip Australian agriculture to be prepared to adapt to climate change'. By comparison, the United States, a major competitor in the global market for agricultural products, accepts the reality of climate change. As the US agriculture secretary Tom Visack has said:
… the fact is, across America, farmers and ranchers and forest landowners are seeing the beginning chapter of what will be a long-term challenge posed by a changing climate.
And:
This problem is not going to go away on its own. That's why America must take steps now to adapt.
I doubt that there is even the slightest chance that we would hear such a statement from the Australian Minister for Agriculture.
Recently published evidence indicates the West Antarctic ice sheet is starting to collapse and will, with a high probability, in time produce a sea level rise of up to four metres. The evidence is being entirely ignored by this government. The government says its punitive budget measures will protect future generations from financial hardship. Can the government say what a sea level rise of four metres would cost present and future generations when billions of dollars of coastal assets, public and private, are likely to be inundated in the coming decades?
The collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is not some ivory tower speculation; it is a process that has very likely been initiated and is now almost certainly being accelerated by global warming driven by carbon dioxide emissions. Note that I say 'very likely' and 'almost certainly' to describe the probability of those events, since the prediction of the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is based upon verifiable evidence and that very serious conclusion is reached by inductive reasoning rather than the assertion of a belief or an unfounded opinion that is so typical of members of this government. The changes driving the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet are linked to the documented decline in winter rainfall in Western Australia, yet the Prime Minister who denies reality and preaches from a denier's handbook, is doing all that he can to dismantle measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
I note that the member for Forrest claimed in a speech made in this place on 26 February that the price on carbon and the tax on refrigerants—substances that are strong greenhouse gases—had a significant impact on costs in the dairy industry and that she supported the Prime Minister's intention to remove these imposts. She said: 'Let me tell you that the carbon tax had a significant impact on the dairy industry.' I wonder if the member for Forrest has a similar opinion about the costs of greenhouse gas emissions, given that the CSIRO estimates that global warming is almost certainly responsible for about half of the 15 per cent decline in rainfall in her electorate in south-west Western Australia since the mid-1970s.
Scientists from separate teams from NASA and the University of Washington are to publish peer-reviewed papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research and the journal Science respectively that show that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is under way and is unstoppable. Those papers report that the collapse is being driven by climate change and is already causing sea-level rise at a much faster rate than scientists had anticipated. Both papers state that the contact between the glaciers that form the ice sheet and relatively warmer water produced by global warming was the main driver of the collapse.
Dr Eric Rignot, Professor of Earth System Science in the School of Physical Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, and Senior Research Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, has stated:
A large sector of the Western Antarctic ice sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat. It has passed the point of no return.
He warned:
This retreat will have major consequences for sea level rise worldwide.
It should be understood that the ice sheet melts as it retreats and the melt water then flows into the oceans, raising sea levels. What sort of a gift is that to give to the future?
The collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is, as I said, linked to the same process that is driving the decline in rainfall in south-west Western Australia and the southern states, including my home state of Victoria. A report in New Scientist from 11 May states that Dr Nerilie Abram, who is a QE2 Research Fellow at the ANU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, has shown that greenhouse gas emissions are helping to spin up a giant vortex of winds around Antarctica that are exposing the western parts of the continent to higher temperatures and dragging winter rain away from Western Australia.
Dr Abram's work is supported by an earlier paper published in the Annals of Glaciology in 2004 by Broeke and van Lipzig that shows that the strengthening of the circumpolar vortex results in asynchronous change, with cooling over East Antarctica and warming over West Antarctica, a process that is exposing the West Antarctic ice sheet to higher temperatures and driving its collapse. Together these reports reinforce the message that governments everywhere must take immediate action to rapidly curtail greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the consumption of coal, oil and gas and arresting land clearing.
It is regrettable that we need to build up our defences against the growing threat from global warming, but this is a government that has set about dismantling Australia's defences against climate change as it reduces funding for institutions like the CSIRO, shuts down altogether the Climate Commission, de-funds the Clean Technology Innovation Program, abolishes the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, abolishes the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, terminates the price on carbon and now seeks to undermine the renewable energy target, and repeals the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program. It seems to me that this is a very seriously short-sighted and foolish approach. I regret that the government has been in the process of reducing our defences in this way. I hope it rethinks its position in the months and years ahead and enables Australia to be a good international citizen but also looks after our own citizens, looks after future generations, looks after our farmers, looks after people who will be adversely affected by sea level rise or by urban heatwaves, and takes a different approach than the one which is inherent in this bill.
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:29): I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. I thank the member for Wills for reminding me of those comments by the now Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he was opposition leader about carbon dioxide being odourless, colourless and I think he said weightless as well, the implication being it cannot be dangerous. Of course, it is not weightless; it does have weight, it is heavier than air and, in the right sorts of concentrations, it is used quite often to euthanise animals. That is clearly quite a ridiculous position to take. I contrast that to the extraordinary knowledge and skill of our science community. Early in May, some German scientists and two scientists from the ANU discovered a new element. That does not happen very often. There are only a small number of them in the world and we have found most of them, but they discovered a new one, No. 117. I think they managed to create four atoms which lasted about one-twelfth of a second. For those of us who enjoy chemistry, it was an extraordinarily exciting day. There was quite a bit of celebration in my office among some of my staff; others were a bit bemused by it. When we have scientists of that calibre in this country it is surprising that the government does not take more notice of their wisdom and their warnings and the evidence they produce on the nature of man-made climate change.
It is hard to know whether the repeal of the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Bill is due to an ideological opposition and refusal to believe in climate change or rather an ideological hatred of regulation itself, maybe misplaced. It is hard to know which of those two ideologies is responsible—perhaps both—for the repeal of this bill. Certainly in climate change Australia is acting in a completely opposite direction from the rest of the world. Australia's backtracking of climate policy progression has been highlighted by the release of the GLOBE Climate Legislation Study, February 2013. The study of 66 countries across the globe, where the European Union was considered one entity, found Australia was the only country to be taking negative legislative action on climate policy. All the other countries are moving forward.
There are two tragedies in that. One is that Australia is not playing its role with this new government in addressing climate change. The other is that Australia is missing out on this incredible opportunity that new technologies bring, as the rest of the world move towards new renewable technology and enormous wealth generation. You can see its growth already right across the world. You can see in silicon valley and in Singapore, for example, where they are investing heavily, trying to be the owners of the New World, trying to make sure the patents belong to their own nationals. We in Australia are walking away from it. We are walking away from our future. We are ripping up incredibly important pieces of infrastructure which support the development of new technologies such as the price on carbon, the Renewable Energy Target and even this rather modest piece of legislation.
This legislation is incredibly important. It was originally introduced to this parliament by the John Howard government. It grew out of Australia's first white paper on energy efficiency in 2004, was introduced in 2006 and had bipartisan support across this parliament. Both sides of this House agreed that this was an incredibly important thing to do because it ensured that our biggest companies, our biggest businesses addressed their need to reduce their energy costs. In fact, it addressed a market failure, according to the explanatory memorandum back in 2006, relating to the availability and use of energy efficiency information. It required large businesses to assess their energy use and to identify cost-effective energy savings opportunities. It was mandatory for organisations that used over 0.5 petajoules of energy annually and it could be undertaken voluntarily by medium energy users as well.
Quite often in this House, particularly from people who are now on the government side, there is some scepticism about renewable energy and becoming more energy efficient. I would like to make this point. In many cases the way we use energy is historical. In the US, for example, power plugs in the home do not have switches. They just plug straight into the wall, which means that you can never turn them off at the wall—you have to unplug them. This means that any appliance that is plugged in stays on all the time, constantly using a little bit of energy, with transformers warming up and using energy even when they were not being used. It is an incredible waste of energy but that is the way it was always done and that is the way their appliances come, so that is the way they do things.
In Australia, we have plugs on the wall but we also have switches on the wall and are able to turn ours off, but quite often we do not. Even in my household where I have been reducing energy use and managing to keep my electricity bills relatively stable for the last six years, I discovered there was one charging device which I had left on for nearly two years. I used the appliance maybe twice a week, so it probably needed only 10 minutes of charging of week. So for two years that charger has been draining energy unnecessarily.
Recently I was talking to a woman about the price of electricity and how, now that it has gone up, she has to go around and turn the lights off in rooms she is not in. For years she has left the lights on in other rooms. It is not something we did as children because we were struggling financially. Even as children when electricity prices were low, we turned our lights off when we were not in the room, but this woman had a habit. So there is waste built into the way we do things. There is waste built into the use of old technology in lighting and in air conditioning, in letting heat dissipate rather than recycling it. There are all sorts of ways that business and households historically have wasted energy because we did not think it was a problem. The point of this program was to cause the biggest energy users in the country to consider the way they used energy and to find ways to reduce its use. It has been incredibly effective.
The Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program has been effective in driving down emissions and has saved industry approximately $323.2 million per year in power expenses. So this is a bit of regulation that requires business to actually do a bit of work, to do a bit of planning, to look at their circumstances, to come up with a plan. But it has saved them $323.2 million per year in power expenses. The program has been reviewed independently by ACIL Tasman, and the review of the program found that it delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs—an extraordinary success for this quite simple, highly targeted program that just looked at the energy use of major users of power.
I heard the government speakers talk about the need to reduce red tape. Yes, of course. Of course we do. We did that when we were in government. In fact, we were remarkably effective and reduced compliance costs by about $6 billion per year across the COAG reform agreements. But regulation, where it actually provides a benefit in excess of its costs, is actually good regulation. The government is talking about managing to save the business sector $17 million per year in compliance costs. That is $17 million per year in compliance costs for a saving in power bills of $323.2 million. That is $322 million per year in savings and a $17 million per year compliance burden. I think in anyone's language that is a success.
There has also been quite a lot of unhappiness in the industry because, as has become the pattern with this government, there was not consultation on this. In fact, according to energy efficiency groups it was a surprise. Media reports and quotes from them use words like 'shocked' and 'livid' about the fact that the government had cut funding to a Howard-era program that made it mandatory for businesses using large amounts of energy to improve their efficiency. The Sydney Morning Herald reported:
The Energy Efficiency Council said members were ''livid'' about the surprise cut in funding of millions of dollars for the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program in the mid-year economic forecast.
There is a quote from Rob Murray-Leach, who is the Chief Executive of the Energy Efficiency Council, who said:
The Abbott government has just created huge uncertainty in a fragile economy—people are absolutely livid … The government haven't scrapped the Energy Efficiency Opportunities program because it's legislated, but they've cut funding to administer the program after June 2014. People are confused and very, very angry.
It is not surprising that that is the case. The Energy Efficiency Council also points out that every dollar invested in the program delivered $2.90 of benefits to Australian business, and that cutting funding to help business save energy was just going to hurt the economy.
I would like to stress again that this was an incredibly effective program introduced in the Howard years as a result of Australia's first energy efficiency white paper. It has been incredibly effective, resulting in savings to industry of approximately $323.2 million per year for, in the government's own words, a compliance cost of $17 million. We know, from looking at other estimations of compliance costs, that there will be some very rubbery figures in there. I have not been through the regulatory impact statement on this one to see if it is as shonky as the one for the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill. But, given their track record, I think we can assume that there is a lot of fat, even in that compliance burden of $17 million. But savings of $17 million in compliance that has managed to save an industry $323 million is a false economy at best.
I would suggest to the government that in future it consult more broadly on matters like this. We will support the bill and let it go through the House because there are many more pressing matters for us, and the government does need to be able to govern. But they might like to just reconsider their ideology against regulation, particularly if it is effective, and they might like to rethink their attitude to climate change as well. The rest of the world is acting very fast, and if we do not act with them we will be left behind in terms of not just our environment but our ability to compete in the world that is coming through new technology.
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (20:42): I rise to speak on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014. Before I start on the bill I would like to congratulate the member for Parramatta because she just said something that was very correct, and that is that the government needs to get on and govern. She is exactly right. We appreciate the opposition's support on this bill. But we would appreciate the opposition also supporting us to get rid of the carbon tax and to help pass a lot of other legislation that they are currently blocking in the Senate. At the moment the opposition are stopping us from getting on and governing this country.
Turning back to the bill, this bill repeals the Energy Efficiency Operations Act 2006. That act created a compulsory compliance and reporting obligation on 460-odd of the largest energy users in the country. So we in government said to those companies: 'We want you to write to us and tell us how you are going to become more energy efficient.' When I read through some of the sections of the original act, I could not help but wonder what was in the water down here in 2006 that such legislation was actually passed. I will give you the example of sections 26 and 28 of the act. Section 27(1) of the act authorises a government bureaucrat to enter any premises during normal business hours or, if the entry is made under a monitoring warrant, at any time specified for that warrant. So the act we are repealing allows government bureaucrats to enter those businesses' premises to check if they have filled their forms out properly.
It gets more bizarre. I move on to section 28 of the act. It says it gives the powers for government bureaucrats when they enter a business premises. It says they have 'the power to search the premises for any thing on the premises that may relate to compliance with this act'. Under subsection (1)(b), it gives government bureaucrats 'the power to examine any activity conducted on the premises that may relate to information provided' under the act. Subsection (1)(c) gives 'the power to examine any thing on the premises that may relate to information'. Subsection (1)(d) gives 'the power to take photographs or make video or audio recordings' or even sketches. That is right: this act gives a government bureaucrat the power to enter premises and take sketches of what is going on in case the company has not filled out its government forms correctly yet. Subsection (1)(e) also provides 'the power to inspect any document on the premises that may relate to information provided' on this government-required form. There is 'the power to take extracts from, or make copies of, any such document' and 'the power to take onto the premises such equipment and materials as the authorised officer'—read government bureaucrat—'requires for the purpose of exercising powers in relation to the premises'. And it provides criminal penalties for a private business getting on with work and getting on with driving the economy, driving economic growth and creating employment and exports. This act creates criminal penalties for these people unless they comply with this act to provide the government with a report about how they are going to increase their efficiency. Of course, it goes on. Under section 37(1) of the act, those companies are required to provide that government bureaucrat 'with all reasonable facilities and assistance for the effective exercise' of his powers.
This reads like something out of 'Collectivist Centralised Economic Planning 101'. Then there is section 15 of the act, which requires private businesses to set out their five-year plan and report that five-year plan to the government. Firstly, we all know where we have heard 'five-year plans' before. They have been constantly used by centralised central planners from way back. They love those five-year plans. But that just shows how ridiculous this legislation is, because the technology in energy efficiency—the technology we are seeing in compact fluorescent globes, in LEDs, in dimmable systems, in dimmable PLs and in motion sensors—is moving so quickly. To think that you have to do a plan for five years and you sit there and leave it and do nothing in that for five years time and that creates all this great efficiency is just absolute nonsense. That is why this bill needs to pass the House, and that is why this original legislation should be repealed in great haste.
I asked myself: what happened in 2006 that allowed this legislation to go through? Going back to the explanatory memorandum of the bill, it notes that even the Productivity Commission was against this. It says that the Productivity Commission 'had strong in-principle reservations' about these energy efficiency opportunity reporting requirements and that the program targeted 'high-energy users as opposed to inefficient energy users, was counterintuitive and counter evidentiary on the basis that energy intensive businesses already have a strong incentive to use energy efficiently'.
So what was in the water here back in 2006? We are talking about energy efficiency, when as a nation we have 111 years supply of black coal, and we have over 539 years supply of brown coal in our nation. So what drove this back in 2006? If we remember 2006, that was the height of the climate fear and the hysteria. The public were told that the science was settled; the time for debate was over. We were told that the drought was endless. We were told that even the rains that fall were not going to fill our dams. We were told that the polar icecaps were going to melt away by 2013. We were told that there would be an increase in the frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones. We were told that children in Europe would grow up without knowing what snow was. We were told that the warming would continue and that there was a strong correlation, a locked correlation, between CO2 increases and temperature increases.
We can look back from 2014 in a rational way and reflect that this was nothing more than alarmist nonsense. We know that the rains fell. Our dams are full—full to the top—again throughout the country. We know that the icecaps have not melted away. In fact, today there are 767,000 square kilometres of additional ice over and above the 1981 to 2000 average. There is more ice than there was back then. We also know that there has been no increase whatsoever in the incidence and intensity of tropical cyclones. In fact, you can look at the statistics from the Bureau of Meteorology. You actually see a decline. But this was the environment back in 2007, so there perhaps is some excuse for why this legislation was brought in.
I have heard speakers from the opposition say that this scheme actually saved $300 million, but they forget something. They think that it was driven by government regulations. They simply do not understand how markets work or how business thinks, and they lack belief in free markets and competition. They fail to understand our economic history—that efficiency improvements and the advances that we have seen are not driven by government bureaucrats forcing firms to fill out forms; they are driven by the requirement of firms to be in competition with each other. Innovation, experimentation, risk taking, entrepreneurial effort—that is what drives efficiency in markets, not government regulation. Just look at the energy efficiency and other efficiency improvements we have seen in our lifetimes—in communications, in photography, in motor vehicles and in jet aircraft, just to name a few. These efficiency improvements did not arise because central planning required firms to fill out some form to submit to some government bureaucrat to say how they were going to achieve these efficiencies. It was the complete opposite: they came about through letting firms get on with the job. That is what this repeal bill does. We do not want firms in this country to be wasting their time filling out bureaucratic, inefficient forms. We want them to get on with the job of being efficient. That efficiency is driven by the market. It is driven by competition.
There have been many calls for this act to be repealed. A study that was done said that over 60 per cent of companies that are required to fill out these bureaucratic government forms said, 'Please stop it now.' They basically said that over 40 per cent of the government forms that they have been required to fill out over the past few years were completely and utterly useless. Businesses can allocate their time better than in dealing with red tape and green tape. This will save firms $17.7 million and let them reinvest their time in getting on with doing the job and being efficient, as they have done for decades.
While we are on the subject of energy efficiency, the great irony is that, while we are asking private firms to fill out government forms to explain how they will increase their efficiency, we in government have been running red-tape schemes which have actually decreased the efficiency of electricity generation in this country. I refer to the RET. We are simply mandating the production of electricity through an inefficient source. The fact is: generating electricity from wind turbines is inefficient. No-one would build a wind turbine unless they were given a government subsidy. Many of the promoters of these schemes, mainly generated from overseas, have been running around the parliament in New South Wales and here claiming that, if we have this inefficient method of production, it will somehow lower prices. They talk about lowering the wholesale price. This is simply voodoo economics. The only things that count are the cost of production, the cost of distribution and the competition to get it through to the retail level.
I hear the member for Parramatta down there laughing. The member for Parramatta supports a carbon tax which pushes up prices by $550 for every household in her electorate. They sit there and they think this is funny—a $550 hit on every household in the electorate of Parramatta. They want to impose more red and green tape. They are not satisfied. They want to continue to push costs up.
If we are going to sit here in this parliament and talk about energy efficiency, we have to lead by example. We cannot mandate in this country inefficient methods of production, irrespective of what they are, because that will be paid for, in higher prices, by the consumer. That is exactly what is happening in this country today. That is why we need this bill. It should be passed. I commend this bill to the House. The original act needs to be repealed. We want to free the hands of our companies, take away the red tape, take away the green tape and let them get on with doing what they do—let them get on with business, let them get on with being efficient, without having to fill in bureaucratic forms to report to some government agency. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (20:57): In the time allowed tonight in this second reading debate on the Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014, I want to comment, in passing, on the previous speaker—who is walking away—and his abandonment of the only three environmental policies that the Howard government ever implemented with any credibility. They were the Renewable Energy Target, the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act, which we are discussing tonight, and the emissions trading scheme. These three policies were the bedrock of the Howard government's climate change agenda, and the previous speaker derided them because he does not accept the science of climate change. Well, I have got some news for the previous speaker: 97 per cent of published scientific papers in this area, by climate change experts, have concluded that climate change is real, that it is occurring and that it is man-made. To the previous speaker, I would rather be on the side of NASA, CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology than on the side of Alan Jones and the cranks that you have been quoting. Scientists now say that climate change is real and man-made with a certainty of 95 per cent. To put that into context, that is the same certainty with which they say tobacco causes cancer. But that is not good enough for the previous speaker or, quite frankly, for the coalition, who reject the science of climate change because it is inconvenient for some and others are mired in Alan Jones radio talkback land.
What was more even more incredible was the hypocrisy about the power of markets in this area. This is a party that is rejecting a market based mechanism to combat climate change, also known as an emissions trading scheme, as first proposed by the Prime Minister Howard and adopted by the Labor Party, as recommended by Lord Nicholas Stern, Ross Garnaut, Paul Krugman and every serious economist, and instead it has endorsed Direct Action, the worst form of Soviet command and control since Stalinist Russia, where the government dictates which businesses will reduce their emissions and pays them accordingly, but no other emissions count. Under Direct Action, which is supposed to replace legislation and policies like this, each company is supposed to put in their emissions-intensity baseline every year and report against it. So I do not see how this is reducing red tape if you are replacing it with something else and then picking only a few companies to reduce their emissions.
As I said at the beginning, this legislation yet again demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of the coalition— (Time expired)
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (21:00): It being 9 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Climate Change
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (21:00): I am pleased to lead off on the adjournment debate. I want to take the time allotted to me to talk about the visit by the Pacific Calling Partnership last week, a program of the Edmund Rice Centre, which is doing great work. This partnership had visitors from low-lying Pacific islands visit Parliament House to talk about the impact of climate change on their countries. I had the pleasure of meeting with Apisaloma Tawati, from Kiribati, who talked to me about the challenge they have of losing land through stormwater surges and rising sea levels; the impact of saltwater destroying their drinking wells and crops; the impact of losing land and the impact on society where, for example, his uncle and family have had to move into their house because his uncle's family have lost their land.
I also had the pleasure of meeting with Seimila Filioma, from Tuvalu. She told me that the land in Tuvalu is only two to three metres above sea level. They are already seeing significant saltwater contamination and erosion of land. They are facing dire consequences that actually challenge the continuing existence of these countries, Tuvalu and Kiribati.
Seimila told me that she has a daughter the same age as mine, around one year old. And, like every other parent in the world, she wants the best for her daughter. She is really worried that her daughter will grow up on an island that is not sustainable, where they will be forced to go to another country because they will not have land to live on, crops to grow—any sort of sustenance to survive on. These are two examples of the impact of climate change that is already occurring.
The impact of climate change can be put in many contexts. For example, a few years ago we saw Cyclone Nargi go through Myanmar. That led to a storm surge up the Delta, 40 kilometres inland, which killed over 100,000 people. Scientists have demonstrated that, if the sea level had been 20 centimetres lower, that storm surge would have been less than 20 kilometres up the Delta, resulting in significantly fewer lives lost. These are all the impacts of climate change that are now occurring. It is in this context that I rise to condemn the coalition's walking away from the previous consensus on an emissions reduction target of five to minus 25 per cent. Prior to the last election the coalition signed up to that range of target, saying that the exact figure of Australia's reduction would be within that range, depending on international action.
The independent Climate Change Authority, a group of experts which the coalition is seeking to abolish because it disagrees with the independent advice, has said that the target should be around 17 per cent, based on international action. Since the coalition came into government it has reduced its target to minus five per cent and, quite frankly, it has no chance of meeting that with its joke of direct action policy.
Apisaloma and Seimila are victims of climate change and we owe it to them and future generations of Australia to do something. What we do in this place matters. We are a lead in the Asia-Pacific region, in particular in the Pacific. We are the highest emitter, per person, of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world. And that is a fact that we are reminded of every time we go into international forums.
I was deeply disappointed that, with the exception of the members for Hasluck and Reid, no other member of the coalition had the guts to meet with these people from the Pacific Islands who came to Parliament House last week. No-one had the guts to look these people in the eye, and say, 'I don't care what's happening to your islands, I don't care what's happening to your family, I don't care that in generations to come you won't have a home to live in. All I care about is petty, political self-interest and abandoning a decade of consensus on climate change.'
It is really disappointing that these people do not have the courage to talk to these people of the Pacific Islands and people in Australia, who are already suffering the impacts of climate change. It just shows the hypocrisy and the fundamental moral weakness of the coalition, that they are not prepared to take the hard decisions in the long-term national interest. It is not just about being cute for the environment. If we do not take action on climate change, we will see a 97 per cent reduction in agricultural land in the Murray-Darling Basin. We will see the end of the Great Barrier Reef, which brings in $9 billion in export revenue through tourism each year. These are the real impacts of climate change and I am deeply disappointed that no-one in the coalition, with the exception of the members for Hasluck and Reid, had the courage and the moral fortitude to look these people in the eye, and to say, 'I know what I'm doing is wrong, but I'm still going to do it.'
Barton Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr VARVARIS (Barton) (21:05): I rise to commend recent federal government commitments to economic growth, investment in infrastructure and community consultation, which have all been evident in my electorate of Barton over the past month. I would first like to register my enthusiastic support for the federal government's recent commitment to building a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.
The average daily aircraft movement at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport was approximately 667 planes per day, or 20,000 per month, in 2013. This frequency, along with increased traffic congestion leading into and out of Kingsford Smith airport, is a heavy load on a city with one major airport.
The announcement of Badgerys Creek airport comes after three decades of indecision and procrastination by former governments and is an investment that will pour a projected $23.9 billion into the Australian economy and supply up to 60,000 jobs.
A second Sydney airport will safeguard the viability of air travel, ease the burden of aircraft noise and assist in easing congestion at Kingsford Smith. This is exciting news for current Barton residents, whilst ensuring solid, continued investment in Western Sydney's economy and infrastructure for many years to come. This significant project and much-needed development for Sydney's west is a tremendous milestone that is win-win for all.
As the federal member for Barton, I proudly support the decision for a second airport that I know will not only be well received by my constituents but benefit so many others in surrounding areas of Sydney.
This second Sydney airport will safeguard the viability of air travel for the next generation, whilst investing in Western Sydney's economy for years to come. This decision comes as demand for passenger journeys in the Sydney region will quadruple to 165 million by 2060.
I am proud to have supported the bid to build an airport at Badgerys Creek throughout my election campaign.
The Badgerys Creek decision was followed by another infrastructure announcement with significance for the Barton electorate. I was alongside the New South Wales Minister for Roads, Duncan Gay, and federal Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development Jamie Briggs last week as we announced environmental planning which is underway for the upgrade of the King Georges Road interchange. This announcement comes ahead of upgrades to the M5 East as part of the WestConnex infrastructure project. Stage 2 will see the widening of the existing M5 East to four lanes in each direction at the King Georges Road interchange in my electorate of Barton, which has accelerated these works by 18 months. WestConnex will deliver more than $20 billion in economic benefits to New South Wales and around 10,000 jobs will be created during construction phase, including many apprenticeships. The upgrades will also decrease the amount of trucks on local roads in the Barton area and set the scene for a high-standard traffic management plan for our region. Overall these measures will serve to lessen traffic for the constituents of Barton, a continuous burden on productivity and quality of life which is too often dismissed as inevitable.
The M5 upgrade will connect the west and south-west with the CBD, airport and port districts. The Barton electorate in particular stands to gain from this upgrade as the economic potential of our area is secured through its connection to the airport and to seaports. Many residents in my electorate commute to the CBD and the airport via these road networks and particularly rely on the M5 corridor to connect them with economic opportunity. This upgrade, which is progressing in consultation with Barton residents, will make the electorate an even better suburban base for those residents who work in the airport or the city. Reliable productivity and economic output rely on a consistent level of investment in infrastructure upgrades by the federal government. That is one reason that these two announcements are welcome in the electorate of Barton.
However, there is a human side to the benefits that we reap by upgrading infrastructure. After all, the ability to get to work and get back home in a more efficient fashion means more time at home with your family. It means getting home in time for dinner or more time with your children before leaving for work. As parliamentarians we must always keep in mind that economic benefits and infrastructural benefits translate into human value for real families in our electorates. This must always be our ultimate goal as we work towards further developments in infrastructure.
Budget
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (21:09): The Treasurer has meticulously created a falsehood about our debt levels, used it to savage the budgets of families and pensioners on the basis that he needed to reduce the debt, but at the end of the day failed to decrease the debt at all relative to the fiscal position at the election. It is all pain and no gain.
To understand the sleight of hand, we need to look at how the Treasurer managed to double the deficit in just four months between the Pre-Election Fiscal Outlook in August 2013 and the Mid-Year Economic Outlook in December, then how he extrapolated that exaggeration through another seven years to 2023-24 to get the figure he uses to justify savage cuts to pensioners and families. Senate estimates gives us a bit of perspective on the two EFOs. Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson was asked about PEFO and MYEFO and explained the difference. About MYEFO, he said it is always a decision of government. About PEFO, he said that PEFO is the only document that the Treasury and the Department of Finance have their names on. In fact, it is not even Treasury and the Department of Finance; it is the two secretaries. All other documents are documents of the government. So PEFO is independent of either Labor or Liberal influence, and MYEFO is very much the Treasurer's EFO.
MYEFO shows a worsening of the underlying cash balance for the year 2013-14, with an increase in the deficit from $30 billion to $47 billion, an additional $17 billion hole in the budget relative to the independent PEFO before the election. $10.3 billion of that is caused by the Treasurer's spending decisions shortly after the election, including plans to repeal the carbon tax and giving $8.8 billion to the Reserve Bank. The other $6.6 billion and most of the changes through the following years up to 2016-17 are caused by more pessimistic assumptions of higher unemployment, slower growth and reduced tax revenue. Whether the Treasury got the assumptions right in PEFO in August or whether it was something happening in the economy or conversations in the Treasurer's office after the election that caused Treasury to downgrade their projections remains to be seen. So at that point the Treasurer had doubled the size of the accumulated deficit to 2016-17 and was using his new 'improved' deficit, including his own new spending, to beat up on the previous Labor government. Worse, it was an excuse to rip away support for the most vulnerable people in our community.
But then it gets worse. A budget press release from the Treasurer shows how Mr Hockey supercharges the deception by taking the already doubled deficit figure of $123 billion at the end of 2016-17, assuming no change in trajectory for the following seven years, coming up with a figure of $667 billion in debt for 2023-24, then accusing Labor of having left that debt in 2023, when we lost office in 2013. Every time any member of government or media says, 'Labor left over $600 billion in debt,' they are referring to a fictional supercharged figure for 2023-24. It took a lot of effort to make the figure up, so it's not surprising that they are using it over and over again.
Now comes the third strike. Having doubled the debt, extrapolated it out to 2023-24 in order to get a figure big enough to scare people, having used it to beat up on pensioners and families, you would expect that the budget projections would show an improvement—but they don't. The debt and deficit are worse in the budget than the projected PEFO for the budget year and for every year of the forward estimates out to 2017-18. Relative to the independent Treasury and Finance picture of the economy immediately prior to the election, they have not reduced either the debt or the deficit—in fact, it is worse. So how does that happen? How can a government that is prepared to inflict so much pain on the Australian people in order to 'fix the deficit' not manage to reduce the deficit at all? Well, they planned on going on a bit of a spending spree. Additional items in the budget on both sides of the ledger reflect the priorities of the government, most notably the cuts to pensions, deregulation of universities, cuts to science and R&D, cuts to families and GP tax, but $5 billion per year for the paid parental leave scheme, presumably in the contingency reserve because there is no budget line; tax cuts for mining through the abolition of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax; cuts for big business through the repeal of the price on carbon; tax cuts for business generally; cuts to many infrastructure projects including all urban rail; new expenditure on infrastructure; and $20 billion over several years to the medical research fund. At the end of the day, add it all up, put their priorities in and it is worse than PEFO for each year: $5.8 billion in 2014-15, then $12.4 billion in 2015-16, then $6.4 billion in 2016-17. They actually bring the budget back to surplus some two years later than the PEFO projections. The greatest fiction of all is that they now claim that all the pain inflicted on families and pensioners was necessary to fix their largely inflated debt and deficit disaster, and they didn't.
Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program
Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (21:14): Since 2002, there have been 40 operational deaths of Australians in Afghanistan and 261 wounded. The first death was Sergeant Andrew Russell, SAS Regiment, who died on 16 February 2002. The 40th was Corporal Cameron Stewart Baird, VC, MG, 2nd Commando Regiment, who was killed on 22 June 2013. Throughout the Middle East, the photos of these 40 Australians are proudly displayed in each of the Australian headquarters to honour their service and remember their lives.
As part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I was able to visit the Middle East Area of Operations, or MEAO, with three other parliamentarians—the members for Petrie and Rankin and Senator Dean Smith. It is a valuable way for parliamentarians to witness the work which the young men and women of the ADF are doing on deployment. There are currently 400 ADF personnel deployed within Afghanistan and a further 800 personnel deployed throughout the rest of the Middle East.
Joint Task Force 633 covers all Australians deployed in this theatre. I would like to thank the Commander Major General Craig Orme and his deputies, Commodore Phil Spedding and Air Commodore Noel Derwort, who were so generous with their time in giving us an extended master class over the nine days we were away. I would like to thank Major Will Orgill, who took his role of looking after a group of MPs with good humour. We learnt that the military has its own language and thrives on acronyms. On arrival in the MEAO, we were thrown into a RSOMI course—that is, reception, staging, onward movement and integration for the uninitiated. We learnt how to recognise IEDs. We discovered that KAF was Kandahar airfield and a CAT could be a combat application tourniquet or a coalition advisory team. We could not have got by without FCUs, FSUs and FPUs. We saw surplus MRAPs—that is, mine resistant armour protected vehicles—waiting to be crushed. We heard jargon such as 'kinetic activity' or 'nine-liners' in a medivac. And with the ADF operating in an international coalition environment, we learnt some of the American idiom. 'Loaded for bear' is one phrase I have never heard before and I do not think I will ever forget.
This was a parliamentary program with a difference. We were given briefings on what to do when under small-arms fire or rocket attack and we flew in a Black Hawk over Kandahar province. We were privileged to receive high-level briefings at some of the major coalition headquarters in the Middle East, the combined Air and Space Operations Centre in Qatar and the combined maritime forces HQ in Bahrain. I would like to thank Vice Admiral John Miller, Commander US Naval Forces Central Command, US 5th Fleet and Combined Maritime Forces, who spent more than a hour with the group along with his senior staff to talk about the role Australia was playing in the Combined Maritime Forces and the current environment in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. There are three dozen ships from more than a dozen countries protecting sea lines of communication, with a strong focus on counterpiracy, counterterrorism and preventing drug trafficking. In the space of a month, HMAS Darwin has seized more than two tonnes of heroin in three separate seizures, which help to disrupt terrorist-funding streams.
In Kabul, we were able to meet with senior Australian embedded officers at ISAF HQ and an Australian detachment at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy in Kabul. In Kandahar, we were impressed with the work of Australian led Afghan National Army 205 Corps coalition advisory team and the RAAF Heron Unmanned Aerial Vehicle detachment. We also toured the ISAF Role 3 Medical Facility, one of only four in Afghanistan which has a number of Australian medical specialists attached to it. At both Kabul and Kandahar, we got to talk with the deployed Australians over a barbeque and a non-alcoholic beer. As a reminder that military service is dangerous, at Kandahar we attended a memorial service for five British service personnel, who were killed in a helicopter crash.
Some take-home points for me included the closure of the base at Tarin Kowt. The end of the mission in Uruzgan province received wide coverage late last year, yet there are still more than a thousand young Australians serving in the Middle East Area of Operations. They want Australians to know that they are still serving there. They are serving our country in a dangerous environment. There are important decisions to be made regarding our future commitment in Afghanistan. President Obama has announced that the US will cut its commitment from 32,000 to 9,800 by the end of this year and around 5,000 troops by the end of next year. Australia will need to wind back its commitment in a similar way.
It is likely that Australia will have a continuing involvement in the Middle East, but it will not be in Iraq and it will not be in Afghanistan; it will be in the maritime environment providing maritime security. We have been doing this since 1990. The Darwin is the 57th individual RAN ship to be deployed since then and this counterpiracy and trafficking role will continue to be necessary.
Melbourne Ports Electorate: Budget
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (21:19): The opposition have said again and again in this House that this budget is based on a concocted budget emergency, and this was very ably set out by the member for Parramatta in her adjournment speech. In my electorate, it will hit the most disadvantaged the hardest. The changes to Medicare, Newstart, family tax benefits, university degrees and to the disability support pension are just a few of the deeply unfair cuts that this government is pursuing. Tonight, I would like to focus on how this budget will impact the most disadvantaged in our local communities, especially young people.
There are many great many programs that provide vital support in the community for people who need it the most and many of these programs are facing the axe. One such program that is facing losing its federal government funding is Reclink, a South Melbourne based organisation that annually provides over 100,000 sporting and cultural activities for people suffering from mental health problems, homelessness, substance abuse, disability, language barriers and financial difficulties. These programs foster self-confidence, bring people out of isolation, develop skills, get people back into work and establish connections and friendships. Reclink will lose its entire $560,000 federal support. This contribution leveraged millions of dollars in private philanthropy and volunteer work. I hope the whole program does not fall over and I will be working very hard with Reclink to see that their invaluable activities are continued.
Community programs that are specifically designed to help disadvantaged children in our society are also being cut. The five adventure playgrounds in St Kilda, Prahran, Fitzroy, Kensington and South Melbourne are set to lose $2.7 million federal funding over the next three years. The first adventure playground was established in 1978 in South Melbourne. The aim of it was to provide children who came from disadvantaged backgrounds with a safe and creative space to play and learn. Many of the children that these playgrounds were designed for lived in high-rise public housing without a backyard, and did not have access to the kind of community networks that these places foster. In a very real sense, these playgrounds became the backyard for these children.
When my kids were little, I used to take them down to the St Kilda Adventure Playground, and I really admired all of the funding from the Port Phillip council, all of the volunteers and the other contributions that were made to get these adventure playgrounds working. And of course they were leveraged off the federal government's support.
Adventure playgrounds offer programs specifically designed for kids between five and 12 years of age. One such program that is run at the Skinners Adventure Playground in South Melbourne is a breakfast club. The children in the surrounding public housing rely on this breakfast. The program includes a bus that takes them to the Port Melbourne Primary School. All of the other schools in their area are full, and they rely on this bus to take them to school, without which there is an obvious disincentive to a cohort of students less likely to attend: no bus, no Reclink, no ability to get from an area where they have no schools to an area where there is at least a school.
To add to all of this, we know how important it is for our children to be not just socially but also physically active, and of course we have all of the stories about childhood obesity. It is plain to see how invaluable the programs and the space that adventure playgrounds offer are to the children who come from families facing economic or social disadvantage. Nick Hearnshaw, Vicar of St Luke's Anglican Church in South Melbourne, has stated that he is very concerned about these cuts and the impact that they will have on the children, their families and the wider community.
I and all of those in the opposition believe that all Australians, regardless of their background, should be given the same opportunities, especially our children. The coalition clearly does not hold to the same principle. The government is insisting on trampling over the most disadvantaged in our community, insisting that we all need to share the burden of its budget. Are the most disadvantaged children meant to be sharing this burden too? As the previous speaker for the opposition stated, it is all based on an entirely false premise—a concocted budget deficit that does not exist. The average person on a single income of $250,000 will, because of this budget, have a tax increase of $1,492, composed of a deficit tax, fuel excise increase, and increased health costs. For a person on $95,000 combined family income with two kids it is $4,931, and that is composed of family tax benefit cuts, GP tax, fuel excise increase and cuts to the schoolkids bonus. But a person on $13,273 who is unemployed and 26 years old will have $6,944 extra tax— (Time expired)
Parkes Electorate: Moree Reconciliation Awards
Mr COULTON (Parkes—The Nationals Chief Whip) (21:25): Contrary to the negative bleatings that we have just been listening to, I would like to speak about something positive that is happening in my electorate. On Friday night, I attended the Moree Reconciliation Awards night. This is about a community that is dealing with issues that clearly affect the most disadvantaged people in their community—indeed, some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia—and actually doing something about it themselves. There were 250 or 300 people at the reconciliation awards night. People in that community who have been actively involved in reconciliation—not only throughout the last year but, most of them, for a lifetime—were recognised, both members of the Aboriginal community and of the non-Aboriginal community, both elders and younger people. One of the highlights of the night was some of the testimonials by members of the community. The ones that stood out particularly were from some of the younger members—some of the teenagers who spoke about their desire for reconciliation and their positive outlook as to how that might happen.
During that night, the Moree council unveiled their Reconciliation Action Plan, which is a three-year plan. It is attached to this lovely booklet I am holding. It clearly outlines steps that will be taken and recognised and ticked off over the next three years to help that community work towards being a clearly reconciled community.
Moree has 22 or 23 per cent Aboriginal people in the population, and the Moree Plains Shire Council has already gone a long way; it is not just speaking words. We quite often hear in this place of people's desire to help the Aboriginal communities, and a lot of it is spoken without firsthand knowledge. What Moree council has done is to take action instead of just speaking words. At the moment, the council's employment ratio replicates the ratio of the town. So they have about 22 per cent of their workforce who are Aboriginal, including the first Aboriginal director of a department, Mitchell Johnson. He, along with his wife, Kylie, who also works for the council, have gone a long way in driving this employment program. I would hazard a guess to say that probably nowhere else in Australia would you find the local council replicating the breakdown of the community in their workforce.
So Moree has come a long way. As you might remember, Moree was one of the flashpoints in the sixties with the freedom rides, at the Moree baths. Indeed, I was speaking to a well-known Aboriginal elder, Lyle Munro Senior, on Friday night, and he said that it was one of the best nights he had ever had in Moree. Lyle has been very active in agitating for a better deal for Aboriginal people for a long, long time. It is good to see that this community is putting what has been at times a very tense past behind them and moving on.
On the night, the waiters and waitresses were young Aboriginal people from the local school. The boys were members of the Clontarf Foundation, and I have spoken quite a bit about the Clontarf Foundation in this place. These boys and girls were magnificent in the way that they carried out their duties on the night.
We quite often look to government, federal and state, as being the answer to all of our problems, but it is great to see a community that is taking such an emotional issue as reconciliation, and taking control of it themselves, being led by the people of the community, both young and old, and coming together to drive towards a community that recognises its past but is looking for a future that is much better than what we have had.
The SPEAKER: It being 9.30, the debate is interrupted.
House adjourned at 21:30
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr McCormack to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Social Services, Australian Capital Territory.
Dr Leigh to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that:
(a) since 1975, earnings at the 90th percentile have risen three times faster than earnings at the 10th percentile; and
(b) since 1980, the top 1 per cent income share has doubled, and the top 0.1 per cent income share has tripled; and
(c) overall, inequality in Australia is now higher than it has been in three-quarters of a century;
(2) notes that:
(a) analysis by NATSEM (which the Prime Minister once described as ‘the most reputable and authoritative modelling organisation in Australia’) shows that the 2014-15 budget will redistribute income from lower-income households to higher-income households;
(b) by 2017-18, NATSEM analysis suggests that the budget will cause:
(i) across all households, a 2.2 per cent drop in disposable incomes in the bottom quintile, and an 0.2 per cent rise in disposable incomes in the top quintile;
(ii) among couples with children, a 6.6 per cent drop in disposable incomes of households in the poorest quintile; and
(iii) among single parents, a 10.8 per cent drop in disposable incomes of households in the poorest quintile; and
(3) calls upon the Government to rethink a budget that not only breaks promises and produces higher deficit figures than in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook 2014, but also fails the ‘fair go test’ by hurting low and middle income families.
Dr Leigh to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) was established in 2012 after external inquiries in 1995, 2001, 2010, Parliamentary committee reviews, issues and discussion papers, exposure drafts and consultations with experts, and is operating efficiently and effectively, helping charities, donors and taxpayers;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) the vast majority of submissions to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Repeal) (No. 1) Bill 2014 speak positively of the ACNC’s work and urge the Government to retain the charities commission as a one-stop shop;
(b) the evidence to this inquiry provided by eminent Australian, Mr Robert Fitzgerald AM, strongly supports the retention of the ACNC;
(c) in a survey, four out of five charities support keeping the ACNC, while only 6 per cent like the Government’s idea of returning the regulation of charities to the Australian Taxation Office;
(d) in an open letter, more than 40 charities, including Lifeline, Justice Connect, ACOSS, Social Ventures Australia, Save the Children, St John Ambulance Australia, Community Colleges Australia, Sane Australia, the Sidney Myer Fund, the Myer Foundation, Danks Trust, the RSPCA, Youth Off the Streets, the Ted Noffs Foundation, Music Viva Australia, Wesley Mission Victoria, the RSPCA Australia, World Vision, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Odyssey House, the McGrath Foundation, the Australian Council for International Development, Changemakers Australia, Volunteering Australia, YWCA Australia, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, the Consumer Health Forum of Australia, Hillsong Church, Churches of Christ Victoria and Tasmania and Wesley Mission Australia, called on the Government to keep the ACNC; and
(e) the Australian Capital Territory and South Australian governments are already working to reduce the paperwork burden on charities and not-for-profits by cooperating with the ACNC to reduce duplication in reporting;
(3) notes that some of those who the Minister for Social Services claims to have consulted with have written to the Government to make clear that they have never been consulted on the ACNC repeal; and
(4) calls on the Government to drop its ill-considered and unpopular plan to axe the ACNC.
Ms Parke to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar, including Rakhine state and the Mandalay, Bago, and Yangon regions, but in Rakhine state in particular, has created significant humanitarian concerns given that the latest iteration of displacement has been going on for almost two years;
(b) Human Rights Watch released two reports on the unrest in Rakhine state and the situation of Rohingya Muslims there which clearly concluded that ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity were perpetrated against the Rohingyas;
(c) the national census in Myanmar in April 2014 has led to a deepening of the humanitarian crisis due to the census boycott by ethnic Arakanese groups and the alienation of minority communities as a result of questions relating to ethnicity and religion, including the refusal to allow Rohingya Muslims to self-identify as such;
(d) on 27 May 2014 Myanmar’s state-run media published a draft law on religious conversions that would impose unlawful restrictions on citizens wishing to change their religion, which would encourage further repression and violence against Muslims and other religious minorities;
(e) the Australian Government continues to assist affected people in Rakhine state through direct humanitarian assistance, providing over $5.79 million in humanitarian assistance in 2012-13, making Australia one of the largest donors helping those affected by the crisis; and
(f) any acts of discrimination or violence against any persons will impact on Myanmar’s international standing and consequently harm its bilateral relationships; and
(2) calls on the Australian Government to urge the Myanmar Government to:
(a) elevate its efforts to resolve ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar, including by accepting the deployment of personnel from the Australian Civilian Corps for security, humanitarian and peace building purposes in Rakhine state;
(b) allow the establishment of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights in Myanmar with a full rights protection, promotion and technical assistance mandate, and permit unfettered access to all areas where sectarian violence has occurred;
(c) permit Medicines Sans Frontiers to freely enter and operate in Rakhine state, and provide humanitarian assistance to all persons needing it;
(d) impartially investigate and bring to justice all those responsible for abuses, regardless of their status, position, or rank;
(e) ensure the security of all persons in Rakhine state while protecting human rights, including the right to freedom of movement, maintaining proper rule of law and good governance that includes an end to all discriminatory policies against Rohingyas;
(f) amend the 1982 Citizenship Law to bring it in line with international standards;
(g) ensure that minority communities are properly included in the national census;
(h) abandon the proposed law on religious conversions that would politicise religion and permit government intrusion on decisions of faith;
(i) ensure right to fair trial to all persons held in jails in Rakhine state;
(j) ensure all local laws are non-discriminatory and fair to all people of Myanmar, and respect the rights to movement, religion, work and access to health care and education;
(k) condemn violence and abuse inflicted on any persons, ensuring proper judicial procedures are applied;
(l) ensure Myanmar security forces protect all communities equally and uphold the law of the state;
(m) allow independent investigations into recent abuses, specifically in Rakhine state, for example the Du Chee Yar Tan incident in Maungdaw township in January 2014;
(n) support the citizenship rights of Rohingyas and reconciliation of local communities;
(o) ensure the rights of women by protecting a women’s right to choose whom they will marry without regard to religious faith, and permit persons the right to freely choose the size of their family;
(p) provide appropriate humanitarian assistance, including adequate shelter, and grant access by humanitarian organisations, to those affected by the unrest; and
(q) ensure quick return of the internally displaced peoples to their place of origin and assist in rebuilding their houses and properties.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Porter ) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Makin Electorate: Pooraka Primary School
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:30): On Saturday, 6 April, Pooraka Primary School celebrated its centenary with an open day at the school and many activities including memorabilia displays and a re-creation of the first flag-raising ceremony that took place when the school opened in 1914. The flag was raised by Heather Thornton, granddaughter of Kate Powell, who raised the flag in 1914. One hundred years later, the first building is still being used for classrooms and the original Union Jack flag has been safely preserved. The school was formerly known as the Abattoirs Primary School because it was built to service the rapidly growing community surrounding the state's new abattoirs that had opened in the area in 1913. In 1941 the school changed its name to Pooraka Primary School, although its close association with the abattoirs continued until the abattoirs closed about 20 years ago. Uniquely, each year in October the school had an extra public holiday to enable children to attend what was known as the 'butchers' picnic'. As a past student of the school myself, the 100th birthday celebration was an opportunity to reconnect with many of my old schoolmates and former Pooraka families whom I had not seen for decades.
For the best part of the 20th century, Pooraka was a relatively isolated community on the northern outskirts of Adelaide, identified almost solely because of its association with the abattoirs and the livestock industry. The importance of the meatworks to Pooraka's history cannot be overstated, with the abattoirs at its peak being the single largest government employer in South Australia. In 2007 Adelaide artist and writer Richard Maurovic, who was left a paraplegic from an accident he sustained while working as a stockman at the abattoirs, compiled an excellent book entitled The Meat Game about the meatworks and its history.
Pooraka's isolation made it a very close-knit community where families all new and supported each other. Through their collective efforts, many of the local community facilities, including the Scott Street hall, the scout hall and the football, cricket, netball and soccer facilities on what is now known as Lindblom Park were established. Joe Lindblom, whom the park was named in recognition of, was a student at Pooraka Primary School in 1937 and went on to become the first mayor of Salisbury. Joe was at the Centenary Day celebrations with his wife, Ethel. Although getting on in years and having moved out of the area some years ago, Joe and Ethel are still very much part of the Pooraka community. Today there is nothing left of the meatworks. However, the Pooraka Primary School is still there, serving the community and being the most notable connection with Pooraka's origins.
On a sad note, Maureen Looft, a local resident, who for decades devoted her life to the Pooraka community including the primary school, passed away through illness on 23 March aged 72. Maureen was an original member of the Pooraka Residents Association and in more recent years the local Neighbourhood Watch coordinator. To Maureen's husband, Hans, and their family, I extend my sincere condolences.
In closing, I congratulate Pooraka Primary School principal Jo Everett and her team for a job well done in organising the centenary celebrations, which brought together past and present students and teachers.
Mallee Electorate: Higher Education
Mr BROAD (Mallee) (10:33): I rise today to talk about something that is very important for the people in my electorate and more important for the long-term future of my electorate. In the electorate of Mallee we have completion rates for university studies of under 30 per cent, compared to, for example, the electorate of Higgins with 90 per cent completion rates. I think addressing this is going to be fundamental to our future. There is no doubt there is great potential for prosperity for our future and for lots of jobs, but we want these jobs to be more diversified across the economy. My fear is that if we do not address our university completion rates then some of our country towns will simply become providers of service industries for agriculture, retirement villages and tourist towns. We do have great agriculture, we are a great place to retire and we do have great tourism. However, what we want to see is some of those small to medium enterprises, manufacturing and high skilled jobs come back to and reside in rural Australia.
The government has expanded the Commonwealth funding system to students studying for higher education for diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees. This will greatly help colleges such as Longerenong, SuniTAFE and several others across the electorate. One of the things I also see that will complement getting country kids into higher education is better telecommunications. Being able to have high-end broadband means that the need to be settled in city areas is not as critical and you can settle in regional Australia.
We have seen that, if country kids go away to study and experience the world, they bring their skills back. It is a lot easier to attract country kids back to the country to put their roots down in their 30s and 40s than it is to keep those who have not had that exposure. I think this is why it is so important to invest in country kids. But it is not just a matter of what the university fees costs; it is also a matter of what it costs in order to get to the university. For example, for a single-income mum-and-dad family in my electorate earning $35,000, the cost of having their child, or two children, shift six hours away and having to pay living away from home costs and all those additional things are challenges for them. As a government we need to be cementing our ideas around how we make universities more accessible for country kids who have to travel a long way. This is something I am going to try to champion in the parliament. I want my electorate to know that increasing completion rates for country kids will be a focus for me as a member of parliament.
Budget
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (10:36): In almost 10 years in this place I have never seen the level of community sentiment and outrage that I have seen in response to this year's federal budget. Having the chance to be back in the beautiful electorate of Adelaide over the weekend between the two sitting weeks I saw people going out of their way to make sure that their concerns were heard and to plead with me to stand up against this budget and against the cuts that will have such a devastating impact on the lives of many low- and middle-income families in Adelaide. That is exactly what I intend to do.
I intend to make sure that the over 21,000 pensioners in the seat of Adelaide know that I will stand up against the changes to the pension that will impact on their cost-of-living expenses. I intend to stand up for all of those who were told that there would be no cuts to health and no cuts to education and are now seeing these critical and vicious cuts to both the health and education sectors. I will stand up for the over 5,200 families who were eligible for the school kids bonus, the 23,000 Adelaide residents who were eligible for the low-income super contribution, for the self-funded retirees and for those on Newstart. It is my pledge that I will represent them in this place.
This budget does not just confirm that many Adelaide residents believe they were lied to repeatedly in the lead-up to the election. People were telling me on the weekend that they believe that this is a budget that will change Australia and it will change the notion of the fair go. It will change looking out for one another. It will change many of the things that we hold dearest about our community and the Australian way of life.
I also need to point out that, in terms of the Adelaide electorate, there was funding in this budget for the local infrastructure upgrade of South Road. I know that the member for Hindmarsh has been out there. He has had posters up. He has had people along the side of the street. We are very glad that the residents of Adelaide won this ongoing battle, but the member for Hindmarsh is behaving like someone who stole your dog and is trying to claim the reward money when he brings it back. This project was funded under the previous Labor government. This project has been unnecessarily stalled for over eight months.
It is fantastic that this project will get back underway. It will get back underway only because the local residents stood so firm, only because the state Labor government stood up and made sure that this was a priority and only because we have been working tirelessly with our local community to make sure that funding was secured. So we welcome the funding for South Road, but say it is far too little far too late.
Swan Electorate: Baseball
Mr IRONS (Swan) (10:39): Mr Deputy Speaker, as a Western Australian you would know there are many exciting developments in the construction of sporting infrastructure in my electorate of Swan. We have a new stadium in Burswood and, potentially, the move of the West Coast Eagles to Lathlain—all but a done deal and one which I have spoken on many times in this place.
Today I am pleased to be able to inform the House of a further potential development in the region: a proposal for a redeveloped, international-standard WA state baseball park in the suburb of Thornlie, on the border between the electorate of Swan and the electorate of Hasluck. The proposal is being put forward by the Australian Baseball League in response to the recent growth in popularity of the sport both in terms of participation and spectatorship. There is certainly support for this sport in the southern part of my electorate, close to Thornlie, and this support is particularly obvious in the suburb of Langford where there are many baseball squares at the huge Langford sporting complex which are well used every week. The latest information, at the time I looked into it, was that there were eight diamonds there and they are well used each week; it is a very popular sport down in Langford. There is clearly also growing support for baseball in other areas of the electorate with areas at Belmont and South Perth dedicated to the sport. Parry Field was also the home of WA Baseball and the Perth Heat in my electorate of Swan for many years.
Part of the growth of the sport is likely due to the creation of the ABL and the recent success of the WA team competing in this competition. Overall participation is up 22 per cent since 2010, to over 2,300 registered members. The Perth Heat have won the title in three of the last four years and the total attendance at Perth Heat games held at WA state baseball park has more than doubled since 2010, now hosting approximately 6,000 fans per weekend. To put this in context, this is an attendance figure comparable to some of the games Perth Glory has played in the A league.
With the growth of baseball in WA into a genuine national sport, there is certainly a need to redevelop the facilities. On 7 February I attended a game between Perth and Canberra at the Barbagello Ballpark in Thornlie and the place was certainly packed to the rafters. Perth Heat won in the 16th innings; it was a close game and went for a long time. The proposal put forward by Baseball WA is a $20 million redevelopment to increase capacity and quality, address the lighting facilities and improve toilet facilities. Baseball WA is seeking contributions from the federal and state governments. If completed, the stadium would be Australia's premier baseball stadium, capable of hosting international events. This could be particularly lucrative to the local economy as it is an international sport and Australia did win the Asia Series last November, after entering the competition as an underdog.
I look forward to this proposal developing over the coming months and today offer my support for the redevelopment proposed by the Australian Baseball League. I may look to host an event in parliament in my capacity as chairman of the parliamentary friends of sport.
Corio Electorate: Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Mr MARLES (Corio) (10:42): I first acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the member for Herbert and hope that he behaves himself in such a way that he will not have himself removed from this chamber.
An honourable member: He just came in to say goodbye!
Mr MARLES: I would like to speak today about a meeting I have had with the Geelong Vietnam veterans association around the development of their memorial on the corner of Swinburne Street and the Princes Highway in North Geelong. This is a great project that seeks to build upon a monument which was first established in 1995. They will seek to reincorporate, or reinvigorate, the old shire of Corio gates into the beautifully designed memorial, complete with interpretive signs which they want to ensure have on them the name of every Australian who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam war. It would be an unusual monument within Australia, because not many monuments in Australia dedicated to the Vietnam war commemorate every one of those names. They are seeking funding from a range of places. It is a cause that I want to ascribe my name and I say to them: I will be doing everything I can to help them in raising the money to develop this memorial.
They have one concern which it is appropriate to raise in this place. On the other side of the Princes Highway, running from Swinburne Street to Mackey Street, is the Vietnam veterans' avenue of honour of Geelong. This is a really important strip, as are all avenues of honour around the country, but on this one the City of Greater Geelong have placed a large community billboard. It is simply not consistent with commemorating and honouring those who paid the ultimate sacrifice during the Vietnam War and, indeed, all of those who served. This billboard should be moved by the council now. It was simply a mistake to put it there and I am sure all good-minded people within the council would want to do that. Equally, there is another sign, a smaller one, which describes the Avenue of Honour and tacked onto that is another one which talks about the Maritime Museum, itself an important place. But it is not appropriate, again, to put that onto a sign which is honouring a very significant event.
Along the same road, the Princes Highway and Latrobe Terrace, there is the Korea War Memorial, one of the only war monuments to the Korean War in Australia. There is also the Boer War Monument. These need to be appropriately maintained because along this strip of the Princes Highway and Latrobe Terrace we now have a road through Geelong which honours all of these wars and can become a road of enormous significance.
Chicks in Pink Fun Run
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (10:45): Thirteen thousand Australian women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. On average, seven women die from breast cancer every single day in Australia. If these statistics do not change, this figure will rise to 47 women every day by 2020. The Mater hospitals in Brisbane treat more than 700 women every year who have breast cancer. To assist women diagnosed with breast cancer, the Mater Chicks in Pink was established in 2004. Rarely do women think that it could happen to them, but when it does Mater Chicks in Pink is there to help.
Mater Chicks in Pink provide tangible services for these women. This can include care packs or financial assistance, from parking vouchers to counselling and cleaning services. Mater Chicks in Pink provide specially fitted mastectomy bras to women who undergo the loss of one or both breasts. They also provide wigs for ladies who lose their hair through chemotherapy.
The Creative Arts Therapy and Creative Express programs provide women with a chance to celebrate their milestones, shared difficulties and past experiences and help each other move forward despite being at different stages of breast cancer treatment. There is also a special Mummy Memories and Me counselling group for those ladies with terminal breast cancer and young children.
But of course none of these wonderful services can be offered without the support of generous donations from the community. I was honoured to be a part of the RACQ International Women's Day Fun Run held earlier this year on 9 March, which raises funds for the Mater Foundation's Chicks in Pink program. It is celebrating its 23rd year and, indeed, I met a lady who had participated in every one of the events over those 23 years. The International Women's Day Fun Run is one of the largest fun runs of its kind in Australia.
This year was no different with more than 8,000 runners and walkers taking part. It is one of Brisbane's largest female-oriented fun runs and brings together women and girls of all ages, backgrounds and fitness levels. Congratulations to Saint Aidan's who raised the most money and had the largest number of participants of any school in the competition.
It was a great honour to be able to present some of the running awards at this year's fun run and I was even more pleased to hear that the team reached their fundraising goal of $150,000 for Chicks in Pink. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hardworking team at the Mater Foundation including CEO Nigel Harris, Fundraising Manager, Nadia Ridling, and Senior Manager Community Programs, Anthony Nowak. A big thankyou to Leah Costello from Chicks in Pink, who was the MC for the day, and her army of volunteers. I would also like to acknowledge the sponsors who supported the event. Once again, congratulations and well done to the Mater Foundation and Chicks in Pink.
Roberts, Mr Ken
Sewell, Ms Marlene
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:48): I rise to the pay tribute to two Western Sydney community stalwarts who recently and sadly left us. Firstly, there was Ken Roberts. Ken would be proudly described as a staunch Labor man, an outspoken advocate not just for his local area but also on the issues which he felt were important to the entire state and country. When he left us, he was 79.
Kenneth Claude Roberts had been a resident of Blacktown since the 1950s, having joined the ALP in 1954 just before turning 20. He served on Blacktown Municipal Council from 1968 to 1979 and then on the Blacktown City Council, as it would become, from 1979 until 1987. He served as deputy mayor from 1977 to 1978. In 1980 when Labor swept up 11 of the 15 council positions, Ken stood at the centre of that campaign. We hear at times the description of someone as being 'rusted on Labor', well, that was Ken.
He continued to play a humble background role in his beloved Labor Party well beyond his years on council. That is where I first met him, when I joined the party in 1989. He would staff polling booths and ensure attendance at branch meetings. One of my team noted last Friday in a conversation totally removed from this speech that Ken would always be a great mentor to younger party members and supporters at polling booths or branch meetings. I certainly would always stand perched higher on my toes whenever I would see Ken's arm rise indicating that he was getting ready for a question. He always knew how to frame his questions for full effect, and I always appreciated the good humour with which he delivered those questions but also his commitment that underpinned it.
He would see a lot of change in Blacktown across seven decades and we are a sadder place for his passing. My condolences go to his partner, Lucy, and his three children, Murray, Lindsay and Rachel, along with Pat, Brett, Jake, Liam and Billie.
On 29 April, soon after celebrating her 50th wedding anniversary to husband, Steven, community stalwart Marlene Sewell passed away after a short illness. She was a long-time resident of Eastern Creek. It was difficult to think of a cause that Marlene and her family were not involved in in our area. One of the big causes she was involved in was Mount Druitt Hospital, for which she raised many thousands of dollars. She passed away in the palliative care ward of the same hospital aged 68. My colleague in New South Wales parliament Richard Amery recently recalled in the condolence motion how Marlene was involved in every single community cause. In fact, there was not a cause she was not involved in. She had taken on to hand out petition forms or walk the streets on issues she was passionate about. She packed a lot into a life of 68 years. Our thoughts go out to Marlene's husband, Steve, and family, Darren, Louise, Wendy and Suzanne, along with Kristy, Juliah, Jack, Thomas, Alex, Max and Samuel. All the best to her family.
Environment
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) (10:51): Like any member in this House, our electorates are a hive of activity and good citizenship. Over the last four years as the member for Kooyong, I have had the opportunity to meet passionate and community minded individuals and this has been a highlight. From the sports to the arts, ethnic groups to the environment, each corner of our society and field of endeavour is represented in Kooyong in one way or another. An example of one such group is the Australian Youth Climate Coalition whose representatives, Max, Anna, Janelle and Declan came to see me recently. With 100,000 young members recruited from across the country, this organisation is committed to tackling climate change and promoting renewable energy. Their activities raise awareness among the broader community about the reality of this challenge. It may not surprise you that the government of which I am a part does not subscribe to the Australian Youth Climate Coalition's ambitious target of a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 and a transition to 100 per cent renewable energy within 10 years. Indeed, our government has been consistent in promoting our five per cent target, which is a bipartisan commitment, and it will be achieved with the assistance of our Direct Action Plan, which includes $2.5 billion for an emissions reduction fund.
In addition, we as a government are committed to a number of other important environmental initiatives, including the $525 million Green Army program, which will be Australia's largest ever group environmental action project, with 15,000 young Australians aged 17 to 24 working on environmental programs around the country. In Kooyong we will have a number of Green Army sites helping to clean up the Yarra River and nearby parks. We are also putting in place the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Plan, which will protect species like dugongs and turtles and will tackle important issues like crown of thorns starfish outbreaks. The Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, is also working on a number of other initiatives as part of a National Landcare Program which involves planting 20 million trees, Dandenong Ranges wildlife recovery and a dolphin and whale protection plan.
From the Antarctic to the Murray Darling, we are committed to better environmental outcomes. In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the many youth orientated organisations in my electorate, including the AYCC, and thank them for their passion and advocacy about the issues that are not just important to them but to our broader community.
Hunter Electorate: City of Maitland
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:54): It is becoming a bit exhausting, but I rise to highlight yet another broken promise by the Abbott government. I have just come from the chamber, where I spoke to a very good motion submitted by the member for Shortland, who is with us this morning, about the government's clear broken promise on Landcare funding—a $480 million cut to a group of volunteers. This one is not quite so transparent as that, nor the Prime Minister's election eve pledge not to cut health funding, not to cut education funding, not to cut pensions and, of course, not to raise any new taxes.
This broken promise is done more by omission, because in August last year I announced that Maitland City Council would receive some $186,340 to deal with antisocial behaviour both in the CBD of Maitland and around the Rutherford shopping centre. This was a well-considered, fully funded program recommended by the Attorney-General's Department—not just plucked out of the air by the then Labor government on the eve of an election but properly considered and recommended by the Attorney-General's Department and fully funded in the 2013-14 budget. How dare Justice Minister Keenan, having revoked the funding, so arrogantly tell the Maitland community that I had had six years to fund this program and if I were serious I would have done it then.
There are a couple of points. One is that this issue was not on the radar for six years. The antisocial behaviour has grown and Maitland council acted—I have not been able to check the records this morning but some time, I suspect, in 2013—by making an application to the then government, an application we duly considered and promptly responded to with more than $180,000.
How dare Minister Keenan so arrogantly respond to the real needs of the Maitland community with such a dismissive remark. I will tell the justice minister what he can do. He can apologise to the Maitland community. He can restore the funding to the Maitland community and, in doing so, address a very real concern, a very real problem, in the Maitland community—one that the Maitland council is trying so hard to address but which it needs support to address through the provision of CCTV cameras in the Maitland CBD, around the railway station and, as I said, in the shopping centre in Rutherford.
Rural and Regional Health Services
Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (10:57): I would like to congratulate the government on some great budget initiatives on GP training and incentives in my electorate of Hume. The then shadow minister for health, Peter Dutton, was in Hume in the lead-up to last year's election. I was able to show him the lack of resources to encourage more young doctors into rural training and into our regions, and the lack of incentives for them to commit to coming back. The GP shortage is a difficulty rural communities have been grappling with for decades and I know they will not mind me saying so, but the GPs we have in some of our local towns are not getting any younger.
This budget put in place some excellent initiatives for younger GPs to come to Hume. Personally, I am delighted there is now additional funding in the budget—$35.4 million—for the GP Rural Incentives Program. This will run for two years, including 2014-15. I will continue pushing for this commitment to be maintained. We also need to work on the classification system for GP incentives so it is not based on geographical distances but on need. Cowra continues to bear the brunt of this system.
The budget includes a great package of funding for rural GP training. Three hundred extra GPs will be trained in 2015 and at least 50 per cent of those will be in rural and regional areas. As training for these additional places is rolled out, it will be important to make sure the needs of rural communities are the focus and that the GPs who are involved are prepared to commit long term to rural areas.
There is $52½ million for the rural and regional GP teaching infrastructure grants. This program will kick off later in the year and is for local medical centres and GP practices to undertake capital works specifically to train younger GPS. In Cowra we have recently seen the huge benefits that a new medical centre brings to training opportunities. In communities like Young, Boorowa and Grenfell, capital improvements in medical centres and investment in those centres will be the key to encouraging younger GPs to the area.
The budget has committed funding for a minimum of 175 infrastructure grants, each capped at $300,000. Communities will have to match these funds to be eligible to apply, and more details will be coming as we move closer to launching the program. The federal budget is a shot in the arm for rural GP training. I am excited to see how these funding commitments will benefit Hume and I will be working closely with councils and local GPs to see some new medical centres built and some fresh young medical graduates boosting the local workforce. The government is to be congratulated for its commitment to rural GP training and incentives.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (11:01): At the request of the member for Grayndler, I move:
That order of the day No. 1, Private Members' Business, be postponed to the next sitting day.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (11:01): I stand here today confident that every single member of this House believes in the power of education and the important role it plays in the social fabric of our society and delivering opportunity for all. It is only through education that we can provide opportunity to our children and transform their lives for the better. In the words of distinguished American scientist and academic, George Washington Carver, 'Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom'. As legislators and representatives, it is our responsibility to create an education system that is designed not only for the benefit of students today but also for the students of tomorrow. It is for future generations that we must establish both a sustainable education system and one that delivers strong educational outcomes.
I confess that I am pretty shocked at the audacity of this bill from Bill. Its central claim is that schools funding is being cut from WA and the Northern Territory. The truth is somewhat different.
Ms Hall: I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: members must refer to other members by their title, not by their name.
Ms O'DWYER: The Leader of the Opposition. The truth is somewhat different. The federal coalition government has put an additional $1.2 billion of funding into schools in WA and the Northern Territory over the forward estimates—money that the previous Labor government refused to commit, despite agreeing to funding increases in the other states. This would have meant that WA and Northern Territory students would have missed out. We have restored the balance, taking our overall funding commitment to $64.5 billion in government and non-government schools over the next four years. This means that from 2013-14 to 2017-18 total Commonwealth funding to all schools in Australia, as outlined in the 2014-15 budget papers, will have increased by 37 per cent—a $4.6 billion increase.
But we would be making a grave and serious mistake if we believed, as some do, that the more money you spend, the better the educational outcome. The fact is that under the previous Labor government, despite massively increasing spending, according to the World Economic Forum, Australia's education standards have dropped significantly. According to the report: quality of primary education slipped from 12th in the world to 22nd, quality of maths and science education slipped from 24th in the world to 37th, availability of research and training services slipped from 16th in the world to 23rd, and overall quality of education system slipped from 8th in the world to 23rd. These statistics were reinforced by the world Programme for International Student Assessment—PISA—rankings, which showed a similar decline.
If Labor's approach of spending borrowed money did not lead to better results in the past, why does the Leader of the Opposition think that throwing even more borrowed money in the future will somehow break this trend?
Nobel prizewinner Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The truth is we all need to break the trend in declining outcomes by looking at all the factors that are contributing to this phenomenon and addressing those directly.
International comparisons are useful; take, for example, South Korea. South Korea is ranked second overall as the world's best performing educational system, yet the Korean government spends less per student than the OECD average. The Grattan Institute concluded that teacher training and teacher mentoring was critical to their success. This example demonstrates that it is not simply the quantum of funding that delivers the best outcome for students but the focus on how those resources are best channelled. Our approach to education has been to look at what is working around the world and put together a comprehensive plan to improve educational outcomes.
As part of the government's Students First policy the government is working with the states and territories to focus on four key areas which make a real difference to students: improving teacher quality; increasing school autonomy; engaging parents in education; and strengthening the curriculum. What we will not do is put huge sums of unfunded spending beyond the forward estimates in the knowledge that the promises made will never have to be delivered upon. That is an irresponsible path.
We will act as a responsible government focused on the students of today and tomorrow rather than political point-scoring. It would be good if the opposition would do the same.
Ms KATE ELLIS (Adelaide) (11:06): What an absolute load of nonsense we have just heard from the member for Higgins. What we have seen in the last five minutes is confirmation that all the statements the coalition made in the lead-up to the election about school funding and education were nothing more than a total con. It was a sham. They went out there across every electorate in the country telling the Australian public about the absolute unity ticket they were on with Labor when it came to school funding. What we can see in them opposing this bill is confirmation that it was nothing more than a cruel manipulation of the Australian public in the search for votes—votes which they have now taken for granted and thrown aside as if they never really meant a word they were saying.
Let us be very clear about what this bill, the Australian Education Amendment (School Funding Guarantee) Bill 2014, does: all that this bill is asking is that, if state and Territory governments are receiving funds from the Commonwealth for school funding, they in return make a very simple guarantee that they will not just cut their own school funding so that no school is better off at all. This is not unreasonable; it is not radical; it does not cost the Commonwealth government a single cent—yet we hear from the member for Higgins that it is too much to do, because what this government has actually set about doing is seeing that school funding does get cut. They are putting in place the biggest cut to school funding in this nation's history and, in addition to that, they are out there actively encouraging the states and territories to start cutting their school funding and cutting it immediately.
We see here why the Prime Minister who, before the election, was prepared to make a guarantee that no school would be worse off has now refused to repeat that guarantee in the parliament. He is now coming up with weasel words saying no school would be worse off as a result of the federal government's actions. Let us be very clear: the federal government is acting to oppose this bill and by doing so will make sure that every school in the country is worse off. What we can see is that it is just another broken promise—another guarantee that has been thrown aside.
There is something very critical to schools across Australia that this parliament needs to recognise. When the current government said that they would match Labor's school funding dollar for dollar, when they said they would honour the agreements that Labor had entered into, that meant that all those conditions that went with federal funding would be kept in place. That is not what this government has done at all. What this government has done is give a green light to every state and territory government to start cutting their school budgets. What this government has done is stand up here and brag about having no-strings-attached agreements even though there is no guarantee that schools will not get substantially less money because the Commonwealth is letting the state governments off the hook. We know that, now they have tossed the Gonski agreements out the door, states no longer have to match every additional $2 of Commonwealth funding with $1 of their own—leaving every school worse off. States no longer even have to guarantee they will not cut their own school budgets. In this budget we see that they have added insult to injury. In this year's budget $30 billion has been cut from Australian school funding—the biggest cut in this nation's history. Now we see why they have been bragging about their no-strings-attached proposal. They are actively encouraging and, indeed, in some cases forcing, state governments to start cutting funds to our schools right now.
Members opposite should be very clear what they would be voting for if they vote against this bill. They would be voting for teacher cuts, for programs to be shut down, for less literacy and numeracy support, for fewer choices when it comes to language, for less sport and for less music. They would be voting to see the decline in Australia's school systems. We as a parliament have a responsibility to make sure that every school across this country is a great school. We as a parliament have a responsibility to stand up for the word that was given to the Australian public that we would put in place a sector-blind, needs-based funding system.
We have seen in the last week the education minister talking about the emotional commitment that the government have to private schools that they just do not have for public schools. I say to those opposite: stand up for quality education no matter what school, no matter what area and no matter what state and territory. They can begin to do that by supporting this very simple piece of legislation. If they vote against this legislation, if this parliament does not support this, they are saying they support state governments cutting school funding and cutting school funding now. You can mark my words, we will remind the local residents at every school every time there is a cut to funding of how the coalition— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Broadband
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (11:11): I move:
(1) notes that the National Broadband Network project was badly mismanaged by the previous government, and has:
(a) caused a substantial amount of taxpayer funds to be wasted; and
(b) led to a minute proportion of Australians actually being connected to the network; and
(2) recognises the plans of the Government to change the strategy of NBN Co. Limited, delivering a high quality service in substantially less time and at substantially less cost than would have occurred under Labor; and
(3) commends the Government on its approach to this important infrastructure project.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the National Broadband Network. Rarely in our history has there been so sorry an example of public administration as the administration of the NBN under the previous government and rarely has there been such a clear contrast between the two approaches.
To start the NBN story we have to go back to 2007 when Kevin Rudd said that the then opposition would contribute $4.7 billion to what then was only going to be a $10 billion network. They then had a few chats with people in industry and decided that that was all a bit complicated. The then communications minister, Senator Conroy, in a couple of fleeting airborne meetings with the then Prime Minister, said, 'That idea we had before the election is not going to work, unfortunately, because the numbers do not stack up even remotely.' The then Prime Minister emerged in April 2009, mustering all the gravitas that he could, and said, 'With the private sector in retreat the government will step up and build the NBN at a cost of $43 billion.' He said the private sector would contribute up to 49 per cent of that cost.
Of course, that did not happen because this was such a flawed project from the outset. So much so that the independent report that the government commissioned late last year found that the cost to build the NBN would be about $73 billion. You have to pause for a moment and think about that. There are about nine million households in Australia, so $73 billion works out to be about $8,000 per household in Australia. Further, the report found that the average cost to the average home under that plan would be about $138 per month. You might recall Labor saying prior to the election that under Labor high-speed broadband would be free. Of course this is manifestly false because it failed to identify the fact that each household was effectively contributing about $8,000 in taxes to build it and then would be required to pay more than $100 per month in order to access it.
There were supposed to be half a million homes connected by June 2013. There are actually 23,000. The cost of the network prior to the election was $6.5 billion, reaching only three per cent of homes. That is a very bad investment. What that failure means is that people continue to struggle to get high-speed broadband in this country. Small businesses in Padstow in my electorate still struggle to get high-speed broadband, as indeed do many residents in Lugano. So for all the bluff and bluster, and the extraordinary commitment of public funds on a whim and the back of a napkin, the practical results are very poor.
We are going to focus on practical results. We are going to use technology in a multifaceted way. If technology is working effectively or it can be used, rather than ripping it up as the previous government was going to do, we will make use of that asset to build the NBN in a strategic way. We will save $29 billion, an extraordinary amount of money, and we will build it four years quicker than the previous government would have done. Any claims from those opposite in relation to the NBN have extremely limited credibility. When you take into account the extra cost blow-outs in the network and the fact that three per cent of homes were covered for $6.5 billion, it is an extraordinary use of public money. Interestingly, since the government of the day completed its deal with Telstra in relation to the NBN in 2011, the share price of Telstra has increased in a fairly dramatic fashion, which may suggest that the government did not negotiate the most sophisticated of deals with Telstra. That is another indictment of the extreme failure of public policy. This government's plan is on the right track and will get the NBN that Australia needs faster and more cheaply.
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (11:17): I have a strange sense of deja vu. It feels like we were here in the same place debating the same motion this time last week. But if the Liberal Party want to talk about their second-rate NBN, if they want another mauling from the Labor Party about what they are doing and the mistakes that they are making on the NBN, then we are very happy to oblige. That is because the people of Australia do not want a second-rate NBN, they want the real NBN. In the member for Banks' electorate that is what they are now not going to get. Hurstville, Peakhurst, Padstow or Lugano are places that would have got fibre to the home; now they are going to miss out. There are new developments in places like Hurstville, Riverwood and Kingsgrove that have got fibre to the home, but all around those areas are places where people live and need the real NBN and they are going to miss out. Don't worry, we will be very happy, come election day, to tell them all about it.
We will also tell them about the broken promises of this government. I have spoken before about the promise the Prime Minister made that by 2016 everyone would have access to 25 megabits per second. But just recently I came across this, which is Tony Abbott's letter to the Australian people published on election day on news.com.au at 9.11 pm. In that letter he talks about being a 'no surprises, no excuses' government. That is not worked out too well. He talks about being a government that says what it means and does what it says. That has not really happen. And then there is this beauty:
I want our NBN to be rolled out within three years and Malcolm Turnbull is the right person to make this happen.
Well, that did not last long. It did not last three years. It did not last three months. It was December last year when they broke that promise. But, interestingly, when I checked on the Liberal Party's website this morning and that promise is still on the Liberal Party website. This is just bizarre. They broke this promise six months ago but they are still promising 25 megabits per second by 2016. They are that proud of their broken promises they are publishing them on their website!
The minister, apart from promising 25 megabits per second by 2016, also promised that his negotiations with Telstra would be quick. How is that going? It is now nine months since the election this week and there is still no sign of an agreement, and here is the reason: the government wants to buy the copper and Telstra does not want to sell it. The head of Telstra recently said they want to keep ownership of the copper network. The chairman of NBN, Ziggy Switkowski, said earlier this year that he thinks ownership of the copper network should be transferred to them. That is despite the fact that advice to the minister when he came to office late last year said that the government purchasing the copper would be 'a very high risk approach' and that instead they should lease the copper or have a managed service. Whoever wins this fight, whether it is the government or whether it is Telstra, there is one group people who will lose out, and that is the Australian people because they will end up with an ageing copper network rather than fibre.
The NBN is still not being rolled out fast enough. I have been critical of our government for not rolling it out fast enough and I make the same criticism of this government. In October last year the minister was in Blacktown and he said that 450,000 premises would be passed by fibre by the end of this month, by the end of June, and he is not going to meet that target.
He also said a few things in parliament last week. He said that the government's second-rate NBN would be about $30 billion less expensive for taxpayers. That is not right, and I said last week the difference in the cost to taxpayers between their model and ours is less than $1 billion. The minister disputes this. Who is right? Respected journalist Renai LeMay looked at this issue last week, and what was his verdict? He said:
The evidence shows that Clare is correct …
So if the Liberal Party want to debate the NBN then we say: bring it on. You have broken promises that are still on your website. You have negotiations with Telstra that have not been quick. You have a fight between Telstra and the government on who owns the copper. Construction is still too slow and in places like the member's electorate of Banks, in places like Padstow and Peakhurst, they are going to miss out on the real NBN and get a second-rate NBN instead. So keep moving motions like this. Go right ahead.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (11:22): Today we just heard a startling admission in this chamber, and I am pleased to hear the member for Blaxland has finally admitted that he is critical of his own government for his own government's failure to roll out the NBN. What we have seen in the rollout of this infrastructure project is, frankly, an unmitigated disaster. So Clare is right on one issue: yes, it has been—
Mr Clare interjecting—
Ms HENDERSON: I am only repeating your own words, because you were speaking about yourself as 'Clare'. So I am just following your example. The member for Blaxland has highlighted that the previous government fundamentally failed to do what it said that it would do.
Since September 2013 the government has put this project back on track. Twice as many Australians are using the NBN today as on election day. In nine months the number of premises covered has increased 65 per cent, from 348,000 to 573,000 premises. Labor underestimated the number of Australians in regional and remote areas who want the NBN by a factor of two to three. What we are delivering is a plan to roll out the NBN to all Australians, and we are proudly doing so.
If you look at the way in which Labor rolled out the NBN in my electorate, it is an absolute disgrace. Areas of the greatest need were ignored altogether. The rollout map in Corangamite excluded all of southern Geelong. They were the areas that most needed the internet, and yet they were completely excluded. So we have seen from the very beginning, from the days when Kevin Rudd first promised the NBN back in 2007 for some $5 billion, a monumental disaster of delivery.
Our strategic review found that the true cost of Labor's NBN is $72.6 billion—$29 billion more than the public were told—and it would take until 2024. That is an absolute disgrace. Labor's NBN would lift broadband costs by up to 80 per cent—$43 per month for a typical household.
Not only have we seen an absolute failure with the rollout we have seen monumental disasters in relation to the various elements of the NBN. Consider the NBN interim satellite service. Labor promised some 250,000 households that they would receive satellite. In fact, just a small fraction of that received it. In my electorate and across many parts of rural and regional Australia there are literally thousands of people who cannot access the internet because Labor short-changed them on the interim satellite service. It was a total mismanagement of a vital service for rural and regional Australia. We see the same mismanagement in the fixed wireless system; Labor failed to acquire enough spectrum. Again it monumentally underestimated the demand and monumentally failed to deliver as it committed. Without the policy changes that we are making the NBN would be unable to service some 200,000 premises in these areas.
From my experience in a large regional area of Victoria I have seen time and time again that Labor does not care about rural and regional families. It does not care about mobile-phone black spots. It does not understand how important communications are to families living in the country. The fact that Labor did not spend one cent on mobile-phone black spots is an absolute disgrace. We have seen an unmitigated failure by Labor in the way in which it has prioritised communications infrastructure and a monumental failure in the way in which it has been costed. We have heard from the member for Blaxland. The fact of the matter is that these figures are from la-la land. I spoke last week about la-la land—you ruled that that was very much in order—because it is la-la land. This project was delivered irresponsibly and we are proud to be fixing it. (Time expired)
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (11:27): I am happy to have the opportunity in this place to debate broadband accessibility because the last time a coalition member moved a motion on the NBN the subsequent headline in Delimiter read: 'Liberal MP misleads Parliament with NBN motion'. We are going well. Today the member for Banks has come into this place, having had a swig of the Turnbull Kool-Aid, and moved a similarly ridiculous motion. Look at the words of the motion; they are mired in politics. The motion ignores the benefits of having an equitable, accessible and ubiquitous broadband network, which is what Labor's NBN is. Those opposite do not care about affording all Australians, both in the cities and in the bush, the opportunities that come about through a high-speed broadband network.
One of the biggest betrayals we have seen in this place in recent years was the absolute capitulation by the Nationals on the issue of wholesale pricing equivalence. The tories, those who represent regional areas as well, get up in this place and talk about abandoning the bush. They have abandoned the bush. They are not standing up for wholesale pricing equivalence, which is what has driven the digital divide in this country. I note that there are no Nationals MPs speaking on this debate. Where are they? They sold out their members; they sold out their constituencies when Telstra was sold; and they keep selling them out on the issue of wholesale pricing equivalence.
I note the member for Grey is listed to speak on this motion; I thought he would be in the chamber by now. I look forward to his contribution, because he has some beauties. He issued a media release on 14 February 2012 that said:
While the Government is talking up the new satellite service for rural and regional Australians, which will increase download speeds, there are real issues with latency—
when it comes to the satellite service. In April 2014 he issued another media release that said:
Good reliable internet is an expectation and people in the regional Australia need broadband as much as those in the city and as much as I welcome this upgrading of the interim service, I am really looking forward to the second half of next year when the dedicated NBN satellites come on stream.
On the one hand, he is criticising satellite services in the bush and, on the other one, he is welcoming them. No wonder his constituents are confused. Labor's NBN was supposed to end the disparity between metro and bush prices. The Nationals and regional Tories have completely sold out their constituents on this issue. As we move to the substance of this utterly contemptible and misleading motion, it should be pointed out that, in this brave new world of copper technology, the government's fibre-to-the-node trials have been delayed. As ZD Net's Josh Taylor wrote on 30 May:
NBN Co was due to commence live trials of fibre-to-the-node technology in Umina in New South Wales, and Epping in Victoria at the start of May, however neither trial has yet commenced.
Why the delay? According to NBN Co's chief operations officer, who is quoted in the same article:
The Epping trial in Victoria has slowed down a bit, while we work with the utility there to find a power solution. We're working through that.
This is what he said at an estimates hearing—a 'power solution'. This is one of the issues that I, and we on this side, have been warning about. It is one of the issues that for many years to come, when it comes to the FTTN, will confront this government as it continues with its hotchpotch approach of the MTM, or Malcom Turnbull's mess. As I wrote last year in Business Spectator:
… indeed, Mr Turnbull can have his tiny cabinets as he asserts—
for the FTTN—
so long as they don't need batteries, are not subject to flooding rain, and appropriate line lengths are available for each. And with 60,000 of them, don't forget to add the O&M—
operation and maintenance—
costs onto each of them as well.
Certainly, this is what the shadow minister has alluded to. These are all the issues that are differentiated from a true fibre-to-the-premises build. It will dog this government and the minister for years to come.
And, on the issue of delays, as the Australian Financial Review noted last week: 'Telstra-NBN Co deal tipped to miss deadline.' But the minister said it would be so easy, so quick. He is the magic man. He can strike a deal with Telstra quicker than anyone else. We all know now that the current estimate is that the negotiations to reacquire Telstra's copper could be delayed by up to six months.
I note that this motion also points to cost, just as the member for Gilmore's motion did last week—and we know what happened there. We saw the headline. The member for Banks, in his motion, specifically does not mention figures. I believe this probably indicates he does not stand by the previous comments from Minister Turnbull and the member for Gilmore. At a time when the member for Banks should be thinking about delivering broadband to his constituents he was out there, before the budget was even announced, apologising for the budget. People do not want your pity; they want the NBN. (Time expired)
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (11:32): The previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments left behind an absolute fiscal shambles. Indeed, we can all agree that they had the Midas touch in reverse when it came to delivering on projects, from the pink batts tragedy, which not only cost lives but cost more to remove than install, to overpriced school halls or, in Mt. Crosby's case in my electorate, an undersized concrete slab with only two walls, to the financial fiasco of them all—NBN Co.
When the coalition came to office, Labor could no longer hide the disaster that was their NBN Co. We learned that Labor's own financial advisers warned that the NBN project had a negative net present value of around $30 billion. The project was forecast to lose money for taxpayers from day one. Yet, despite these warnings, Labor always refused to refer their multibillion dollar fiasco to the Productivity Commission for proper analysis, which could have delivered a more cost-effective outcome and saved taxpayers billions of dollars. To have proceeded with the NBN, regardless, is a level of fiscal recklessness we have not seen before in Australia.
The NBN Co carried out its Strategic Review from October to December last year to objectively estimate the true cost of, and timetable for, completing Labor's fibre-to-the-premises NBN and alternative layout options. The review found that, if Labor's NBN proceeded, it would cost $72.6 billion—yet another $29 billion more than the public were told—and would take until 2024, after originally promising completion by 2016
On taking office, the coalition government was duty bound to revise the NBN rollout maps. Labor's maps were simply wrong. It was revealed that Labor's definition of 'construction commenced' was directly at odds with most people's understanding of what those words meant. In fact, no on-site construction of any kind needed to have occurred for this definition to apply. Now most people do not consider 'construction commenced' on, say, a house or office building, where the only action to occur is for instructions to an architect to draw up the plans. This misleading rhetoric is not used or accepted by any construction companies around the world—but then again NBN Co did live in a world of its own.
The coalition believes in being open and honest with Australians about the true state of the NBN rollout. For example, we believe that if you live in regional Queensland, we should not tell you that construction has commenced in your street, when in actual fact, all that has happened is that a network planner has drawn up a map while sitting in an office in Sydney. Labor's NBN was going to cost a fortune for everyday families, lifting broadband costs by up to 80 per cent or an additional $43 per month. Labor went to the 2013 election promising 1.13 million premises would get fibre connections by 30 June 2014—yes, this month. But NBN Co had informed the then Labor government that the fibre would be revised downwards by 500,000 premises, a fact the Labor government failed to tell the public prior to the election. In July 2013, Labor told 250,000 households and businesses they were eligible for the Interim Satellite Service, yet by December 2013 the 1SS reached its capacity of only 48,000 customers and registration closed. Labor spent $351 million on the 1SS— $7300 per user—yet it only delivers a dial-up service to many users. In April the coalition government moved to fix Labor's mistakes by committing $34 million to improve the 1SS and improve service quality for existing users and proceed with new connections.
The coalition government is spelling out the facts about NBN Co's performance, instead of misleading the Australian people. The coalition is committed to rolling out the National Broadband Network as quickly as possible, at less cost to taxpayers and more affordably for consumers. Since September 2013 the coalition government has put the project back on track and now twice as many Australians are using the NBN from when we took over. In nine months the number of premises covered has increased by 65 per cent from 348,000 to 573,000. The coalition government has a plan to ensure all parts of the nation are properly serviced. The coalition government has approved NBN Co's recommendation that the rollout proceed using a multi-technology mix that matches the right technology to the right locations and leverages existing infrastructure where appropriate. This approach will save taxpayers $31 billion, get the NBN finished four years sooner and enable nine out of ten Australians in the fixed-line footprint to get download speeds of 50 megabits per second or more by as soon as 2019. The most reprehensible part of this is that the residents of Brisbane City Council could have had fibre to the premises—(Time expired)
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:37): The 'fraud band tour de farce' has rolled back into town. Last week regional members were kicking it along and this week we have the member for Banks at the wheel. I would have said they had 'rolled it out' but they have not been able to demonstrate as a government their capacity to roll anything out and so it seems quite wrong to use that phrase in relation to anything they do. What they are rolling out is the same old untruths and falsehoods. The government rest on three claims: that they would do things differently; they would do it in less time; and they would do it at less cost. On all three claims, they are wrong.
The reason I say that their claim to be doing things differently is wrong is that they are not doing anything differently to what they have done previously—that is, relying on copper. Every time they have relied on copper they have failed. They failed 20 times before and we are getting ready for failure 21. They went to the election with their claim about taking less time. They said there would be two versions—our version would be delivered by 2021, theirs by 2019 or two years' difference. When it came to targets, we said 93 per cent of premises would be connected by fibre to the premises; they said 30 per cent of that 93 per cent would be connected by HFC. Anyone who has used HFC knows that the best thing about it is the day when they do not use it. Those opposite also said that 44 per cent will get it via the node and 26 per cent will get it fibre to the premises.
Copper is their crutch. They are already found wanting. Ziggy Switkowski, the chairperson, is saying that they will have to upgrade copper, but what we are hearing from those opposite is slower speeds delivered a year quicker, $1 billion cheaper and with less bang for the buck. They claim that it would cost $73 billion, but all they have done is inflate the cost number by changing the assumptions—a tactic that they always use. For example, they say that it is going to cost residents and households more, and the member for Ryan just carried on with that canard. The current NBN retail prices are comparable to other forms of broadband and NBN Co. has locked in the prices to mirror inflation. What was not mentioned by those opposite is that the people in the regional areas under their model will pay way more than the urban area because of the changes the coalition has made.
The other claim is that residents do not want one gigabit per second and that there is no other network. This is what the minister has claimed: no other network in the world has been made at that speed. That is actually wrong. The shadow minister and I visited a network that is being developed for one gigabit per second. It is being developed by Google in various parts of the United States, where people are seeing transformations in regional areas because of the fact that they have a strong broadband network.
I took a tour through the member for Bank's electorate to get a sense of broadband quality in his area via www.mybroadband.communications.gov.au. When it rates the accessibility and quality of broadband in his area, I do not think there is a lot to be proud of. If he were fair dinkum, he would be championing his people's interests, not trying to get brownie points from an out-of-touch PM in the way that he has. If you look at 12 suburbs in his electorate, while some of them may have great ADSL access, a lot of them, apart from two places, have terrible speeds. In fact, some of the worst places, like Padstow Heights, get three megabits per second, and yet all he is championing today is slowing down the ability to help those suburbs.
One Padstow person quizzed Malcolm Campbell on Twitter and abused him. In fact, he said, 'Is it fair that the city gets higher speeds than the bush?' It is interesting because the response from Padstow residents was that FTTP is not just about speed; it is also about reliability. Every time it rains, you lose both phone and internet in Padstow. This is what the member for Banks is championing. When people were giving him chip back, the Minister for Communications chipped them via Twitter by saying, 'You don't care what it costs, do you? You want it and you want everyone else to pay for it. It seems pretty selfish to me.' I wonder if he is using that argument about PPL in the cabinet room. At any rate, people in the area of the member for Banks, like, for example, real estate agents in Oatley, are talking about whether the access is good enough in prospective homes. People in the area of the member for Banks indicate they want a better NBN, not a nastier, slower, dud of an NBN; they want broadband; they do not want 'fraud-band'.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey) (11:42): The NBN has been a rolled gold disaster. It promised the earth, but in fact it delivered about a truckload of gravel. We have got a long way to go at this stage. There is the hype that has gone around the NBN. Towns like Port Augusta in my electorate have been totally misled. In fact, fibre to the node was supposed to be finished about now. By the time the election came, the headline contractor in South Australia had withdrawn from the contract to deliver on the ground. Barely two streets had been covered in Port Augusta. When the contract was in such disarray, the objectives that were placed on the NBN board were totally beyond reach. We are now picking up the pieces and putting back on track, if you like, the NBN rollout. The member for Greenway says that I do not stick up for my electorate. She may not have listened to what I have had to say on this and a number of other issues. What I will not do is mislead the people in my electorate into thinking that things are on track and completed before they have any chance of being in that boat.
I am also responsible in my electorate for about 80 per cent of the state which will never be covered by fibre to the premise, fibre to the node or, indeed, fixed wireless networks. That is what I shall call for the purposes of this debate 'the satellite community'. One of the things I have always said about Senator Conroy's NBN is that he got it right when it came to the commissioning, building and launching of two custom-built satellites to service that satellite community at a cost of a billion dollars. I thought that was good policy, and I think it will serve Australia well in the future, even though there are likely to be some teething difficulties.
The problem was, of course, with the interim service. Here, Senator Conroy propagated a disaster at every level. Initially, he said that 250,000 Australians will be able to hook on to the interim satellite service. In fact, he only leased enough space for 48,000. Then, even worse, the NBN of the time did not limit the size of the data packages. In fact, it did not even reach 48,000 before the system slowed to a crawl.
The member for Chifley accuses us of spreading mistruths about their particular NBN. Perhaps he might take an opportunity at another time to enlighten me about where I have been wrong about this interim satellite service. The previous minister said 250,000 people could be serviced. He booked enough space for 48,000 and it crashed at 44,000.
Since that time we have been picking up the pieces. Minister Turnbull has leased another 9,000 places at a cost of $34 million. I might point out that Senator Conroy's original investment was $351 million for the interim service, which ultimately crashed at 44,000. Minister Turnbull, as I have said, invested $34 million in another 9,000 places, and a further $18.4 million to fix the 44,000 that are already operating at sub-standard speeds—in fact, the slowest dial-up in some cases.
I had constituents, who were originally quite excited at the interim satellite, contact me in my office. We were advising others, 'Hook onto it; the government has said it will work.' But we had no idea that within 18 months or two years those same people would be ringing back and abusing my office for directing them to the interim satellite service. Not only did the previous government allow over sized data packages to be sold but they did not actually ask people whether they were able to receive a service in another manner when they allowed them to sign on to the interim service. A lot of this was the result of a minister who had a crash-through-or-crash approach. I think in the end it will be viewed that he crashed.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (11:47): I rise to speak against the motion, because the motion is totally bogus. It does not go to the real infrastructure crisis that we have in telecommunications, particularly in regional Australia and central Victoria. Before Minister Malcolm Turnbull took the reins and became the Minister for Communication, there was a plan. There was a roll-out plan for central Victoria, and we were progressing through that plan. That plan has stalled. When did it stall? It stalled at the time of roll-out to my electorate.
In Bendigo in central Victoria, we are in the midst of a telecommunications crisis, because we have a problem with telecommunications infrastructure. Prior to this government coming to power, we had a plan. Right now, if Labor was still in government, fibre to the premises would be rolled out. The contracts were set to be signed but Bendigo has missed out. And we are falling behind the rest of Australia and the rest of regional Victoria—places like Ballarat, Geelong and Shepparton—because they are getting the roll-out.
When it comes to the NBN we have had a number of smaller areas switched on to the fixed wireless. We have had a number of farming communities switch on to the satellite. But what we still do not have, to this day, is a plan for the rest. We do not have, today, a plan for Bendigo. We do not have today a plan for Woodend, Kyneton, Castlemaine—the major population centres. It puts those areas further behind the digital divide.
The reason why this motion is bogus is that it is a smokescreen for what is actually going on in the bush and in the country. Nowhere in the government's plan have they talked about the wholesale price. Under the former plan, the NBN was going to fix the divide between city and country and ensure equity. Yes, it is more expensive to deliver services to the country, that is why Labor, which is the only party that truly stands up for country areas and regional areas, said there would be a single wholesale price. So regardless of where you lived, it was to be the same wholesale price. You cannot leave it to the market when it comes to the country. It is simply more expensive because there are further distances. Labor gets that and it had a plan around the wholesale price.
Yet today, while we stand here debating this ridiculous motion, there is no comment from the government about the wholesale price when it comes to regional areas. There is no plan from this government about what they are going to do in Bendigo. We knew prior to the election that the rollout would be happening right now through the main streets of Bendigo and into our main towns. We knew that was the plan, but today we are still waiting. And as we speak there are people from iLoddon Mallee coming to this House, meeting with the minister to say: 'What are we going to get? We do not know what we're going to get and we don't know when we're going to get it. Are we going to get fibre to the node?' Again, another disaster for regional Victoria because we are further distances from the node, so we have to pay more.
What the coalition in government have is half a plan. They have a 'We'll build it to the corner—maybe' plan. They have a, 'We'll let you go through the coaxial cables, through the pay network maybe' plan. They have a, 'We may go to the basement' plan, which does not work in a town where we do not have high-rises. They have a, 'We may go to your estate' plan. Bendigo is on hold and our economic future is on hold until we get a plan, and that is why it is so important that the minister actually comes out and outlines his plan for Bendigo and central Victoria. At the moment the few homes that have been able to connect to the NBN, they are embracing it and are excited. These are the homes in our small towns like Tarnagulla, these are the homes that are in the outlying areas of Malmsbury, these are the homes where they are excited and they are clicking onto the NBN because for the first time they have decent internet access.
Yet in our other areas, whether you be in Bendigo Central or in towns like Woodend, they are falling behind. Every time it rains the copper network in our area fails and people ring up my office. So today my office in Bendigo, because we had rain over the weekend, will have more complaints about the failing copper network. And that is the fundamental flaw with the government's plan and why they have not released it—that is, it relies on a failing copper network. If we are serious about connecting to the world and serious about connecting to the regions, then we need the NBN and not more smokescreens like this ridiculous motion.
Mr IRONS (Swan) (11:52): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Banks. It is great to see so many people here still and to hear those who have spoken passionately about this issue. They have their views, and then there are the facts, so I will try to enlighten the members who are still here about the particular issues faced in my electorate of Swan.
The member moving the motion talks about problems with the NBN around the country, but I would put forward today the proposition that nowhere—nowhere—has the rollout been so shambolic, so mismanaged by Labor, so disappointing as in my home state of Western Australia. The reason I am talking on this, and have spoken previously in parliament about this issue many times, is the fact that in my electorate of Swan the previous Labor government decided to promise at the 2010 election to roll out the NBN and to start that in June 2011. They did not get around to starting it until about October 2012, as two years later there were no ready-for-service premises in these areas.
There were, however, dozens of newspaper articles, press releases and media appearances by the Labor Party, and I have some of them here showing the Labor Party at all of their ceremonies. There were maps, there were button-pushing ceremonies announcing the NBN was here and was available; in my electorate of Swan the Labor Party even promoted a forum on Labor's NBN on the basis that it was 'delivering fast, affordable and reliable broadband free of charge'. The problem was that on election day 2013 there were only 34 premises in the whole of Perth connected. How good was that? What a rollout! For all the button-pushing events, all the announcements that it was turned on, all the press releases, all the photos with councillors behinds trucks, all the wearing of hard hats and hi-vis vests—and there were only 34 connected in the whole of Perth. It was a shocking record and exposed the true state of the NBN in Western Australia under the Labor government—an absolute shambles.
The shambles was exposed in many areas but was perhaps summed up by the fact that the lead contractor in Western Australia, Syntheo, which had struggled to deliver anything much, announced that it would pull out of state and no longer continue with the project in WA. In August 2013 it was announced that the Syntheo joint venture and NBN Co had decided not to renew contracts in Western Australia in South Australia—I see the member for Grey here and he knows about this—after their expiration in September 2013 and November 2013. On August 13, 2013, The Australian featured an article, entitled 'The never-ending NBN rollout', which detailed how:
… days after Syntheo said it was walking away from the NBN … as many as seven subcontracting companies in SA also had pulled out of the project, complaining they were owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid fees.
Difficulties with Syntheo and delays in progress as a result were not a new problem for NBN Co. The article pointed out that in March 2013 the company had admitted:
… labour problems in the Northern Territory and a lack of specialist fibre-splicers had hit the rollout with a three-month delay.
Those problems got so bad the NBN Co had to revoke Syntheo's contract to build the fibre network in the Territory.
But if you listen to those on the other side, this is an excellent rollout. They are saying what a fantastic rollout it is.
In his motion that we are debating, the member says that the NBN was badly mismanaged by the previous government. The minister has said on many occasions that the lack of any rigorous study or cost-benefit analysis was detrimental to the project. I think this mismanagement and lack of planning and analysis came together in Teague Street in my electorate of Swan, one of the areas where construction did actually start in Western Australia. There were two issues in Teague Street that I was contacted about by my constituents. They initially contacted my office about the damage being done to streetscapes. One constituent kept count of the number of times the street had been dug up and reconcreted—again and again and again.
More worrying was the incident involving asbestos at the site. I spoke about this during the last parliament and I will not repeat it in full today as members can refer to that speech and I am sure they will be rushing out to do that. But I will repeat that the highest priority must be the safety of the workers and the communities where this work is taking place. It sounds a bit like the pink batts incident, doesn't it? We can have all the rhetoric about who is right and who is wrong but, at the end of the day, major infrastructure projects must protect the workers and the people in the communities who could be affected by such things as asbestos fibres.
In conclusion, I support the motion moved by the member for Banks. I am confident that the minister will be able to turn this sorry debacle around and ensure fast broadband is delivered to Western Australia and my electorate of Swan.
Debate adjourned.
Palliative Care
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (11:58): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that National Palliative Care Week is being held between 25 May and 31 May, with this year’s theme being Palliative care everyone’s business: let’s work together;
(2) recognises that with an ageing population in Australia the demand on palliative care services will increase, while also noting that palliative care is required by people of all ages;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) that providing high quality palliative care in a range of settings including in the home is critical to ensuring that patients and their carers have their wishes respected; and
(b) the important role of the health workforce, trained volunteers and all those who are involved in delivering quality palliative care; and
(4) calls on the Government to:
(a) increase community awareness and understanding about palliative care and the importance of advance care planning; and
(b) ensure adequate funding for palliative care services through both commonwealth and state and territory agreements, as well as through the National Palliative Care Program.
This motion is very important and I am pleased to have this opportunity today to talk about palliative care and its critical importance to Australia. The first point of the motion notes that last week was National Palliative Care Week. I joined with a lot of colleagues, including the member for Forrest, in a wonderful event held in the Great Hall of Parliament House. We had some really wonderful speakers shining a light on the importance of palliative care. The theme for the week was that palliative care should be everyone's business. That is an important element and it is the reason I rise to speak about this today.
The second point of the motion recognises that more Australians are going to need access to high-quality palliative care services because our nation is growing older and living longer. We want to be able to die with dignity and to choose where we spend the final weeks of our lives. There are many people who want to die in their own home and this motion acknowledges their desire. Worryingly, research by Palliative Care Australia found that only one in 20 Australians has an advanced care plan that outlines their end-of-life wishes. As I outlined in the five points of this motion, the government needs to do more to raise awareness about the importance of advanced care planning. National Palliative Care Week was also a good opportunity to celebrate the fantastic work of those who provide palliative care—the GPs, nurses, allied health professionals and trained volunteers. They are all doing a tremendous job and we should recognise this fact.
As our population ages, the demand for palliative care will increase and the pressure on these front-line services to deliver good, high-quality palliative care will be immense. We need to make sure that we are listening to those around the world who are putting this at the forefront. On 21 May the World Health Assembly adopted its first ever palliative care resolution on the integration of hospice and palliative care into national health services. This requires that we ensure that palliative care is included in national health policies. It is vitally important that palliative care is not seen as just an add-on but as an integral part of our healthcare system. The resolution also calls for palliative care to be part of the curricula for all health professionals. Health professionals play a key part in delivering dignified end-of-life care and that was one thing that came through very clearly at the breakfast: when a health professional has a deep understanding of what high-quality palliative care is about the families, and indeed the individual needing palliative care, had a much better experience. Ensuring that it is known not just to a select group of health professionals who understand this area—that it is wide-ranging—is really important.
We need to prepare the whole health workforce for delivering palliative care to ensure that Australians are given a high-quality end-of-life service. Palliative care is often focused on older Australians and, while that is where the great demand is, I do not think we can forget that palliative care is also needed by young people. We heard, at the breakfast, a brave mother who stood up and talked about her young boy who had needed palliative care for 17 years. That is really important, and it is also recognised in the motion. We need our government to invest to ensure that each and every health professional receives palliative care training.
The resolution also highlights the issue of access to essential medicines, particularly strong pain medications. Earlier this year the Worldwide Palliative Care Alliance, with the World Health Organisation, published the First Global Atlas of Palliative Care at the End of Life. The report found that 80 per cent of countries globally have low, or very restricted, access to strong pain medications—which means millions of people are dying in pain or distress. This issue is particularly prevalent in rural and regional Australia where a lot of care is delivered by doctors who may not have the necessary experience. We need to support our doctors in rural and regional areas, as well as our nurses and other health professionals. This motion is a really important contribution. I commend the motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:03): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms MARINO (Forrest—Government Whip) (12:03): I can reassure the member for Kingston, who moved this motion, that palliative care is an important part of the government's healthcare agenda. I am sure that she and other members would be particularly pleased to see the $52 million that the government announced during National Palliative Care Week to improve palliative care services and training. While I am here I want to acknowledge the work of the board and CEO of Palliative Care Australia and congratulate them on the work they do, particularly in raising the awareness of palliative care, as we saw, through National Palliative Care Week.
The slogan—and it is not just a slogan—is: 'Palliative care is everyone's business: let's work together.' I would like to mention in my contribution today two people who have had firsthand experience in recent times, two people that I was very close to, who are no longer with us but who lived a great quality of life due to the care they received from palliative care professionals—Kaye Sales, a lady in my electorate who was the face of palliative care launched last week in the wonderful video, and Gail Catalano. They were two people who were very close to me. I had the fortunate experience to be with them in their last days and they were very grateful recipients of a life that was assisted by palliative care.
The 25 per cent increase into palliative care services and training will help to improve and support education and training opportunities in palliative care for health professionals and promote the importance of advanced care planning. I have spoken about this previously in this place. It is very important that we all have an advanced care plan so that our wishes and our values and our choices are respected. We know that less than one per cent of Australians over 70 actually have an advanced care plan directive in place. It lets our loved ones and our doctors and health professionals know about the level of care and quality of life that we would like to have if we are no longer able to make those decisions on our own. It is a conversation that we need to have with our families, and it is very difficult.
One of the speakers on the day at the launch of National Palliative Care Week was Dr Sarah Winch. She said:
Dying shouldn't be left to chance. Sometimes after a catastrophic diagnosis that leaves you feeling flattened and powerless—you can assume control. When we feel like all hope is gone a new hope emerges; a 'good' death according to our wishes and beliefs.
She went on:
Each and every Australian needs a plan to die—a plan that sets out what you want and guides your loved ones and health care professionals.
The things that she recommended that we think about were: what life means to me; what a good death is; a 'bucket list' of things that you want to do and things that you never want to do again; how to build a support crew; how to write down a care wish list; where you would like to be; the legalities; the cultural and religious requirements to communicate; going to what you want and how to get it to help you resolve your care and treatment issues. She said, very rightly, that facing death is never easy, but that we have world class health and palliative care services available in Australia and bringing them together is important. She said:
The most powerful thing we can do is make a clear plan that simply states our wishes to enable those caring for us to follow them through when the time comes.
I did have those very clear indications particularly from the lady who was my cousin, Gail Catalano. She left us in no doubt as to what she wanted in those last days. One of the most important things, as her very close relative helping to make those things happen, was knowing what she wanted, how she wanted it and making sure that she got her wishes so that she was left able to live in the way that she wanted to until she died. That was the greatest gift, along with the gift we had of sharing those final days and weeks and months and being able to make sure that she had the things that made her happy right up until the end.
We will make sure that general practitioners, medical specialists and allied health professionals and nurses who give their time—and they are such wonderful people; I cannot speak highly enough of those—and provide the palliative care and really do care about the people they manage at this time are acknowledged.
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (12:08): I would like to congratulate the member for Kingston for bringing this very important motion to the parliament and acknowledge that last week was Palliative Care Week and that the theme was: 'Palliative care is everyone's business: let's work together'.
The Shortland electorate is an older electorate, one of the oldest electorates in the country, and the need for palliative care services is great. In saying that, I do not wish to leave out those young people who also need palliative care. In the Hunter we have had a very special program that was built with the assistance of so many parents who had lost their children. There is a very good palliative care program there where support is offered to parents and families who are facing the loss of a child, which is exceptionally hard. As I mentioned, palliative care is imperative for people in the last days of their life. Only one in 20 people have an advanced care plan. I will be encouraging people in my electorate to prepare such a plan.
Palliative Care Week celebrated the work of people who work in palliative care and the quality care that these people provide to people who have a limited life, their families and their carers. I have been able to see this happen on the ground in my electorate. I have seen the role that nurses, GPs, specialists, allied health professionals, volunteers and family carers play.
Last year, unfortunately, I lost a very dear friend—the former member for Swansea, John Bowman. He was diagnosed with gallbladder cancer. He used palliative care services. Initially he had someone from the palliative care team visit and support him in his home but at the very end he went to the hospice at the Mater hospital in Newcastle. I must put on record the fantastic work that the Mater hospital does and the fantastic work that the palliative care team in the Hunter does. He was provided all the support anyone could wish for over the last days of his life. He was able to plan how he wished his last days to be spent. This was because we have such a strong palliative care team in the Hunter.
I would like to put on the record my support for Marion McAndrew OAM, who was instrumental in setting up the palliative care team that works out of the Mater in the Hunter. She is very dedicated to making sure the end of life treatment and support of the person is exactly how it should be.
Another close friend, Tony Dybell, had it a little differently to my good friend Don. His wife, Vera, had ovarian cancer. She stayed at home until the last moment with the support of the palliative care team. She was able to die in her own bed in the arms of her own family. This is what palliative care delivers to people.
There are unsung heroes who support Australians through the end stage of their life. There is one certainty in life and that is that eventually everybody will die. For those people who know in advance that they have a limited life, it is very important that they put in place a plan and that they work towards ensuring that the end of their life is a fantastic experience and one that carers, friends and families can share with them rather than it being an alienating process. I congratulate everybody involved with palliative care within the community.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson) (12:13): I am pleased to support this motion by the member for Kingston. Palliative care is the area of health care that is possibly the least discussed and least recognised and yet the one that has the most impact on families at a very stressful and emotional time. National Palliative Care Week, which finished on Saturday, was an opportunity to talk about the role of palliative care and the incredible job that those who work in palliative care do. The theme of this week was: let's work together. It is great that we can come together in this place from across the political spectrum to agree on the need for more public awareness of palliative care.
We have had a lot of debate and discussion recently about the need to address the challenges that come with an ageing population. The fact is that between 2010 and 2050 the number of people aged 65 to 84 will more than double, and the number of those aged 85 will more than quadruple. It stands to reason that the need for palliative care services will also increase in the coming decades.
I particularly want to recognise, as part (3)(b) of this motion does, those dedicated healthcare workers and volunteers who choose to work in palliative care. Just about every other aspect of health care is aimed at recovery and helping an individual to get well. An intrinsic satisfaction of the job must be seeing and assisting in that recovery process. Palliative care workers do not have the satisfaction of that recovery process, but they do have a vitally important job in relieving suffering, in helping individuals and their families to deal with their circumstances and start the journey through grief, and in ensuring that their patients leave this world in as peaceful and as dignified a manner as possible.
I was very pleased to note that last Thursday the Assistant Minister for Health announced that the federal government will provide $52 million over three years to improve palliative care services and training. This funding is in addition to the support the Australian government provides to states and territories to operate palliative care services, the subsidies for palliative care medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and palliative care consultations under the Medical Benefits Scheme. While the state and territory governments are responsible for the delivery of palliative care services, the funding we have announced will continue to support education and training opportunities in palliative care for health professionals and to promote the importance of advance care planning.
I want to take some time in this debate to discuss advance care planning, which is mentioned in part (4)(a) of this motion. It is important that we discuss the value of planning when it comes to making our wishes and intentions clear. Less than one per cent of Australians over 70 have an advance care directive in place. An advance care directive lets your loved ones, your doctor and other health professionals know about the level of care and the quality of life you would like to have if you are no longer able to make those decisions on your own. It is also very difficult and at times heart-wrenching for our loved ones to have the responsibility of making decisions on our behalf if we have not let them know how we feel and what we would want. The Palliative Care Australia website, www.palliativecare.org.au, has a section on advance care planning, including a number of resources and links to help people consider their options.
Finally, I want to take a moment to recognise the charity Queensland Kids, which I understand is very close to its aim of establishing a children's hospice and respite care centre in Brisbane, to be called Hummingbird House. Hummingbird House will operate as an eight-bed, 24/7 medical facility including physician and nursing support, pain and symptom management, both scheduled and emergency respite care and end-of-life care. The government has made a commitment of $5.5 million to help fund the facility, and the state government is also providing funding, but it is largely through the efforts of the dedicated founders of Queensland Kids, Paul and Gabrielle Quilliam, that this project will become a reality.
It is incredible that there are only two children's respite care and hospice facilities in Australia, located in Sydney and Melbourne. There are 3,700 Queensland families with children who have a life-limiting condition. As a parent, I cannot imagine a more difficult, stressful or emotional situation to have to deal with. A dedicated facility is desperately needed and will provide a vital service to these families. Fundraising for Hummingbird House is in full swing, and I wish Queensland Kids every success and encourage anyone listening to this debate to donate to this worthy cause.
I am pleased to be part of a government that recognises the importance of palliative care and is taking steps to ensure that spending on vital health services is sustainable in the future.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (12:19): I am delighted to speak on this motion. It gives us the opportunity to recognise the professionals, the carers and the families who are involved in palliative care. I note in passing that the week just past was National Palliative Care Week. This is also the opportunity to talk, as a number of speakers have, about the importance of having in place an advance care plan, and I will say something about that in a moment. Thirdly, it gives me the opportunity to talk about and promote the great work of an organisation in my electorate: Southern Highlands Community Hospice.
Australia's population is ageing and this is due to increasing life expectancy and a sustained low fertility following the postwar baby boom. Palliative care is not just about ageing, as previous speakers have said, but the fact that Australians are living longer has made us all critically aware of the importance of palliative care and end of life issues. In 1901 older people constituted just four per cent of Australia's population. This ballooned 70 and 80 years later to 14 per cent of the population, and that percentage is increasing every year. For those aged 85 and over, it has almost tripled from 0.5 per cent to nearly 2 per cent of the population. This has focused our attention on the important policy issues that we need to address, which started with the importance of occupational superannuation in ensuring that we have decent retirement incomes. I take the view that the former Labor government's Living Longer Living Better package was the first time a federal government had grasped the nettle on what was needed in healthcare policy.
Half of all palliative care patients are under the age of 75 and 12 per cent of patients are under the age of 55. This underscores the point that I made earlier that it is not just an ageing issue. We know there are gaps in the provision of palliative care services. The gaps are more prevalent for Indigenous Australians and those who are living in rural and regional areas, such as my own, where there are high levels of chronic diseases and much less provision of needed services. It is also worth noting that we have fewer cancer care facilities in those areas as well, and we know that cancer accounts for six out of every 10 admissions for palliative care. We have a policy challenge and we know we need to do more to look after people requiring palliative care, particularly in rural and regional Australia. We know that over 80 per cent of the existing services are in metropolitan areas and that people in regional and rural areas have the same, if not greater, needs for palliative care services.
I was very pleased to see that this year the World Health Organisation passed its first palliative care motion which called for palliative care to be integrated into national health care services, including Australia's. I think that is the right direction. Other speakers have pointed out the importance of people having in place a care plan. It is of great concern that in a recent survey conducted in conjunction with national Palliative Care Week less than five per cent of Australians responding to that survey have such plan.
In my own electorate the community is filling the gap. They look at the great work of Katharine House that has been in operation for 25 years in the UK. They saw a gap in their community and they are campaigning to put in place a voluntary community hospice. They have raised over $1 million so far and they aim to have 200 to 300 volunteers to provide services to palliative care patients in the Southern Highlands. In the time I have left I want to pay tribute to the great volunteers and fundraisers who are making this dream possible.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck) (12:24): I wish to associate myself with the comments of all members on the motion proposed by the member for Kingston. It is interesting in life that we often do not think of death or the stages of dying until we are impacted upon at the family level where it becomes personal. I spent a period of my life working for an undertaker and I lived on the premises, which meant that I was in constant contact with people who had lost family members. Often those people would seek your advice or counsel because they had gone through a stage of watching somebody in their family pass away through a death that was unkind or painful. In sharing their thoughts, in some cases their guilt and in some instances the joy at having lost a family member who had suffered pain, the thing that I heard about consistently was the workers and staff in hospitals or hospices, who provided a level of care that made the last stages of life much easier. The ones that were most rewarding were those who took a family member home to care for them themselves in a loving environment in which they focused on giving them options to do things within the home instead of being hospitalised.
Last week, at the launch of National Palliative Care Week, that came back to me through its theme 'Palliative care is everyone's business: let's work together'. If we take that concept truly, we as families should be at every phase and stage of the life that exists of the person that we love. I listened to Peter King, who was interviewed by Trish Crossing, formerly an ABC radio personality. She asked him some questions about the stage of his wife's life in which cared for her at home. The thing that was enjoyable in that moment of his sharing of his pain, was the joy that he gave his wife through her being in surroundings that she had been familiar with. She had access to her children 24-7. She was in her home environment with external support. The quality of the time that they had together was an extremely powerful message that resonated with me, because in communities I have been associated with over the years I have seen where families come together in times of toughness but also in times of love. Palliative care plays an important and critical role in the lives of all of those who lose somebody early.
My breadth of knowledge became even greater, having had the funeral parlour experience for 4½ years, when I worked in health, where we looked at models of care for people needing palliative care. In all of those discussions, you centred on the person and looked at how you brought services together around that person. The problem in medical arenas and the health field is that sometimes people become an object for treatment. That has changed in recent times because of the very nature and the caring attitude of medical and allied health staff who provide multidisciplinary teams. I hope that, in the future, Australians will start to think about their death, about what it is that they want in their final stages of life, because it gives an indication to those around them what it is that you hope and desire to have happen. I know that when I come towards that stage of my life—I have already worked through in my mind what I want and I know the support that I will require—I want to enjoy that stage of my life as it ends, where I have quality time with my family, my wife, and those that I love and care for, because it should be celebrated like a birth. We celebrate a birth, but we never celebrate the life of somebody who is about to leave us. We should in the framework of palliative care provide the optimum opportunities for those who experience that journey together as families, friends and those we care for.
Debate adjourned.
Prime Ministerial Visit to Papua New Guinea New Guinea
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (12:29): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Prime Minister visited Papua New Guinea (PNG) from 21 to 23 March 2014;
(b) this trip was the longest and most extensive visit by an Australian Prime Minister in almost a quarter century;
(c) Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister O’Neill signed a new economic co-operation treaty; and
(d) PNG plays a vital role in the regional approach to asylum seekers and preventing deaths at sea; and
(2) commends the Prime Minister for a successful visit which strengthened Australia’s relationship with PNG.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Wyatt: I second the motion.
Mrs PRENTICE: In March this year the member for Herbert and I had the privilege to join the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, on Australia's longest and most extensive prime ministerial visit to Papua New Guinea. The visit was very successful, building on our longstanding strong friendship with Papua New Guinea, which will now see annual bilateral leaders summit's. The economic cooperation treaty signed on 21 March 2014 by Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister O'Neill, is paving the way for increasing our trade and investment relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea, and is now the cornerstone of the relationship in business that we are promoting between our two countries.
These annual summits are just part of the coalition government's goal to shift our relationship with PNG from one dominated by aid to one of economic and strategic partners in the real sense of the word—to generate stronger connections between our people and emphasise our deep and enduring defence and security ties. Indeed, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rimbink Pato, said, 'Australia and Papua New Guinea are friends for life.' This is in no small way as a result of continuing ties and extensive connections such as those that the member for Macquarie, the member for Leichhardt and Senator Ian Macdonald have with our friends up in PNG.
Australia is looking forward to working closely with Papua New Guinea as they move towards hosting the APEC summit in 2018. We couldn't help but be struck on our arrival by the number of large construction projects already happening around Port Moresby and overseen by the local member and minister, the Justin Chechenko. PNG has experienced a decade of strong economic growth. Australia's investment in the country is worth more than $19 billion, almost the same as Australia's investment in China. As Prime Minister O'Neill stated during the March visit, Australia is PNG's largest trading partner, with two way trade valued at $5.7 billion in 2012-13. This strong growth is set to continue with the liquefied natural gas project having come online. This project is a wonderful example of the efficiency and success of privately fronted aid, in line with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's goal to have our aids success viewed not on the dollars spent but on the actual success and results on the ground. The first shipment of LNG departed for Japan last week and the project is expected to produce more than nine trillion cubic feet of gas over the estimated 30 years of operations.
It is not just the economic benefits; this particular project, which is 450 kilometres in length, coming through some of the most difficult territory in Papua New Guinea, has also resulted in wonderful community outreach programs assisting local villages, helping them in health in fighting disease such as HIV-AIDS and raising awareness in the local communities. As we move forward and the Foreign Minister announces the new paradigm in Australia's foreign aid, I would like to see our aid dollars be spent more on front-line services and results than on duplication and bureaucracy. It is only appropriate that I take this moment to congratulate Prime Minister O'Neill on the wonderful improvements at Port Moresby General Hospital overseen by the chairman he appointed, Sir Theo Constantino. They have now opened the maternity wing, largely funded by Rotary, a new dispensary and a new emergency wing—fabulous improvements.
While we were at the roundtable with the business leaders, Prime Minister O'Neill reported on his extending services and free education to as many children as he can—obviously with very serious challenges with remote villages, with language difficulties and with transport. It was an honour to be with Prime Minister Tony Abbott when he turned the soil at the Koki Primary School, where Australia has funded some new classrooms. That was a wonderful ceremony hosted by Powes Parkop, the local governor and member for Port Moresby, and the local member and minister, Mr Justin Chechenko. Other projects include Motokea, an amazing port development undertaken by Sir Mick Curtin and his daughter Louise. There are also other projects being undertaken and supported by local businesses, such as those by Kostas Constantinou. I congratulate the Prime Minister on the first of what I know will be many significant visits to our nearest neighbours and friends for life.
Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Werriwa) (12:34): I indicate at the outset that, despite the comments I am about to make, I deeply respect the member for Ryan's commitment to, knowledge of and genuine interest in this area. However, I cannot agree with the tenor of this resolution. I guess it reminds me of my father's comment that you should always be thankful for small mercies. This visit—the longest in 25 years—is, indeed, in that vein. It is a small mercy given this government's foreign affairs performance since coming to power. Looking around the world, we had to issue an apology in Malaysia because of a rather clubfooted earlier approach there. We have had Indonesia complaining about infringements on its sovereignty. We had a situation where ASIO raided the lawyer representing our close neighbour, East Timor. We had a situation where, when West Papuan asylum seekers approached one of our posts, the Prime Minister of this country said they were grandstanding against Indonesia. We had a situation in regards to climate change action where we could not find a senior MP who could bother to get on a plane to Warsaw. In relation to torture, the Prime Minister made the resounding and internationally recognised comment that, 'Sometimes in difficult situations difficult things happen.' That was kind of his defence of torture.
If we look at our ability to gain friends in this world, the current government were not content with us abstaining in regards to non-member observer status for Palestine when the UN vote was 138 to nine. They went on from the settlement vote to be in a minority of eight against 158 and associated ourselves with a very small minority of countries around the world. So I think to make so much of this visit—that it was the longest in two decades—is a small mercy for this government's foreign policy position.
Even then, one has to be somewhat dubious of where things lie at the moment and the basis on which this relationship now stands. Michael Gordon, on 23 March this year, talked of a recent controversy over the inquiry into the death of a person in detention. Amongst other aspects of this relationship he talked about the closing down of the human rights inquiry with Australian agreement and a joint agreement to deny access to a human rights lawyer to Papua New Guinea. He spoke of immigration minister Pato's very kind support of Australian foreign policy. And he is an expert on this, apparently. He was apparently previously a tribunal member somewhere in the world. He knows so much about these claimants! He has examined their personal cases! He came out and said they were economic refugees. At a press conference with the Prime Minister of Australia, when speaking of close, constructive and candid talks, he certainly was not constructive and candid in regards to questions, because be closed down the discussion.
If the relationship is that good, I am a bit interested in Deputy Commissioner Simon Kauba's comments last week about the Australian inquiry into what happened in the detention centre. He said the inquiry was 'inconclusive', 'cannot be depended on to prosecute the case' and 'hampers our ongoing investigation'. We know that Papua New Guinea is very dependent upon Australia. We know that there was no reduction in the foreign aid to that country in the budget—one of the few in the world that did not have a reduction. I think we have to be suspicious as to the motivation there. They are very dependent. They are very compliant with Australia's needs in regards to offshore detention. As I say, I think this country should be more concerned with an under-five mortality rate in Papua New Guinea of 75 per 1,000 and the fact that the primary school enrolment rate is just 53 per cent, lower than all but a few African countries. The primary school completion rate was just 45 per cent in 2007 and has not improved much since then. This is a situation where the United Nations in looking at the Millennium Development Goals has made the following comments:
Papua New Guinea's progress … has been slow. Uneven economic growth and distribution of wealth, high levels of violence … deteriorating law and order, poor governance … undermine the nation’s stability.
It has spoken of serious challenges in achieving the MDGs and of working to strengthen the MDG based data collection. It has spoken of the need for an accountable civil service.
As I say, they may have been there for a very long visit; however, one has to question the minuscule role of that visit in the overall failure of this government in foreign policy. We are essentially very isolated on a variety of fronts. I forgot to mention earlier the complete isolation of this country in regards to human rights in Sri Lanka.
Mr EWEN JONES (Herbert) (12:39): I like the member for Werriwa but he is the sort of bloke who would get a box of Cadbury Roses chocolates and complain about the number of Turkish delights. I want to speak on this motion about Australia's relationship with Papua New Guinea proposed by the member for Ryan, a member of parliament who has had a long, personal and terrific affinity with the people of Papua New Guinea. This trip was a great opportunity and it showed the growing respect between the two countries.
I have a lot of time for Prime Minister Peter O'Neill. The member for Ryan spoke about the roundtable we had with business people and with cabinet ministers. I am an auctioneer by trade and I saw things at that meeting from a sales perspective. If you were the manager of the sales territory, you would have walked out of that meeting saying, 'We're going to do business here. The CEOs of the two companies get along; therefore, we will do business.' The theme I picked up on the way through was that we want this relationship to progress. Everywhere we went we were met with smiling faces.
I see the member for Corio sitting over there. He is well aware of what it is like in Papua New Guinea. This trip built on the work that he did in the last parliament and the relationship that he fostered with the people and the government of Papua New Guinea. It is a great country. It is our nearest neighbour. We have to do the right thing here. We have to understand the nature of that country and understand the role that it plays in relation to our country. We need to build on the relationships that have gone before.
The member for Corio was a well-respected visitor to that country for a number of years when those opposite were in government. I was lucky enough to go on one trip with Julie Bishop when she was in opposition. The now foreign minister led the charge for us into Papua New Guinea. She also changed the focus of our foreign policy to recognise that these people are our nearest neighbours and to make them a very serious part of our foreign policy. The relationship between the two countries should be very inclusive, frank and open. I think we have that.
I heard the keynote speeches in Cairns the other week. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea and Julie Bishop both spoke about the relationship. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea spoke about the visas for business people, education and that sort of stuff. He wants to make it easier. He wants to make it more like the relationship that we have with New Zealand. The foreign minister addressed the concern directly with the Prime Minister. She said: 'We do understand this issue and we are working on it, but it is not a policy issue; it is a regulatory issue. We have to know who is coming to our country.' So we are walking down those paths; we are getting those things done.
We have to include in this conversation—not so much on this visit but in the work that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has done—the people of Bougainville in the Solomon Islands. The Melanesian world is an area of great potential for Australia and of great responsibility for Australia and those countries coming through. When the member for Corio and I were in the Solomon Islands we were both taken with the economic growth of this area and the relationship it has with Australia.
We have a real chance here. The leaders of the two countries are focused on common goals. They want the very best for their people and are prepared to work together to find out what things we have in common. The two prime ministers were speaking about the development of the north of Australia, the way that that works in with the development of Papua New Guinea and how those synergies can provide real progress for both countries. There is no way you will not end up with a good result here.
We have to continue to be up-front and honest with people to make sure that we continue this relationship. No relationship runs smoothly all the time. This is a very good part of the world to be in, where we can have open discourse. The Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea can come to Australia and have his say. The member for Werriwa would have liked it better if the Prime Minister of Australia got up there like Moe in the Three Stooges and conked some heads together or something like that. It would seem a little ridiculous to do that.
In the relationship we have between the two countries, we have to spend more time on, and get more recognition for, the Australia Papua New Guinea Business Council. People like Frank Yourn have a role to play in this. We have to make sure that they are supported in this relationship. 'Blong yumi' is pidgin for 'it belongs to all of us'.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (12:44): I rise with pleasure to speak on this private member's motion in relation to Papua New Guinea and do so noting a number of people in the room who have a strong connection with PNG. I note the members for Ryan and Macquarie have both had longstanding relationships with PNG. Of course, the member for Ryan is the Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of PNG, of which I am the deputy chair. The member for Herbert and I travelled through the Pacific. I do not think we went to PNG on that occasion, but we have travelled through the Pacific together. It is great to see you in the chamber as well. I also see the member for Moreton, on this side, and the member for Kingsford Smith, who served as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and did much good work in relation to fostering relationships in the Pacific.
A prime ministerial visit to Papua New Guinea, from my point of view, therefore, is always a good thing. It builds upon the visit that Prime Minister Rudd made to PNG, which was his first bilateral visit to any country, having been elected Prime Minister back in 2007. It was a gesture which lingers positively in PNG to this day. The economic cooperation treaty being signed by Prime Ministers Abbott and O'Neill was also a very satisfying moment, given this was a treaty the negotiations for which commenced under the then Rudd government.
The significance of PNG in Australian foreign policy is enormous and I think it does not gain enough attention, either within this building or within our national discourse. It is a country 50 per cent bigger than New Zealand. It is a country which has profound national security implications for Australia. It is a country with whom our economic relationship is growing by the day—$7.5 billion is the trade relationship today. It is growing. We have $19 billion of Australian investments in PNG today. It is our second largest recipient of overseas development assistance.
We have a unique history with PNG. It is one of two countries on this planet that gained its independence from Australia. It is a place which really has sacred ground in terms of those conflicts that were fought during the Second World War, and it is ground which those in PNG maintain for us extremely well. Anybody who visits the Bomana war cemetery—the largest Australian war cemetery anywhere in the world—knows that they are standing on sacred ground but sacred ground which is well tended.
I am really pleased, having just spoken with the member for Ryan before, that the PNG Oration, which celebrates PNG's independence in this building, will be continued under this government. That is an important mark, to allow PNG to have its day within this building. The Deakin symposium in relation to PNG will also continue this year and I think it does something to increase the academic profile of studies around PNG within Australia.
I also hope that we get an opportunity for more MPs on both sides of the House to meet their counterparts in PNG. It ought to be a deeply organic relationship. We have that kind of relationship with New Zealand. It should be the case with PNG and I hope that occurs.
I also hope that efforts to raise the profile of PNG more positively within the Australian media are continued. One endeavour of mine which I tried very hard to pursue and, I have to confess, failed was to have The Today Show report the temperature in Port Moresby every morning. It is basically the same every day, so it is not that hard a thing to do, but given that The Today Show is watched in Port Moresby it seems to me the least they could for that important audience is to tell them what the temperature is going to be.
I want to make this point: this visit came on the heels of the PNG arrangement which Australia had put into place, and core to that which established the Manus Island detention facility in its current form was the idea of resettling those who are found to be genuine refugees in PNG. It was the core and remains the core of the idea of taking Australia off the table.
It took eight months before we saw minister Scott Morrison have a conversation with his counterpart in PNG around this issue. Indeed it seemed to me that on this particular visit, sadly, the Prime Minister muddied the waters a little. That is something we need to get right because, while this relationship is not defined by that, it is a key issue and it is important that we get it right in future.
Mrs MARKUS (Macquarie) (12:49): Today I have the pleasure of joining my colleagues the member for Ryan, the member for Herbert and members opposite to talk about a country that is very dear to my heart. Papua New Guinea, our nearest neighbour and a dear friend to Australia, is a country I visit often. I have a special bond with it. My husband was born there and, while he spends most of his time in Australia now and calls Australia home, we visit Papua New Guinea often to catch up with relatives and also to pursue Australia's relationship with it, which is significant to both nations.
Our close connection to PNG is evidenced by the visits Australia has made there this year to build even stronger relationships. Our relationship is not just a wonderful friendship, or one of foreign aid, but one we can shift to an economic and strategic partnership as well. I recently visited PNG for a week from 28 April to 4 May; most of that visit was personal but I did have the opportunity, which I will speak about in a few moments, of visiting some of our aid projects.
This visit followed our Prime Minister's visit on 20-23 March, which was the longest and most extensive visit by any Australian Prime Minister so far. In February this year, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, visited PNG and in May visitors to PNG included our foreign minister, Julie Bishop. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Brett Mason, also visited from 6-9 April. It is significant to note, and this point has been mentioned by others in this debate, that the bilateral leaders summit between the two nations, which takes place annually, will be important to maintain and build our relationship.
Australia's aid to PNG will deepen to ensure that aid is delivered where we have the expertise to do so and where our aid will best support PNG's economic growth objectives. PNG has experienced strong growth for a decade now. Our foreign minister, at the Australian Papua New Guinea Business Council forum in Cairns during May this year, proposed to increase infrastructure investment in PNG. I am delighted to see our aid money invested not just in infrastructure but often in infrastructure that benefits some other goal.
One project I recently visited also had an impact on health. During my recent visit to PNG on 30 April I had the great pleasure of seeing this first hand, when I opened the Kudjip Nazarene Hospital hydro project, together with senior representatives from the High Commission. The hospital, first built in 1967 with just 100 beds, provides much in responding to the health needs of that region; but after 40 years it had fallen into disrepair. Australian aid assisted with this and, in 2009, Nazarene health ministries dedicated a new hospital. In 1964, mission work built a minihydro plant to supply electricity to the hospital to improve patient care; however in March 2009 a devastating flood in the River Kayne washed away the dam, forcing the hospital to connect to the PNGPL. This power system meant fluctuations in power supply and left the hospital with much damage to equipment and, of even more concern, electrical blackouts during medical procedures—some of them involving surgery.
It was with much delight, then, I opened the Kudjip Nazarene Hospital hydro project in April just outside Mount Hagen. It is a wonderful Australian government funded aid project, allowing uninterrupted power to be available at the most critical times during hospitalisation and important medical procedures. The project, from the reservoir intake to the discharge into the turbine generator, has seen 1.4 kilometres of water raceway constructed and will generate 255 kilowatts of electricity. Additionally, the cost of electricity supply for the hospital will be dramatically reduced. Patient fees will not be raised for at least another two years—not to mention that equipment, much of it donated from overseas, will no longer be damaged. Patients will no longer be placed in the predicament of having an operation stopped midway due to power failure. The power system has been replaced with a new system that provides safe, reliable and affordable power for patient care. Australia contributed just under $10 million to this most worthy project. Assistance also came from the Church of Nazarene, which must also be thanked for its tireless efforts to this outcome. Members on both sides of this debate have talked about the significance of our relationship with PNG, and I am proud to be part of this government that is continuing to build and strengthen this relationship.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:55): I am pleased to make a contribution to this motion regarding Papua New Guinea, and I acknowledge the long relationship that the member for Ryan has had with the people of Papua New Guinea and the government. PNG is our closest international neighbour, and a very important relationship for the people of Australia and our government. There is an enduring fondness between the people of Australia and Papua New Guinea. Many Australian nationals work and live in Papua New Guinea, and similarly many Papua New Guineans live and work in Australia. We also share a wonderful fondness for the game of rugby league, and it is great to see the Kumuls, the Papua New Guinean team, doing so well in the Q Cup.
The relationship between Papua New Guinea and Australia does require careful consideration and nurturing, and I am pleased to see that the Liberal-National party's relationship with Papua New Guinea is improving because there has been a rocky relationship between the government of Papua New Guinea and the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Papua New Guinean politicians are not ones for mincing words. In the wake of Prime Minister Abbott's meeting with Peter O'Neill, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, after the signing of the regional resettlement arrangements, it was said that Peter O'Neill made it clear to the Australian media that he did not appreciate his words being misrepresented by Mr Abbott. Thankfully since that time relations appear to have improved, and it is very important that the Australian government has a strong relationship with Papua New Guinea.
In recent times Papua New Guinea has been strategically very important to Australia in its approach to tackling people smuggling. The relationship with the Papua New Guinean government relating to Manus Island and the regional resettlement arrangement is a very important part of the architecture of the scheme to deter people-smuggling of asylum seekers to Australia. Unfortunately, since the election of the Abbott government enough attention has not been paid to processing asylum seekers on Manus Island, and that has been identified by the Cornell report—that is, there was a lack of progress in application processing that led to the disastrous events on 16 to 18 February.
Papua New Guinea has a long way to go in its development, and analysis of the Millennium Development Goals clearly indicates that unfortunately Papua New Guinea has much to do in terms of progress, particularly around poverty, infant mortality, education and women. Unfortunately, only 50 per cent of women in Papua New Guinea have a basic level of literacy. Only 40 per cent of the population have access to clean, potable drinking water. Gender-based violence is a very big issue in Papua New Guinea, and that was part of the reason behind Prime Minister Gillard establishing the Pacific Women Shaping Pacific Development Program. In health care there are a number of challenges associated with HIV-AIDS. Tuberculosis, a preventable disease in most developed democracies, is still a big issue in Papua New Guinea. I travelled to Daru in the Western Province of Papua New Guinea as the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs to open a brand new tuberculosis clinic funded by AusAID and providing important ambulatory services up the Fly River to tackle what is a preventable disease in that particular region.
Papua New Guinea also presents enormous opportunity for its people and for our region. The resources projects that are beginning to come online, most notably ExxonMobil's $20 billion LNG project in the Highlands, are beginning to reap benefits for Papua New Guinea. But what is important in this project is that the economic benefits of that project to flow to the ordinary citizens of Papua New Guinea. In that respect, Australia was quite prompt in saying to Papua New Guinea that they need to look to put in place a sovereign wealth fund established in accordance with the Santiago principles of best practice to ensure that the benefits of economic development in Papua New Guinea benefit the people who need it most. It is an important relationship, it is an enduring relationship and it is one that I am pleased to be involved in.
Debate adjourned.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Landcare 25th Anniversary
Debate resumed on motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Landcare is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year;
(b) the keystones of Landcare are that it is community owned and driven and bi-partisan in nature, and it encourages integrated management of environmental assets with productive farmland and a more sustainable approach to private land management; and
(c) 40 per cent of all farmers are involved in Landcare;
(2) acknowledges that Landcare has been working for over 25 years to:
(a) improve our farmlands;
(b) breathe new life into waterways;
(c) improve the coastal environment;
(d) restore native vegetation and wildlife habitats; and
(e) protect our urban environment; and
(3) condemns the Government for slashing almost $480 million from Landcare’s budget.
Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (13:00): Australia is blessed with a beautiful and unique environment, but it is also a fragile one and we have not looked after it as well as we could have and we have had to learn some painful lessons. Rising salinity has devastated our soils. Blue green algal blooms have ruined waterways. Introduced animal and weed pests have attacked native birds, plants and animals and have damaged agriculture. We have learned the hard way that you cannot just clear the native vegetation and engage in fence-to-fence agriculture without doing serious harm to both environment and agriculture.
Many volunteers and community groups have come together around the country to try to repair some of this environmental damage. Twenty five years ago, back in 1989, I set up what is now known as the Friends of Moonee Ponds Creek to try to restore this much degraded Cinderella of urban waterways to something of its former glory. We have not succeeded in removing the concrete from large sections of the creek, but we have been able to replant a lot of the original vegetation, and areas like the Jacana Wetlands have became an oasis for waterbird life.
We will be celebrating 25 years of volunteer effort on Sunday, 15 June with a tree-planting and BBQ at the John Street Reserve in Oak Park between 10 am and 12 noon. I commend the work of our great volunteers: secretary, Kaye Oddie; treasurer, Vince Aitkin; Frank Kinnersley; Julie Law; Carolyn Layton; Tony Smith; Anna Lanigan; Bob Steadman; Stella Blay; David Muir; Mark O'Brien; Terry Mundy; Clive Judd; Audrey Biggs; Joe Ficarra; and many others who have helped out over the years.
It is also 25 years since Landcare was established. Landcare has a very Victorian pedigree. I am very pleased to support the motion from the member for Shortland, my friend Jill Hall. There has been some very significant research done concerning the health benefits of exposure to nature—for example, by the UK researcher Graham Rook concerning the value of microbes in the soil in building up our immune system and concerning the psychological benefits and mental health benefits of being around birds, plants and animals. The fact is that we spend a tremendous amount of time and money and effort on our 'grey' infrastructure but nowhere near as much on our 'green' infrastructure, parks and gardens, trees and vegetation, and sporting ovals, and our 'blue infrastructure, creeks and waterways, coasts and beaches, and lakes and wetlands.
So the work done by Landcare groups right around the country has been incredibly important. Australia is proud to boast more than 4,000 community Landcare groups, 2,000 Coastcare groups and many thousands of volunteers across the country. Through Australia's people and communities, the Landcare movement is making a big difference in caring for our country. All around Australia, Landcare is helping repair and viably manage our precious natural resources.
I want to mention the work of the Victorian Landcare Council, which was established in 2008 to represent the interests of volunteer Landcare in Victoria in pursuing a healthy and sustainable environment. The Victorian Landcare Council is independent of government, business or other organisations. As members are probably aware, the overall picture in terms of land, soil, water and the state of the environment around the world is not rosy. With the state of the environment and agriculture deteriorating, the challenges ahead are immense. One of the things the Victorian Landcare Council, and in particular one of the architects of Landcare and chair of Australian Landcare International, Rob Youl, has been seeking to do, is to export Landcare overseas.
In June last year, I had the honour of speaking at the launch of the Overseas Landcare Fund, an initiative of the Victorian Landcare Council and Australian Landcare International. As I said then, the idea of helping overseas Landcare groups is very exciting. Landcare in some form is now in 26 countries especially Asia and East Africa. The Overseas Landcare Fund has given funds to projects in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for revegetation, to Nigeria for wetlands and biodiversity, to Tanzania Junior Landcare, to Sri Lanka for water quality and to the Philippines and Indonesia for tree nurseries. In the Pacific, Fiji has several Landcare projects, the first of which originated from WWF. The Australian Landcare International members also helped launch Tonga's first Landcare group via Rotary Australia.
So in the year of Landcare's 25th anniversary, we can see that it has not only achieved a lot in Australia, it is also becoming a very successful Australian export. I therefore hope that the Liberal government will rethink its nearly $480 million cut from the Landcare budget, and also its overseas aid cuts which diminish our capacity to help other countries look after their land, their water, the natural environment.
Dr STONE (Murray) (13:05): I rise in order to add my praises to Landcare, one of Australia's, and I would argue, one of the world's most successful programs of hands-on community-driven natural resource protection and rehabilitation. This motion celebrates the 25th anniversary of Landcare, which began in Victoria where it remains one of the best known and successful of environmental programs. Its strength has always been the ownership and involvement of private landholders, many of them but not all, farmers whose weed or feral animal issues, or native tree or habitat loss required more than just the farm family to do the work, or more off-farm resources to buy, for example, fencing materials, seeds or seedlings, tree guards, or watering systems or the higher of special equipment.
I was closely involved in those very early days 25 years ago. I was working in the Victorian Public Service in the water and agriculture area and I supported the then Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands, Joan Kirner, as she formed what some thought at the time was a surprising environmental alliance with the then President of the Victorian Farmers Federation, Heather Mitchell. Heather and Joan were two tireless no-nonsense champions who forged new ideas to unite and drive community environmental action and, not surprisingly, they engaged women as well as men, knowing full well that women do as much farmwork as men but are often in particular concerned about the environmental issues.
From the very beginning Landcare was a bipartisan supported program—and this has always been one of its strengths—with hobby farmers, retirees, school children and primary producers working together to bring about real, measurable change to the landscape, waterways, protecting the biodiversity, bringing back habitat to either keep or to attract back some of our very rare bird species, like around the Picola area in my part of the world.
Much of this earliest Landcare work was prompted by the Victorian State Salinity Program of the 1980s which recognised that reafforestation in the groundwater recharge areas in the Central Highlands was a key issue to be undertaken. That vegetation had been stripped during the gold rush era for urban development when the tram tracks in Melbourne were literally built on red gum blocks and the water supply in Western Victoria was literally run through timber pipes. So I always get a little bemused, as was the case with the previous speaker, who said it was all about farmers destroying the environment or cutting down trees. Actually, urbanisation particularly in Australia has been a major culprit in clearing out the forests that it had easy reach to. And of course it was the paddle steamers on the Murray that cleared most of the riparian zone of red gum and other timber as they plied their way up and down the Murray, carting wool and sheep fat for about half a century. So let us get it straight, we are not in the blame game here. There has been environmental degradation across Australia as a consequence of not understanding our fragile environmental state but also because our very development was built on the back of the use of timber. Landcare, not surprisingly then, was launched in a small town in Central Victoria in 1985 close to the Central Highlands where a major tree-planting effort was to be set in motion.
One of the key components of Landcare has been the recruitment of paid local coordinators, frequently women, who have then set about coordinating the efforts of local landcare groups who not only often own that land but who live there and care deeply about its sustainability and its intergenerational health. With these paid coordinators you are able to make sure that all the equipment has been gathered together, the seeds are there and perhaps a seed-collecting effort has gone on the season before, and the barbecue is set in place. As I say, those local paid coordinators have been key to what is, in fact, a very low-cost program. I would argue this is now one of the best environmental efforts you will find anywhere globally, but I note that more than 20 countries have taken up landcare and they understand the importance of these local coordinators.
I want to pay tribute particularly to my local Landcare groups in the electorate of Murray. They have worked tirelessly for two generations, literally changing the landscape. In some parts the trees are now thicker and more biodiverse than they were prior to European settlement, particularly in the case of the Tragowel Plain, where I come from. My mother has been responsible personally for planting thousands of trees on what was a treeless plain. Landcare is going from strength to strength. It cannot die because the concept behind it is so right and meets Australia's needs so profoundly. Yes, there has been some trimming of the budget, as there has been across the board because Labor left us with such debt and deficit. Sadly, we have had to do the hard yards there. But Landcare: I salute you on your 25th birthday. May you continue to thrive.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:10): I thank the member for Shortland for the motion. The West Moreton Landcare Group in my electorate of Blair is to be congratulated. It is an active group of more than 50 members. I note that, on Australia Day this year, City of Ipswich medallions were awarded to a number of landcare members, including the President of West Moreton Landcare, Bob Hampson; the immediate past secretary, Beryl Wallace; former treasurer, Margaret Witherspoon; and Arnold Rieck, who was a founder of West Moreton Landcare and has been a member since it was established. I congratulate that particular organisation because they work closely with south-east Queensland catchments in the city of Ipswich. In May last year they were awarded $39,600 for the Black Snake Creek catchment projects, which are in a particularly difficult area in the rural parts of Ipswich, around Marburg, with high salinity affecting Marburg and the surrounding agricultural regions.
The coalition took to the last campaign a solid commitment that they would give Landcare significant access to Caring for our Country pool of funds. They said they would listen to local communities and the now Minister for the Environment said he would put 'Landcare at the heart of our land conservation programs'. That did not last one budget.
This is the 25th anniversary of the Landcare movement in Australia and I congratulate all the Landcare organisations around the country. It has been said that for every dollar put in by the government, $2.60 is put in by individuals and organisations locally and $12 of in-kind assistance is also given. The 25th anniversary of Landcare's formation is something to be cherished and honoured. I congratulate the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers' Federation for the longstanding support and the initiation of this organisation. They have been behind it from the word go. The Chairman of Landcare Queensland, Mr Geoff Penton, said:
Landcare Groups in the Queensland should be extremely proud of their achievements so far. We're hoping to continue to support their long-term sustainability by forging partnerships with the corporate sector to help invest in Landcare and spread the Landcare message.
I say amen to that. Indeed, in November last year the now Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, said that Landcare funding was safe from budget cuts. He did say that under the Abbott-Hockey budget, to use this expression, Landcare would be merged with the Caring for our Country program to form the National Landcare Program. But, as I said before, about $480 million has been stripped from the Landcare budget and I think that is a tragedy, a shame and a disgrace.
The coalition really have failed to understand its importance. They claim they are a party for regional and rural areas but they have ignored the entreaties of organisations who have suggested they should look at this particular decision and who have asked for a commitment from the coalition but, whilst receiving that, have been betrayed. I notice that the member for New England and Minister for Agriculture has been apologetic to farming and environment groups about that, but there is no doubt that the reduction in funds will put many future projects at risk. It is sad on the 25th anniversary of that organisation to see such a cut in the budget. It means that future rounds will be cut. As the ACF's chief, Kelly O'Shanassy, said:
This is a slap in the face for conservation heroes in the bush, in cities and on the coast who work every day to protect the clean air, clean water and healthy soil that we all need to survive.
I would add: in regional and rural areas such as mine.
The shadow minister for agriculture, Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, correctly pointed out that we should be focusing on natural resource sustainability. I agree for once with the Greens senator Rachel Siewert, who said this was a slap in the face and would impact on volunteer and community organisations around the country. What we need in this country is not a split between agricultural productivity and improved environmental management but in fact an emphasis on them both. Indeed, about 75 per cent of dairy farmers are involved in Landcare and about 50 per cent of all farmers are members of the Landcare organisation, as am I a member of the West Moreton Landcare Group. I ask the government to reconsider their position in relation to this. Restore the funding for the benefit of farming communities and the environment.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (13:15): I am delighted to endorse any comments in relation to the 25th anniversary of Landcare. I want to make a couple of points here. Firstly, this is a critical milestone for what has been a fundamentally important movement. I am pleased to have recently announced funding of $90,000 to Landcare Australia Ltd for the 25th anniversary events. This funding goes to support the Younger Landcare Program to recruit more young volunteers, the Junior Landcare educational resources for schools, which is investing in the next generation of young people who can be Landcarers, and the Landcare Hero Honour roll—all projects put forward by the Landcare movement and, in particular, Landcare Australia Ltd.
In addition, the Minister for Agriculture has announced a little over half a million dollars for Landcare Australia Ltd to run the 25th anniversary National Landcare Conference in September of this year and $4 million over four years to Landcare Australia to continue their work in promoting Landcare, recognising and celebrating the achievements and, most significantly, organising Landcare activities. On that basis, the CEO of Landcare Australia, Tessa Jakszewicz, welcomed the government's commitment. I think the quote was:
It is fantastic to see the Australian Government supporting this year of celebration as we mark 25 years of Landcare as a national program.
I want to mention two other things here, including the $2 billion of natural resource management funding which is for Landcare and Landcare related activities. The principles we take going forwards as to how we will proceed and administer Landcare are: simple, local and long term. These outcomes come from long discussions with the Landcare networks, with the NRM movement and, in particular, with Landcare Australia Ltd as well as advisory groups.
I want to deal with some of the misrepresentation from the opposition here. I want to turn to the budget papers and, in particular, Budget Related Paper 1.7, which is the environment portfolio. At page 27 it sets out clearly, categorically and unequivocally that the total NRM budget is a little bit over $2 billion over four years from 2014-15. In the midyear economic forecast that figure was $1.7 billion. This includes $1.28 billion for the new National Landcare Program, which, as we said pre-election, brings together Caring for Our Country and Landcare under a simplified arrangement.
It also includes $525 million for the Green Army Program. This is Landcare extension funds. We want to work with Landcare groups. We want to make sure that they can compete to be part of this, that they can participate, that they can have their projects advanced and enhanced through the work of the Green Army. It was always intended as part of the Landcare extension funding, and that is what it is. It is not just $525 million over four years; it actually extends to over $800 million over five years. It stabilises at about $290 million a year by year 5. So it is a very, very significant new extension program.
There is an additional $40 million for the Reef 2050 Plan; $9½ million for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation; money for the whale and dolphin protection plan; $210 million for the Working on Country program; and $203 million for the Land Sector Package, which honours a lot of pre-existing projects. That is the reality of funding: a $2 billion natural resource management package. The misrepresentation of the opposition is disappointing, and I am exposing it for what it is by referring directly and expressly to page 27 of the Environment portfolio statement.
On top of that, all of this goes to a very clear set of principles. Firstly, Landcare funding should be simple. Groups are crying out to be able to make simple applications. It should be local in its focus, dealing with real problems on the ground, and long term. They are seeking funding assurance. Those elements I am delighted to present to the parliament. I support Landcare and set out this new approach.
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (13:20): Minister and colleagues, it is not only what you do; it is how you do it that impacts on effective intervention. I rise today to speak to the motion celebrating the 25th anniversary of Landcare and to discuss the changes to Landcare funding announced in the 2014-15 budget. I am moved to speak today in order to raise the question: how will the government ensure that those dedicated to Landcare remain engaged in caring for land and environment across Australia as the government implements its new environmental policy?
Over the last 25 years Landcare has achieved incredible outcomes for our farmers, our farmland, our forests, our rivers, our coasts and our native vegetation and wildlife and, in turn, the quality of life right across Australia. Indi, my electorate, has a strong history of involvement in Landcare, and I would like to acknowledge, and say thank you for, all this work. In fact, some of the earliest environmental groups which developed into Landcare groups emerged in Indi some 30 to 35 years ago in Kiewa, Springhurst, Byawatha Hills, Upper Murray and Burgoigee Creek. These groups started as tree-planting groups. In my own community of Indigo Valley, in 1986 I was part of a pioneer movement that established one of the first actual Landcare groups in north-east Victoria.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and say thank you for the terrific work done by all volunteers in the Landcare movement. Thank you and well done. There are now 75 Landcare groups, including special-issue groups, right across Indi. These groups have done work on hundreds of projects, including tree and understorey planting, management of salinity and soil control, rabbit control, erosion, seed collection, planning wildlife corridors and coordinating weed control, including weeds of national significance.
While the environmental benefits of Landcare are obvious, the social benefits are also particularly important for rural and regional Australia. Landcare is an incredible movement of volunteers, providing opportunities for all people in the community to be engaged in social, economic and environmental work of great value. Getting communities involved in environmental issues sees the participants donate not only their time but their money and resources. Estimates from Landcare groups in Indi indicate that up to $8 of value both in time and in money and resources is contributed by participants for every dollar of government funding. Landcare has provided an opportunity for communities to take care of the environment that they live in while also encouraging them and providing them with a stable program to donate their money to environmental management.
I do believe that it is important that government has an opportunity to implement new programs to improve the environment we live in. While I support Landcare, I also believe that much has to be done to improve the efficiency of Landcare programs. Programs such as the Green Army, which the Minister for the Environment has just mentioned, and the tree-planting program obviously provide avenues to ensure that land management and sustainability programs can continue.
And this is where my real concern emerges. The government changes to Landcare will impact on many small volunteer Landcare groups. This will have an impact on many communities and their confidence in volunteering. As in most things in life, it is not just what you do but how you do it that has an impact on the final result. This is particularly the case with community groups who depend on volunteer effort. My questions to the government are how will the government ensure that the Landcare volunteers and the resources that they donate to environmental programs continue to be involved in these new programs? How is the government consulting with the community about how it wants these new environmental programs to be implemented? Communities know what is best for the land. Ask them what needs to be done. Involve them in the process. Make sure that all interested community groups and stakeholders are involved in the big changes that the government is planning. It would be a sad day indeed if, on this 25th anniversary, we saw widespread disengagement from volunteering in environment groups for the want of a focus on the how as well as the what.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended from 13:26 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Tweed Shire Council: Gasfield Free Campaign
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:00): I would like to commend the Tweed Shire Council and Mayor Barry Longland for their plan to install 'Gasfield Free' signs at various locations throughout the Tweed Shire. They are encouraging community members to have their say online, and I have just voted yes online for this great initiative of the council's. As the mayor has said, installing these signs is an important step to send a clear message to gas operators that gas exploration is not welcome within the Tweed. I really support this initiative by the Tweed Shire Council.
If it is supported by the community, panels displaying the words 'Gasfield Free' will be added to new and existing welcome signs at the entrances to the Tweed Shire. There will also be panels added to township and village signs scattered across the entire shire. They will read: 'Tweed Shire—Gasfield Free' and this will really be a reflection of the community sentiment. We do not want to have any coal-seam gas or unconventional gas mining on the North Coast.
Indeed councils consulted closely with Gasfield Free Northern Rivers and also with Lock the Gate Tweed in developing this fantastic plan for displaying these signs. I would also like to acknowledge that both Byron and Lismore shires have signs to the entrance of their shires as well, stating the fact that they are gasfield free. Indeed, this is the sentiment shared right throughout the North Coast of New South Wales. As a community we stand very united in wanting to make sure that we preserve our beautiful environment that we have there and that we maintain the fact that we are gasfield free. I really commend Tweed Shire Council for this initiative. I encourage locals, please, get online at yoursaytweed.com.au/gas and make your voice heard. Say yes to Tweed Shire Council. We want to have the signs that say 'Gasfield Free'.
Wainwrights Coast2Coast MS Walk
Mr RUDDOCK (Berowra—Chief Government Whip) (16:02): I am pleased to see you here in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker Porter, and so many colleagues to hear the observations I am about to make. I have had friends of the family I have known over a long period of time who have suffered MS. Today I want to bring to your attention the activities of a constituent of mine Michael Hemingway. Michael has suffered from MS for some 10 years and he campaigns tirelessly to fundraise for MS research and to raise awareness.
Michael is going to participate in the Wainwrights Coast2Coast MS Walk. It begins on 30 August and finishes on 11 September this year. He is part of a group of 20 MS sufferers who will be walking over 303 kilometres from one side of England to the other. They will be walking under the banner 'Kiss MS Goodbye' in the hopes of raising $150,000 for MS research and to launch the Kiss Goodbye to MS brand in the UK.
There are around 23,000 Australians who suffer from multiple sclerosis and there is still no cure. But it is through fundraising of this type that we will create awareness and the government's Medical Research Future Fund hopefully will be able to play a part as well to find a cure or a prevention for this terrible illness. I would like to congratulate Mike and the 19 other walkers who are taking into their own hands the task of raising these moneys.
Williamstown Literature Festival
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:03): I rise to celebrate the Williamstown Literature Festival that was held in my electorate at the weekend. Melbourne's west is lucky to be blessed by many vibrant cultural events throughout the year and the Willy Lit Fest is one of the highlights. The festival was founded by Catherine Ryan and Angela Altair in 2003 to bring ideas, writers and readers together at a local writers Festival. The theme for the 2014 Willy Lit Fest was 'a sense of place', and featured authors as varied as Rafael Epstein, Shaun Micallef, Bernard Salt, Eva Cox, Gideon Haigh, Angela Meyer and more.
My personal highlight was Dr Clare Wright's session on her stellar prize-winning book The Forgotten Rebels of Eureka. Dr Wright explained how her book told the stories of the seamstresses who sewed the Eureka flag, Chartists poets, and publicans and theatre owners who supported the rebellion, important women with hitherto untold stories. Dr Wright's session was true to the theme of this year's festival in giving women a 'sense of place' in the Eureka legend. I would also like to thank to take this opportunity to congratulate the 2014 winner of the Ada Cambridge award for poetry and prose, Alana Kelsall, for At What Distance Does It Stop.
Cultural events of this kind can only happen as a result of many hours of hard work from dedicated volunteers, so I would like to acknowledge the efforts of Loraine Callow, Alison Standish, John Webb, Chris Ringrose, Brian Christopher, Carol Winfield, Suzanne Gately and Elizabeth Grove for making this year's festival a reality. Thanks should also go to a host of volunteers on the day as well as the major sponsors, Victoria University, Hobsons Bay City Council, Point Gellibrand Rotary Club and the Williamstown Rotary Club. I too was proud to sponsor this event. I congratulate all who were involved in the 2014 Willy Lit Fest and look forward to many in years to come.
Lloyd's of London
Mr BROUGH (Fisher) (16:05): I rise on behalf of Caroline Thompson, who is part of a family business in the construction industry, who has found herself in all sorts of trouble and is seeking that Lloyd's of London do the right thing by their company. They had signed a trust deed, which was pivotal to the running of their business, back on 21 March 2009 and, unbeknown to them, this had never been executed by their accountants. The accountants did not do this until August 2012. When it was discovered they realised they had been acting outside the law. The problem is that they have not been able to conduct their business in an appropriate fashion since then.
Whilst the accountants acknowledged their mistake and put this through to their professional indemnity insurance company, we have found that Lloyd's of London have been anything but constructive in helping this company overcome what is a very challenging situation for them. They are at a loss about what to do. They have lost trade since August 2012. They have done everything in their power to meet their requirements under the law and they find that this major international company, the underwriters of the professional indemnity insurance, are not acting in good faith even though their client, Lloyd's of London's client, the accountants, admitted their own mistake—their failing—and, in doing so, enacted their policy. I call on Lloyd's of London to look after this Sunshine Coast business and to act in an appropriate fashion.
Mental Health
Ms McGOWAN (Indi) (16:07): On Friday, 16 May, I went to GOTAFE in Wangaratta to attend a forum on rural mental health. The forum was organised by a hardworking group of students currently studying for the certificate IV in community services. In this speech I want to acknowledge their work, to say a most sincere thankyou and to encourage them to continue to take action on this very important topic. The forum brought together over 50 mental health professionals and students from across Indi to discuss mental health issues and challenges faced by mental health professionals and community members. One of the major issues highlighted is coordination of services. Research commissioned by Medibank in 2013 states that coordination of services is actually a national issue.
The forum heard that in Australia we spend at least $28.6 billion per year supporting people with mental illness. There is a lot happening, but it is often hard to know what, where and how to access services, professionals and care. This forum began this important process of sharing information, increasing awareness and bringing together service providers, users, carers, politicians and interested community members. Warm congratulations to the organisers, the students, the teachers and the participants. I was so proud to be involved in this very important first step and I look forward to being invited to similar forums right across Indi.
Vietnamese Community Australia
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (16:08): The Vietnamese community plays a big part in making my electorate of Banks the richly diverse and vibrant place that is. At the forefront of this is a great organisation, Vietnamese Community Australia, which makes an outstanding contribution not just in Banks but right across the nation. In April I attended a reception hosted by Bankstown City Council that paid tribute to the outgoing president of Vietnamese Community New South Wales, Mr Than Nguyen, and welcomed the incoming President, Dr Thang Ha.
I commend Mr Nguyen for his leadership and for the enthusiasm he has shown at the helm of the organisation. Mr Nguyen has played an influential role in creating and renovating several monuments to the Vietnamese people across Sydney. He has also led the organisation to raise very large amounts of funds to assist victims of natural disasters right across the world.
I would also like to congratulate Dr Thang Ha on his appointment as the new president of the organisation. Whilst he has big shoes to fill, Dr Ha has already contributed so much to the organisation and our community and I know he will do a great job in the role. Dr Ha has already shown he will build on the great work of the organisation by leading VCA to raise $92,000 for action aid to help victims of Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. 2015 marks the 40th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, and I look forward to supporting the organisation during this important period. I would again like to commend VCA on its tremendous work in our community.
Closing the Gap
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:10): The Liberal-National Party made a commitment as follows before the election:
The coalition will continue the current level of funding expended on Closing the Gap activities.
That commitment did not actually last beyond one budget. In fact, it did not even get through one budget. The Prime Minister's claim to be the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs has been exposed as a hollow platitude. His budget of broken promises has gutted more than $530 million from programs that support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For weeks now, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs has been running around the countryside claiming that it is nothing more than a simple efficiency dividend. On Friday, that feeble story finally unravelled when his own department was forced to admit that the half a billion dollars in savings would come from programs, not the department at all. So it is program funding cuts, not departmental cuts. It is not an efficiency dividend at all. Even if we were to accept the pathetic attempt of the minister to water that down and say it is an efficiency dividend, it would mean for the Commonwealth department responsible for Indigenous Affairs there would be an efficiency dividend of 4.5 per cent, much higher than the 2.5 per cent applied across other portfolios. Senator Scullion has given ironclad guarantees that cuts will not be impacting on front-line services, but that also unravelled on Friday. They will be. I look forward to him explaining that to people across the country.
McGlashan, Mr Rosco
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:11): In a nondescript shed in the suburb of Mullaloo within my electorate, world-class Australian innovation and technical expertise is proudly at work. Rosco McGlashan OAM is building Aussie Invader 5R, a rocket powered car, in an attempt to set a new Australian land speed record, break the sound barrier, set a new world land speed record and exceed a speed of 1,600 kilometres per hour. Rosco McGlashan currently holds the Australian land speed record at 802.6 kilometres per hour. This record was set on 27 March 1994 on the dry salt flats of Lake Gairdner in South Australia, 440 kilometres northwest of Adelaide.
Three international teams are in the race to break the world land speed record and two teams are attempting to raise it to over 1,600 kilometres per hour. Aussie Invader 5R is18 metres in length and three metres high at the tailfin—Rosco's biggest and most powerful design yet. The legendary Peter Brock once called Rosco McGlashan 'a person who absolutely gives it a red-hot go'. As the driving force behind the Aussie Invader team, McGlashan is determined to realise the dream he has spent over 45 years chasing. He sets his goals high and will not stop at being 'the fastest Aussie on Earth'— (Time expired)
Gruen, Professor Fred
Dr LEIGH (Fraser) (16:13): Fred Henry George Gruen was born in 1921 in Vienna, Austria. He came to Australia after the outbreak of World War II on the Dunera and was then classified as an enemy alien. But he went on to be one of the great Australian economists. Fred Gruen worked initially as a professor of agriculture economics at Monash and bought a farm in Melbourne. He said in the early years at Monash that he was 'one lecture ahead of the students and one fence ahead of the cattle'. In 1971 he accepted a professorship at the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, and was at the heart of economic policy advising for the Whitlam government, including on their 25 per cent tariff reduction. He continued to advise on economic policy right into the 1990s. It was my pleasure when I was at ANU to be the last head of the economics program in the Research School of Social Sciences.
In May it was my honour to be part of an event commemorating Fred's life and paying tribute to him with Bob Gregory, Bruce Chapman, Fred's sons Nicholas and David Gruen, Martin Parkinson, Ian Young and Shirley Leitch. Fred passed away in 1997, but his portrait, painted by Erwin Fabian, will now take pride of place at the ANU. He reminds us of the value of refugees and of economic advice in great policymaking.
Seemanpillai, Mr Leo
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (16:14): I rise to express my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of the Sri Lankan national Leo Seemanpillai following his tragic death on Sunday morning. The grief experienced from the death of a loved one is difficult enough; the feelings of grief and despair are compounded when the loss occurs under tragic circumstances. Mr Seemanpillai had been in Australia on a bridging visa since arriving in Australia in 2013. He lived in Newtown in Geelong. He was working in the local community. Our government has been advised that Mr Seemanpillai was receiving mental health support. A case manager visited him on a regular basis. Last week he saw his caseworker once and they spoke again by phone. There was no indication of the dreadful events that were to follow.
Mr Seemanpillai was an active member of St Paul's Lutheran Church in Grovedale, located in the Corangamite electorate, which I represent. I also extend my heartfelt sympathies to Pastor Tom Pietsch and his parishioners, who are in mourning. The St Paul's Church community regarded Mr Seemanpillai as a man of strong faith who was very generous to others, particularly to the elderly members of the church. I am told that he often mowed peoples' lawns or did other kind deeds to assist his fellow parishioners. My thoughts are with Mr Seemanpillai's family and friends at this very sad time.
Anzac Centenary
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:16): As members will be aware, the end of May marked the end of the application period for the Centenary of Anzac Local Grants Program. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the wonderful Canberrans who formed the committee for the electorate of Canberra and who have spent much of the past six months working on allocating the grants for our electorate. The members of my electorate committee were Kevin Gill, who is president of the Vietnam Veterans Association of the ACT; Elaine Pennock, who is president of the ACT Branch War Widows Guild of Australia; Jim Gilchrist, president of the Woden Valley RSL subbranch, which is a very large and active subbranch; Sub Lieutenant Lorne Thurgar, executive officer at Training Ship Canberra; Leading Seaman Zoe Rule, from TS Canberra; and Cadet Petty Officer Alexander Thurgar, also from TS Canberra.
In forming my electorate committee, I wanted to ensure that Canberrans of all ages were represented and so I would like to say a particular thank you to Alex and Zoe from TS Canberra who are in year 12 and year 11 respectively. They were able to provide a youth perspective about what kinds of projects would interest school-aged Canberrans and about how they wanted to commemorate the centenary here in Canberra. Alex and Zoe made an outstanding contribution, and it was wonderful to have the youth of Canberra strongly represented on this committee. I would like to thank the committee very much for its work and also commend Sub Lieutenant Thurgar for growing TS Canberra so that it is now one of the biggest and most active Navy cadet units in the country.
Eden-Monaro Electorate
Dr HENDY (Eden-Monaro) (16:17): I rise today to speak about two matters. The first is the Queanbeyan Children's Special Needs Group, which I visited in May this year. Ken Roberts, as CEO, has ably led a truly dedicated team that provides care and teaching for Queanbeyan and district children. He is now retiring from that position, and I wish to publicly thank him for his service. The group offers early intervention for 45 children under school age through home visits and playgroups, support in preschools, assistance with transition to schools, a small toy library, a learn to swim program, speech therapy and wide-ranging parent support. It was inspiring to meet the hard-working staff who have to confront varied challenges. They are very special people helping very special children.
On Friday last week I visited another hard-working service for the less fortunate. HOME at Saint Benedict's Queanbeyan is an interdenominational group inspired by the example of Christ that helps the mentally ill by providing shelter where they can live independently and with dignity and still get the support they need through live-in carers and links to other programs and services. The project provides group accommodation for 19 residents. There I joined Assistant Minister for Social Services, Mitch Fifield, to learn more about this unique model of help for the otherwise homeless. I thank manager, Anne Pratt, and commend HOME Queanbeyan on their mission.
Italian Republic Day
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:19): Today Italians around the world celebrate the Festa della Repubblica, with 2 June 1946 being the day Italians voted in a referendum to become a republic. It marked the end of 85 years of Italy being a monarchy and, in 1948, Italy formally became a republic. Around the world, including here in Australia, millions of Italians mark the day with special events and ceremonies. For example, yesterday I attended a special mass at the St Francis of Assisi Catholic church at Newton, commemorating the day. Tonight the Italian embassy here in Canberra and consulates around Australia will also mark the occasion with special receptions. Regrettably, because of commitments here in the parliament, I will be unable to attend the ambassador's reception.
Over 185,000 people living in Australia today were born in Italy and I know that many more who came last century have now passed away. I know that for them, Italy becoming a republic and the end of fascism after World War II is indeed cause for celebration. To them I say: 'Buona festa della Repubblica!'
Doyle, Ms Kae
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie) (16:20): A few days ago a constituent in my electorate of Petrie, Mr Chris Doyle, shared with me a story of local heroism. On the morning of 23 April, Mr Doyle's wife Kae was playing her weekly game of tennis at the Redcliffe Tennis Centre. Without warning, and despite being fit and healthy, she suffered a massive heart attack and fell to the ground. Team mate Donna James immediately sprang into action. She assessed the situation and started CPR. The ambulance was called. The manager of the Redcliffe Tennis Centre, Thea Novic, and tennis coach, Gareth Warrilow, assisted Donna's efforts.
The ambulance officers arrived and transported Kae to the Prince Charles Hospital where her husband was waiting. When Kae was safely in the ER, one of the ambulance officers told Mr Doyle and Kae's teammates that in 27 years of service he had only seen four other patients suffer a heart attack as massive as Kae's and survive. Donna had never before administered CPR to a person but her fast actions saved the life of a friend and valued member of the community. Thank you Donna, Thea and Gareth. You are truly heroes.
Budget
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:22): In today's Midland Express there is an article titled 'Co-payment concern'. The Rural Doctors Association of Australia say the new Medicare $7 co-payment will turn doctors into tax collectors, increase red tape and see doctors called more frequently to their local hospitals to treat patients who cannot afford to pay it. The $7 co-payment will apply to GP visits not only in surgeries but also to after-hours and nursing home visits, out-of-hospital pathology and diagnostic imaging services. This system is expected to be introduced on 1 July 2015 subject to passing this parliament.
This is a common problem in rural communities and many local health professionals in my electorate have also expressed their concern, including Dr Richard Bills of Brooke Street Medical Centre in Woodend. He has a number of issues with the government's proposals. He says:
The co-payment is not a genuine improvement in payments to GPs once you take the administration of it into account. It is likely to reduce the presentations of the most needy … both geographically and service-wise.
Reducing the Medicare rebate—a payment which is already funded through the Medicare levy—is likely to dramatically stress the provision of primary healthcare services in our local community.
Lyons Electorate: Campbell Town Show
Mr HUTCHINSON (Lyons) (16:23): Tasmania's annual Campbell Town Show last week celebrated its 176th anniversary with another outstanding event. The first Campbell Town Show was held in 1838, making it the oldest agricultural show of its type in the southern hemisphere. It is a great example of a community event which exhibits the true meaning of city meeting country. Attractions include horse riding, dog trials, farm machinery exhibits and, indeed, high fashion as well as an outstanding home industries display.
Traditionally the focus has been on merino sheep and wool, with superfine wool producers competing for the prestigious Ermenegildo Zegna trophy. The Bruce Forster Memorial trophy recognises extraordinary service to the wool industry, as exemplified by the man in whose honour the trophy is presented. This year's winner was Bob Saunders from Longford.
This year, alongside the traditional attractions, was a new emphasis on dairying. The Midlands irrigation scheme is about to be open and with it a new era of prosperity for agriculture in the Midlands of Tasmania. A forum was organised by Roberts Limited, chaired by respected dairy producer Grant Rogers and featured keynote speakers such as Paul Bennett, Bill Chilvers and Grant Archer. My congratulations go to the committee of the Midlands Agricultural Association—John Taylor, Pip Gibson and secretary/treasurer retiring Julie Bingley—on organising another wonderful event again this year.
Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:25): On Saturday night I attended the presentation of the Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club. Caves Beach is one of the outstanding surf lifesaving clubs in the Shortland electorate. I am pleased to offer them my 100 per cent support. Members of both side of this parliament support surf lifesaving, and Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club is no exception to that rule.
On Saturday night competitors from surf lifesaving clubs received awards. Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club was the No. 1 surf lifesaving club in the Hunter region this year. I think when the Hunter presentations take place they will do exceptionally well yet again. They had competitors at both state and Australian titles and they had a number of winners in a number of different events in different divisions.
Caves Beach Surf Life Saving Club has been operating for nearly 85 years. They will celebrate their 85th anniversary at the end of this year. For the entire 84 years there has not been one life lost. That is a fantastic result, particularly as this beach is in a highly populated area and is strongly supported within the electorate.
Capricornia Electorate: Cultural Events
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia) (16:26): I am always excited to talk about the diversity of our great region of Capricornia. Recently I had the opportunity to attend the Taste of the World Festival in Rockhampton hosted by the Central Queensland Multicultural Association. The event uses food as a medium to celebrate acceptance of the diverse cultures that exist in our community. This year a special segment titled 'no water, no life' drew attention to Queensland's severe drought. This event introduced us to new and vibrant customs and people who contribute enormously to the social fabric of our local economy.
In a separate event near Rockhampton culture was celebrated in another way with the recent opera in the caves. Set inside a limestone cave at the Capricorn Caves tourism park, the opera made use of the caves' natural sound qualities. The event was staged by the Underground Opera Company, which provides regional Australia with professional concerts in extraordinary environments, such as natural caves, underground mines and tunnels.
Relationships Australia
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:28): On Friday morning I had the great pleasure of having a tour and meeting with the team from Relationships Australia for Canberra and the region. I want to take this opportunity to commend that team for their great work. Relationships Australia supplies employee assistance to Canberra and the region, relationship counselling, family dispute resolution, trauma counselling and services to Aboriginal Canberrans, particularly to those who are incarcerated at the jail or at Bimberi. They have just introduced a program on non-violent reconciliation, which is based on the principles and philosophies espoused by Dr Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi. Parents who are having challenges with their children develop the skills and resilience to better manage their children. It is a great new scheme they are piloting. I understand they are going to be rolling it out further.
This service is greatly valued by Canberrans and those in the capital region. I encourage the member for Hume and the member for Eden-Monaro to take time to have a look at what they are offering. I understand that the member for Riverina is perfectly across what they do offer. I would like to commend Mary Pekin and her exceptional team for their commitment, dedication and concern and for healing Canberrans and the people in the capital region.
National Servicemen's Day
Mr LAUNDY (Reid) (16:29): At different times between 1911 and 1972 Australia has had national service. I know the member for Bass, who is me, had a distinguished career. In that time 238,000 people who have served. It was a great honour yesterday to be invited to attend Burwood and District National Servicemen's Commemorative Service Day. It was an even greater honour after the election to be contacted by Ms Rhonda Kelly and asked to become the group's patron, which I grabbed with both hands.
Particularly of note in my family's history is that when Sydney training happened at Holsworthy the nearest pub in those days was the Crossroads at Ingleburn. My father, Arthur, was the licensee between 1959 and 1962. My grandparents had the pub for years and the affiliation of my family with the nashos in those days—'nashos' being, obviously, a term of affection—was one of great pride. It was my honour yesterday to attend the service. I would like to thank all those from 1911 to 1972 for their service. I would like to thank those for yesterday's celebration and for bestowing upon me the honour of becoming their patron.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:31): Last August environment minister Greg Hunt said:
We are keeping ARENA and ARENA is the body looking at specific support for development projects in the solar space.
In its first budget the Abbott government scrapped the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and with it thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector. The cuts will not only place so many of those jobs on the scrap heap but also additional new jobs that were in the pipeline. Many of those jobs were in the manufacturing sector, adding to the loss of Australian manufacturing jobs.
I understand that in Germany today more people are employed in the renewable energy sector than in auto manufacturing, highlighting the potential for manufacturing jobs in the renewable energy sector. Equally concerning, much of Australia's innovation and expertise could be lost to overseas countries that are embracing renewable energy rather than walking away from it. At time when so many manufacturing jobs are being lost in Australia, renewable energy projects provide alternative opportunities for skilled manufacturing workers who otherwise may find it difficult to get jobs. It shows the Abbott government's twisted priorities that they would abolish an agency that is creating jobs, benefiting the environment but yet commit $2½ billion to pay polluters so they can keep polluting.
Dobell Electorate: Rural Fire Service
Mrs McNAMARA (Dobell) (16:32): I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women of Dobell's volunteer Rural Fire Service. In October 2013 the Central Coast was ravaged by series of bushfires. Residents were cut off from their homes, properties were destroyed and, tragically, one life was lost. This unimaginable destruction would have been far worse if not for the efforts of our volunteer Rural Fire Service. Our local RFS's tireless firefighting is the difference between life and death and having lives altered by the unforgiving nature of fire. Over 100 years ago residents in the south-western New South Wales township of Berrigan formed Australia's first official bush fire brigade.
Today the New South Wales Rural Fire Service boasts over 2,000 volunteer brigades, with a membership of over 70,000. I was honoured to have recently attended the Lakes Team Volunteer Appreciation Day, where volunteers from Rural Fire Service units across Wyong shire and Lake Macquarie councils were recognised for their hard work, dedication and commitment. It is essential that we acknowledge the bravery and efforts of our volunteer firefighters.
RFS members' contribution is not only measured in the aftermath of a natural disaster; it is felt all year round, when we know that if we are under threat from fire we can call on them to protect our community. I would like to pay particular thanks to the members of Berkeley Vale, Charmhaven, Chittaway, Dooralong, Kulnura, Matcham, Narara, Ourimbah, Wadalba, Wamberal, Warnervale and Yarramalong brigades for their efforts and commitment to protecting Dobell.
Bendigo Electorate: Budget
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:34): I rise to share the words of Women's Health Loddon Mallee Executive Officer Linda Beilharz, who said that 'the federal budget has failed rural women'. She said that after hearing about the measures in the budget:
I feel depressed, really, because of the indication that the budget gives to the values that are held by the government and what that means in the investment that we've made in women's health in the region.
She said that this budget 'will take us backwards' in terms of preventative health measures. Ms Beilharz said that the budget would decrease the disposable income for the most vulnerable, particularly women, and ensure that the cost of living increases.
Loddon Mallee community health, Loddon Mallee health and Loddon Mallee women's health stand united in their concern with the budget. Rural women are being left behind by this government. They are being forgotten, whether it be in health, education or jobs. Predominantly it is women who work in the not-for-profit sector. They are the ones whose jobs are on the line because of funding cuts by this government delivered on budget night. It is the women who work at the ATO in Bendigo whose jobs have been cut. It is women who work at the Australian Institute of Management whose jobs have been cut. It is women who work for Youth Connections in Bendigo. Their jobs have been cut. I agree with Linda: this government has forgotten rural women.
Bilson, Mr Bob
Mr NIKOLIC (Bass) (16:35): The Launceston business community recently lost one of its stalwarts, Bob Bilson. Bob was the chairman of the Launceston printing company Foot and Playsted and will be remembered for his passion for the printing industry and his successful management of a prominent business, established in 1926. Bob joined Foot and Playsted as company secretary in 1962, achieving over 50 years service, which is in itself a remarkable record. He had a strong vision for Foot and Playsted, ensuring it provided top-quality service and the very best products. Bob was a pioneer when it came to printing innovation, installing state-of-the-art equipment. He oversaw every technical change at Foot and Playsted as it moved into the digital age, from linotype and hot metal to digital and direct to press.
Bob Bilson was also a proud Launcestonian who supported the printing of books by local authors. The quality of these products was so high that many of the books he printed are highly prized on the collectors' market both in Australia and overseas. Bob served on the boards of the former Launceston Bank for Savings, the Launceston Church Grammar School and the prominent local retailer McKinlay's, ensuring that Foot and Playsted was always heavily involved in charities and volunteer organisations.
To his wife, Janet, and their family I extend my sincere sympathies. Their grief at his sudden departure will, I hope, be tempered by the knowledge that his life was one of great contribution to our community and our nation.
Citizenship
Ms HALL (Shortland—Opposition Whip) (16:36): On Saturday, 31 May, I held a citizenship ceremony in my office for Mrs Gunster and her son, Scott. They needed to have their citizenship ceremony outside the usual citizenship ceremonies that are conducted by my local council. Members on both sides of this House would be regular attendees at citizenship ceremonies. I think it is one of the really special jobs that we as members of parliament do—going along and being there when people make that big decision to take out citizenship of our great nation. Saturday was very special for me because I have been a member of parliament for a very long period of time but during that period of time I had never previously performed a citizenship ceremony in my office. Unfortunately, the citizenship ceremonies, as I think I previously mentioned, of the local government area that Mrs Gunster lived in were going to be conducted after the period of time in which she needed to get her citizenship to get her first Australian passport. I would like to congratulate her and Scott for giving me the honour of being able to preside over their citizenship ceremony. I know we have two great Australians who are now part of our nation.
Karoonda Farm Fair
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:38): During the autumn recess, I had the privilege of attending the Karoonda Farm Fair, not for the first time but certainly for the first time since my election as the federal member. This year saw the Karoonda Farm Fair committee celebrate the 30th anniversary of this event. I congratulate President Ian Wood and manager Ray Ball and other members of their hardworking committee on another successful fair. This fair would not be the success it is without the hardworking and dedicated members of the Karoonda District Agricultural Bureau and the Ettrick Agricultural Bureau and the support of the District Council of Karoonda East Murray and community volunteers.
The Karoonda Farm Fair is an annual two-day event, showcasing local, state and interstate farming and general interest products, services and events based at Karoonda in the heart of the Murraylands. The farm fair enjoys a broad visitor base from across South Australia as well as from interstate. With over 350 exhibitors each year, the field days attract a significant crowd and provide a major boost to the local economy.
Besides having the opportunity to discuss matters of concern with a great line-up of exhibitors and visitors, I also enjoyed the many interesting entertainment events at the field days—namely, the Karoonda State Yard Dog Championship, a yesteryear display, children's entertainment, a Healthy Murraylands cooking demonstration and, my personal favourite, the speed and sports shearing event. I always marvel at these athletes of industry, not least because the last time I sheared a sheep it fell asleep. Whilst I cannot emulate their efforts I can support their cause, which is raising money for breast cancer.
Boer War Day
Ms BRODTMANN (Canberra) (16:40): On Saturday afternoon I had the great honour of delivering the commemorative address at the Boer War Day service at St John the Baptist Church in Reid, over on the other side of the lake. I was joined there by my dear colleague Senator Kate Lundy. The service remembered those who served and sacrificed their lives in the war and especially acknowledged the service of local men. Even though Canberra was not formed at that stage, 190 men from the south-east New South Wales region served in the war, including 38 from Bungendore, 51 from Queanbeyan, seven from Michelago and 88 from Braidwood.
In particular, we remembered two local men, Sergeant William Bradshaw Galliard Smith and Private William Frederick Young. Those two young men were born in what is now Canberra but came from different backgrounds. One would join an Imperial unit, the other a New South Wales unit, and they would both lose their lives. They had a common bond represented by the church. Sergeant William Bradshaw Galliard Smith's father was the minister at the church and felt the loss of his son very heavily. Private William Frederick Young was buried in the grounds of the church. We had a very honourable and dignified service, we laid flowers at his grave and remembered his sacrifice.
Hinkler Electorate: Cancer Funds and Aged Care
Mr PITT (Hinkler) (16:41): I recently attended a Queensland Cancer Council fundraising event at RSL Fairways, on the north side of Bundaberg, with my wife, Alison. This event was organised by local resident Margaret Crabb, ably supported by Peter Carey from the Queensland Cancer Council. One of the great parts of this event was a mad hatters tea party. I am not sure whether you had to be mad to wear a hat or just a mad hat, but eventually my wife and I judged the mad hatters event. The winner was Berice Moody, and the reason for Berice getting up was basically that she had built her hat out of teabags which were completely recyclable—after the event she used them for afternoon tea. We thought that was a fantastic opportunity to recycle those things.
In my electorate of Hinkler what is desperately needed is more aged-care beds. My biggest demographic groups are the over-85s, with 3,141 residents, and the over-65s, with 30,414 residents. That is an enormous amount. I have had a number of meetings with aged-care providers recently which have been very encouraging, but we need to ensure that we build more of these facilities locally and we need to build in the very near future. They tell me they have opportunities after we get the bubble through from the baby boomers to use those facilities as a cheap way of providing residential accommodation. I would encourage people to get into those things and build them as quickly as possible because we need them now.
Military Working Dogs Day
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (16:43): This Saturday, 7 June, when I will be attending a service to commemorate the role of military working dogs, is referred to as Military Working Dogs Day. The Salisbury RSL has been holding this service for some years and I understand there will be similar services in other parts of the country. The day recognises and commemorates the invaluable role of dogs within our defence forces and also within other national security and police forces. Some amazing stories have been documented about the service of these dogs and I have little doubt that many defence personnel owe their lives to them. Many of the dogs, regrettably, have been killed in the course of their duty to our nation.
I particularly want to commend and acknowledge the work of the dog handlers and trainers of military working dogs. They commit an incredible amount of time to training of these dogs and teaching them all that they need to know in order to be of service to the defence forces and the broader community. I know we often acknowledge defence personnel in a whole range of places, but we quite often fail to properly acknowledge those people who spend time with these dogs, many of them being in the three forces—Air Force, Navy and Army. I have met many of them, I have spoken with them and I know how much they are committed to the military working dogs that serve our nation.
Forde Electorate: Ormeau Lions Club
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde) (16:44): Many of us in our communities have a wonderful range of local community groups, and I would like to highlight the activities of the Ormeau Lions Club, a group of local men and women in Forde who strive to serve the local Ormeau community and its surrounds. In the last year alone the club has raised more than $58,000 through its commitment to small weekly events, such as its Saturday barbecue at the local IGA, as well as its commitment to large fundraisers, such as the Shave for a Cure and the Lions' Annual Ormeau Fair.
As a member of the Ormeau Lions' Club, I have the pleasure of regularly attending meetings and catching up with fellow members and also hearing about the wonderful plans for the upcoming Eighth Annual Ormeau Fair. I thank a number of our local businesses for sponsoring the fair again this year, as well as the major sponsor, the Gold Coast City Council. Sponsorships such as these, in addition to the local business owners who come to the fair each year, allow president, Peter Young, and the team to build a wonderful, successful event. The efforts speak for themselves, with the Ormeau Fair now nicknamed the 'Mini-Ekka', becoming one of the major annual attractions for locals living on the northern Gold Coast. I congratulate the Ormeau Lions for bringing our community together; they are an excellent, long-standing community group and I am proud that they are part of the Forde community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Porter ): Order! In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has now concluded.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2014-2015
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015
Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2013-2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2013-2014
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr MARLES (Corio) (16:46): I rise to speak in relation to the appropriation bill, which is a bill pursuant to the 2014-15 federal budget, which is a budget of broken promises. It is a budget that will put in place a co-payment for every person who seeks to go to a doctor in circumstances where, before the election, the now Prime Minister assured the Australian people that Medicare would not be touched. This is a budget that puts in place significant changes to the pension, which will see those people born after 1965 working through to the age of 70 and which will see those people on pensions suffer a reduction in the way in which their pensions are indexed going forward—and all of this occurred in circumstances where the now Prime Minister assured the Australian people before the election that he would not touch pensions. This is a budget that puts in place new taxes—the petrol tax, the deficit levy tax—in circumstances where the Prime Minister said, prior to the election to the Australian people, that his would be a government that would not increase taxes and would not introduce new taxes; instead he would reduce taxes and get rid of taxes. But what we have in this bill is a budget of new taxes. This is a budget which will see a cut—an $80 billion cut—to hospitals and to schools around Australia in circumstances where the Prime Minister assured us before the election that his would be a government that would not seek cuts to health and to education.
These are broken promises made by a Prime Minister who, before the last election, asked the Australian people, on more than any other issue, to judge him by the value of his word. He would be different. His would be a government of no excuses, and his would be a government that would be predictable and that people could be assured would reflect the promises and the statements that he made before the election. It has been a rude awakening for the Australian people to see the first Abbott budget, and to see the way in which this government is going about its business in complete flagrant denial of the undertakings that it made to the Australian people prior to the last election.
In relation to the specific portfolio area of immigration I want to make two brief points. We in the Labor Party and in the opposition are very concerned about the bringing to an end the non-contributory parent visa. For so many migrant families in Australia this is a very important class of visa that gives them hope that they will be able to bring their parents to Australia for the remaining years of their parents' lives. It is a significant issue for these communities. It also means that Australia on the international playing field, if you like, competing for skilled labour with other countries such as Canada, the US and Britain where visas of this kind do exist, will find itself at a disadvantage because of the absence of a non-contributory parent visa here in Australia. It is a matter of enormous concern. It has been raised with me and I know with many members of the Labor caucus by many people within the migrant communities of Australia. It is certainly a matter about which we will seek to hold the government to account.
Another key measure that was announced in the context of the budget by the immigration minister was the creation of the Australian Border Force. This we broadly see as a positive step forward. We remain concerned—and we have placed our concerns on the record—about needing to ensure that this does not result in a reduction in staffing within the Public Service, and in the broader context of this budget that is a legitimate concern. That said, there is merit in having a single badge meet people who come to Australia's border. This is an idea that had been conceived of during Labor's time in office. The then Minister for Home Affairs, Jason Clare, last July spoke about this in a speech whilst he was the minister, so it is a measure we in Labor broadly accept.
In the time remaining I want to focus significantly on the way in which this budget will affect my electorate of Corio, based as it is on Geelong. In Geelong we had a difficult beginning of the year which followed a very difficult decision last year. The two main economic pillars of Geelong's private sector economy as we speak on this day would be Alcoa and the Ford Motor Company. Both have within the last 12 months or so announced that they will be closing up shop in Geelong. Point Henry will close in two stages—through the middle of this year and at the end of this year—so by 1 January next year Point Henry will not be operating as an aluminium smelter. Ford have announced that they will be closing their manufacturing operations in 2016, albeit they will continue their product and design development activities within Australia and within Geelong beyond that.
In those circumstances it is really important that a community like Geelong is provided with transition assistance to help it get through what will be a very difficult economic shock. On the day that Ford made its decision last year to cease making cars in Australia and in Geelong from 2016 the then Labor government put in place the lion's share of funding for the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which is now a $25 million fund with contributions from Ford itself and from the state government. Indeed, the fund is now larger than that, with a subsequent contribution from Alcoa, which I will come to in a moment. That money was put forward by the then Labor government on the very day that Ford made its decision.
On the same day the then Labor government also made clear that workers at Ford would be put in stream 3 job assistance for their ongoing future. This basically is amongst the highest forms of job placement assistance that can be provided by the federal government and it allows those workers in a practical sense to be funded to retrain and be case managed so that they can transition as quickly as possible into new employment. The reason they were classified as stream 3—rather than being individually assessed, which would be business as usual—is that it was accepted that the very fact of a large number of people coming onto the labour market at one time is of itself a disadvantage that those workers would need to deal with. Classifying them in this way before 2016 came about enables those workers to go about the business of reskilling themselves and repositioning themselves for the jobs of Geelong's future.
When Alcoa made its decision in February of this year, no such decision was made by the new federal government, the Abbott government, in relation to providing money that is guaranteed for Geelong, for its transition in a private sector economy post Alcoa. And there was no money in the budget for that either.
Similarly those workers at Alcoa remain in limbo about how they will be assessed and what stream they will be placed in. So what monies they can access for future training is uncertain, which means they are basically not accessing future training. Indeed, Alcoa, the company itself, has had to come and put money—not leveraged any public money—into the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund. Alcoa is having to put up a $2,000 voucher, as it were, per employee for them to do that retraining, and that is fundamentally a job that government should have done. In that respect the budget that was announced by the Abbott government failed Geelong.
At that time, what we also saw in the budget was a significant attack on the safety net, just at a time when so many people in Geelong would be needing to rely on the safety net. I mentioned the $7 co-payment to visit a doctor. What that means for a doctor who is operating in Geelong is that if they do not collect that co-payment then they will have their own scheduled rate reduced by $5, and if they get an incentive payment in relation to bulk billing—which they do in Geelong; an additional $9, by being a part of regional Australia—they will miss out on that as well. Fourteen dollars off the scheduled fee that they would be able to charge is being removed. In circumstances where nearly 79 per cent of medical attendances in Geelong are bulk-billed, this represents an enormous attack in relation to the way Medicare operates in in Geelong, and it will simply create a situation where it is not commercial for a doctor to establish themselves in low socioeconomic places such as Newcomb and Whittington or Norlane and Corio.
I mentioned earlier that the pension is being eroded. Family payments are also being eroded. The petrol tax is being increased. The petrol tax being increased is also of significance to Geelong, being a regional area where people use their cars more. We have a situation where people under 30 will be required to spend six months without any assistance whatsoever before they can receive Newstart allowance. Youth Connections, a matter I have spoken about in this place before, is also being cut, and that will significantly impact young people in Geelong and their ability to become work ready.
I want to spend a moment talking about the effects that this budget will have in deregulating the university sector and what that means for our university in Geelong, Deakin University. Where you find a strong regional city in this country, you will find a strong regional university, and Deakin University is most certainly that for Geelong. Deakin University has provided a wonderful service to the people of Geelong in a very accessible way, and in the same breath it has been able to build up its research capability, which is fundamental to transitioning Geelong to undertaking higher-tech manufacturing in the future.
Carbon Revolution, which is a much applauded company, has grown out of the research effort of Deakin University. They are now making carbon fibre car wheels and selling them to car companies around the world.
It is a great example of a company that, in the not-too-distant future, will be employing hundreds of people—ex-Ford workers among them. That is the benefit of the research function at Deakin University for a place like Geelong.
Yet what this budget does to Deakin is essentially demand it make a decision about whether or not it will continue to be the accessible university it has been and charge its current fees, or continue its research function and, in order to facilitate and fund those activities, increase its fees. If it does that, by definition you will see people who are currently going to Deakin from Geelong needing to travel to Ballarat or Footscray in order to undertake higher education, which is a really unsatisfactory situation. It is an appalling situation to put Deakin University in and it does enormous damage to Geelong.
Land 400 is a major Defence project which was articulated within the Defence capability plan as it was last enunciated by the then Labor government. This is a project which has been deferred by the current Abbott government and was not in the budget either. Land 400 represents the best opportunity to engage in automotive production of some kind in Australia. It was something the people of Geelong had been really keen to bid for—but right now it is not in the budget.
When you look at all these things from the perspective of Geelong it is hard not to feel that this is a government which, through this budget, has cut Geelong loose. It has done all of that while also having included in the budget the Paid Parental Leave scheme which will see $50,000 cheques paid to people earning up to $1 million and more. That says everything about how this budget has failed the people of Geelong.
Mr ROBB (Goldstein—Minister for Trade and Investment) (17:01): I rise to speak on the budget Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-15 and related bills. The previous government left behind a fiscal train wreck. It lost control of the budget and lacked the strength of leadership to fix the yawning structural deficit it created. It lacked the strength to rein in the reckless spending of the last six years of government. There is no doubt that the coalition was in no small part elected to clean up this mess—to repair the budget and get government back to living within its means.
The budget brought down by Joe Hockey is totally consistent with that task. This budget puts Australia back on a sustainable path. It dramatically reduces Labor's record debt and deficit while at the same time reducing the overall tax burden by something in the order of $5.7 billion. It is also a budget that invests heavily in infrastructure and, most importantly, it is a budget which backs our strengths—those things which, as a country, we do as well as anyone and better than most. We are very deliberately looking to back our strengths as a country rather than do the sorts of things we have seen in the last few years where, in the middle of the biggest mining boom in our history, we saw a carbon tax introduced; and not happy with that, a mining tax was introduced as well. It is not just the taxes: it is the mountain of regulation which surrounds those taxes which has added a multibillion-dollar burden to the operation of those businesses. In many cases it has now made us a lot less competitive—in fact, uncompetitive—in some world markets in things we have historically been world leaders in.
It now takes two years longer than it did in 2007 to get an approval for a large LNG project. That means something in the order of $30-$40 million a month has been added to the cost of projects of that order with nothing to be gained. It is dead money. It is hundreds of millions of dollars of disadvantage compared with projects in other parts of the world.
In fact, the leaders of some of those companies have said to me that it is now cheaper to build a new train of gas, a greenfields train of gas, in Canada than it is to build a brownfields train of gas in Australia. That is a most disgraceful legacy, a job destroying legacy, a legacy for the Labor government which goes to our inability now even to compete in some areas that we have historically been world leaders. That is what we are doing in backing our strengths. That is what we are doing in getting the government back living within its means.
In this instance, we have seen the former government borrowing $100 million a day in the financial market. That is what it took to build up hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. When a government does that it is a lot of money each day that is coming out of the financial markets. As a consequence, there are so many small businesses in Australia which have not been able to acquire simple finance to rollover their mortgages—especially small and medium businesses. They are the ones that have been affected. That is why there are 500,000 fewer jobs in small business than there were six years ago. Over half a million, 512,000, people have lost their jobs in small business—and those opposite just wipe their hands of it. They criticise a budget which is seeking to put some resilience back into small business, to put some profitability back into small business and to get the government away from competing with small business in the financial market.
I have so many small businesses in my electorate who could not refinance a simple mortgage of $180,000 or $250,000 simply to roll it over. Their financial institution would say, 'We haven't got money for you; go and find it somewhere else.' The doors have closed on so many businesses—not because they were unprofitable, not because they were not going to see through the difficult times, but because they just could not get the finance to rollover their financial instrument. That is a direct consequence and it leads to jobs. Those opposite endlessly talk about jobs, but they have destroyed over half a million jobs in small business. Small business is the engine room of our economy. It is the innovation centre of our economy. All along, big business has outsourced innovation to small and medium business. That is how our system works. It has been undermined, constrained and, in many ways, destroyed in so many areas over the last few years.
To be sure, it is a tough budget and there are unpopular measures. But, like the Costello budget of 1996, it represents a major turning point. The fact of the matter is that, if we did not act now, it would be much worse later. The spending profile that existed when we took over will change if we get the support of those opposite or those Independents in the Senate. If we are able to change the current policy framework, what is coming down the line—which will be much more damaging than what we confront today—will not eventuate. What I mean by that is that, if you extrapolate the spending programs they accelerate. Let's assume 3½ per cent growth, which is half a per cent higher than trend growth. If you go off into the future for 10 years at 3½ per cent and you maintain the existing spending programs that have been put in place, the gap widens. It widens from something like $250 billion to $667 billion.
That is what we are dealing with. That is why there is an urgency about doing something now and why we have gone to structural changes in the budget—structural changes in health, structural changes in education, structural changes in welfare—all things which will progressively put some common sense back into those spending programs. And it is not just common sense. It is a sustainable capacity to continue to deliver things like Medicare, high-quality education and the sorts of assistance and the safety net that Australians deserve, those who are unable to look after themselves or achieve an acceptable standard of living. We want to be able to sustain those sorts of policy measures.
But what we took over, what we inherited from the last six years of Labor government, has been a budgetary situation which would have blown out with a debt reaching $667 billion within 10 years. It would have meant not $1 billion a month in repayments but $3 billion a month in repayments, and this would be untenable. We could not afford the spending programs. If you had been this House for the last three years in particular, what we saw in the last year also, I think, was a government convinced that it would not win the last election. As a consequence, there was an obsession with planting policy time bombs across so many areas.
Look at it. The $80 billion they talked about for health and education was never sustainable. For the forward estimates for Labor last year, they had modest increases in all of those areas, and then there was an explosion of cost from 2016 onwards after the next election. This was deliberate political strategy from a group that thought they would not win, that they would not have to find the money, that this would put us in the position we are in today having to defend tough measures. It was a callous strategy, an objectionable approach by those opposite—pure politics—and not looking after the interests of the nation. They were not doing things in the nation's best interest, but playing politics with the budget. What has happened was deliberate. The blow-out that is going to come to the nation if we do not do something about it now, was conceived and executed by those opposite for crass political purposes. They tried to set us up with these fiscal time bombs down the track we have seen.
We are going to address the situation. They created this problem but we take responsibility for fixing it up. We were elected. People knew there was a mess. Of course people find it difficult after several years of debt-fuelled reckless spending—everyone puts their hand out, everyone gets whatever they want. You have an opportunity in business? We will give you some but government money. You have a problem in business? We will give you some government money. Got a problem in the community—not a problem; sign another cheque and pay for it by borrowing money. All of us could borrow money tomorrow and create jobs for a little while. We could put a new deck on the house. We could paint the house. We could do things. We could go to the top restaurants. We could spend money and create jobs, but after a while the $200,000 we borrowed has to be paid back. It is no different for this community. The reckless spending and the borrowing of the last few years and the built-in spending increases which far exceed even above-trend growth for the economy, are of such an order that we need the measures that have been taken in this budget.
But the thing with the structural changes is that they will affect spending levels gradually over time. They will bring them back into order. It is not a king hit on the community. The other point is that when you rein in government spending so that small business can get some finance to grow their business and stay in business, you create a situation where you have got to replace the government spending with other activity, with robust growth in the private sector.
So this government has sought to do two things: on the one hand, to live within our means as a government but on the other hand, to open up opportunities for the private sector in a way that was diminishing at such a rapid rate. We want to open up opportunities for small business in particular—to get small business back in business. We want to reduce the taxes—to get rid of the carbon tax, reduce corporate tax by 1½ per cent and remove all of these problems with big projects. We want to get rid of the mining tax, streamline the approval processes, get some efficiency back into those processes and ensure that we can, in the future, compete effectively in these areas. There is such a magnificent opportunity emerging in the countries around us, countries that will have an explosion of the middle class from 600 million to something in the order of 3 billion not in 100 years, not in 50 years, but in the next 25 to 30 years. If we get ourselves lean, hungry, competitive and knowledge based then we will capture so much of that opportunity. The next 30 years can be spectacular for Australia but we have to—as a community, as businesses and as governments—look to that future. We have to get ourselves into condition so that we are like an elite athlete, ready to take advantage of the opportunities being presented to us.
In that regard we have sought to open Australia for business. It is why we have very aggressively sought to conclude the free trade agreements with Korea and Japan—agreements that the last government failed to bring to conclusion in six years. We have done so many things for business to restore some predictability, certainty and stability so that, as a country, we can take advantage of the spectacular opportunity that is emerging on our doorstep. It will not necessarily fall into our lap. We have to earn it, but we are so well placed. If we treat our neighbours with respect and get ourselves into great shape we can have a wonderful future for ourselves, our kids and our grandchildren.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:16): I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2014-2015 and related bills. On Saturday the front page of the Bendigo Advertiser had a photo of a grade 4 Camp Hill Primary School student. She was holding a letter—a letter to the Prime Minister challenging him on the federal budget. In her letter she wrote:
We are absolutely shocked by your actions. We think that you are being so unfair and disgrace.
These are the words of a young Camp Hill Primary School student. She is upset about the co-payment. She is upset about the Prime Minister's treatment of asylum seekers and the policy on them. I agree with so much of what Rachael Hamilton had to say.
This is an unfair budget. It is a budget that targets regional Victorians and Bendigo. Central Victorians will be hit hard by a number of broken promises, cruel cuts and unfair increases in almost every aspect of country and rural Victorians' lives. This budget shows that Tony Abbott and his Liberal government do not actually care about the people of Bendigo and central Victoria. Yes, there is some good funding for local projects. Some of the projects that the community has been advocating for for a long time have been funded. It is good to see there is funding for the Ravenswood interchange upgrade. It is good to see there is funding for the Pall Mall RSL museum planning project. It is good to see there is funding for community projects like the Kyneton Community Park and small projects such as the Huntly historical society. But Bendigo was a marginal seat at the last election and the government did throw whatever they could at it to try to win the seat; so it is not surprising that some local projects did get funded.
However, the funding for these projects does not make up for the harsh cuts and tax increases that will hit the vulnerable in our community the hardest. The heart of this budget is designed to tear down everything that makes our community strong. It attacks the most vulnerable in our community: our age pensioners, our unemployed, the young, families and the poor. There is an issue of equity within this budget. Days after the budget, as part of my 'A Day in Your Shoes' program, I spent the morning with Country Cob bakery in Kyneton. It was an interesting case study: this budget will affect each of the people working there in a different way. We were talking to the chef who has worked at the Country Cob for about 10 years. He was particularly concerned about the GP co-payment. Not that long ago his wife needed a heart transplant. All he could think of on budget night, when they were talking about the $7 co-payment, was how, every day after the transplant, they went to the doctor. All he could think was, 'Will I have to have $7?'
Imagine him having to find the $7 to pay the co-payment when all he wanted to be concerned about was his wife's health and getting her to her appointment.
He said that another major concern is the increase in the fuel tax. For them, living in a country area, driving from Woodend to Kyneton, driving the kids around as required, petrol is a big expense in their budget. Any increase would hit them hard. We pay more for petrol in the regions. On one Saturday in the electorate, petrol in Woodend was as much as $1.65. When you drove up the road, the petrol was $1.55. By the time you got to Bendigo, it was $1.45—a 20c difference on the same day in one electorate. The petrol tax will just compound this effect.
When I spoke to another member of the Country Cob Bakery staff, a single mum, she said that was very concerned about the changes to her payments. She has a young teenage daughter and is concerned about losing the schoolkids bonus and about how she is going to ensure that her young girl continues to get an education. She is concerned about the cuts to Gonski and what that means for the public school which her daughter goes to. She is concerned that her daughter may not have access to a trades training centre—another funding cut by this government since it was elected.
I also spoke to the two apprentices working at the Country Cob Bakery. Their major concern with the budget was the announced cuts to the tools program. It was of particular concern for the mature-aged apprentice who, at the age of 30, decided to take up an apprenticeship in pastry-making. She already pays her own way. She pays her own rent—she does not live at home—and much of her course work is now online. She was going to use the tools bonus introduced by the former government—and now axed by this government—to buy a computer so that she would be able to do her course work online. These are the effects of this budget. These are the effects on just three or four people working at the Country Cob Bakery.
Now the owner: he said that his concern with the budget is how it will hit his customer base. He is concerned that pensioners will have less money to spend in his bakery. He is concerned that the mums will not come in and have their cake and coffee on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings. The problem is that, when you reduce the incomes of those on the smallest of incomes, they do not spend. They do not have the disposable income to spend in their local community.
The budget cuts are inherently regressive. They target the poorest parts of our community who benefit the most from government spending. Whilst the debt levy, which Labor supports, on the rich is temporary, the intended changes to Medicare, university fees, pensions and welfare payments will be permanent. There has been talk of how Labor in government produces these policy time bombs. There has also been talk about a great conspiracy theory that Labor was setting up a budget to catch out the incoming government. This is so wrong. What Labor did in government was invest in and create programs for the future: Gonski, a great program; the NDIS, a great program; and ensuring that our hospitals have adequate funding, a great program. Prior to the election, this government had no problem in standing side by side with Labor on these issues. Prior to the election, when Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey were in Bendigo, they said that there would be no cuts to health and education. They stood at the front of the Bendigo Hospital and proudly said that they will continue to invest every dollar, just as Labor had done. So it is not a conspiracy theory if, before the election, you agreed with it. And it is not a time bomb if, before the election, you agreed with it. This is a government that will say one thing to get elected and do another once it is elected. Let us be true about this budget. It is about ideology. It is about cutting back government and cutting services. It does not believe that government has a role to play in investing to build a stronger community. It does not build Australia; it tears it down.
There are other examples of how this budget is bad for the economy and bad for the Bendigo electorate. Let us look at the health cuts that I referred to. On budget night, it was revealed that $25 million would be cut from Bendigo Health between now and the next five years, because the government had torn up the national partnership on hospital funding. This is a lot of money to be lost from one particular hospital. The funding cuts to our regional hospitals may force some of our smaller hospitals to merge; it may force some hospitals to close. We have an issue in providing quality, affordable health care in our region. There is no point building a brand-new hospital if they do not have the operating budget to keep it open.
Another health cut that will hit the community hard is the GP tax, the $7 per visit. We have heard today the private Brooke Street clinic in Woodend blast the $7 per visit payment. Dr Richard Bills has said that this would deter people from seeking help. He was also critical of the fact that they have will have to charge it when they turn up to nursing homes. In regional communities our doctors do their bit to help in hospitals and nursing homes and do the after-hours clinic services. If you are a distance from a hospital, you need GP clinics and you need GPs to do this work. Now they have to make sure that they have got their accounts and have change for the $7 co-payment.
Another thing that will hit the electorate hard is the cuts to education funding. Bendigo schools were going to be big winners under the former federal Labor government's Gonski plan. Over $100 million was going to be invested in our schools to ensure that they had the resources that they need. It was not just a splash for cash; it was built on the principle that every school, regardless of where they are, would have the resources they need. The funding was going to follow the child. It would have given families choices. Under this budget we have seen funding to our local schools in Bendigo cut.
The changes to higher education are also a disaster for the region. It is not just about the HECS debts that will now not be subject to the CPI but subject to up to six per cent interest rates; it is also about the low-socioeconomic students attending a local university. This will be a barrier for them to attend university. Currently 25 per cent of people enrolled at Bendigo's La Trobe University are from a low-socioeconomic background. The cuts this government has made to the programs that encourage students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds will see that number fall.
The changes to higher education will also hit country kids who move to the city to go to university. Not too many people from the country have the economic needs to support a household in the city for children going to university and a household in their home electorate. Skye, the City of Greater Bendigo's Youth Citizen of the Year, is studying her third year of medicine at Monash University. Just on the weekend she said that, if these changes were in five years ago when she was considering to studying medicine, she believes that her family or she would not have been able to afford it. Skye grew up in North Bendigo. It is not an area of wealth. Skye would have to pay $200,000 for her medicine degree, and that is a debt that she or her family could not have taken on board.
Another thing in this budget that will have a big impact on Bendigo is the public sector job cuts. We are not immune to the over 16,000 job cuts that will occur in our electorate. The ATO in Bendigo will go. That is about 10 jobs. Jobs at the Australian Emergency Management Institute will also go. That is 60 jobs, including contractors. Why on earth would you cut funding and close the Australian Emergency Management Institute when in regional Victoria we are trying to get on top of emergency management? It is a silly decision to make. It is a reckless decision to make. This institute ensures that when disaster strikes, when there is an emergency, the people in charge are prepared and have the skills. It brings together our SES, our CFA, the departments and the people in charge to ensure that when there is an emergency they are prepared and ready.
Bendigo deserves its fair share of public sector jobs, yet in the budget we have seen jobs cut. This budget has no plan for jobs. All it does is cut jobs, whether they be jobs in the public sector, the not-for-profit sector or associated with support programs like Youth Connections and family counselling. This budget is an attack on jobs and good jobs. It sees more job cuts in our region.
On debt, any high-school economics student can tell you that to counter a recession a government needs to spend during the downturns to ensure that the recovery is sooner, to save during the booms and spend during the downturns to give the private sector the best opportunity to pick itself back up. Governments have historically gone into debt to fund social programs to avoid recessions. This is nothing new. This is ensuring that we do not have a period of austerity which just prolongs a recession. I do fear that our local community and our local economy will fall into recession as a result of this budget.
No-one's personal success is completely independent of the society in which they live. The funding cuts, the job cuts, the job losses, the changes that will occur from this budget will see an economic downturn and may hit the Bendigo economy very hard. In terms of the economy, this budget is simply bad economics. We have seen austerity overseas. As we have seen overseas, it will not result in a growth of the market, it will not result in a boost in our jobs and it will not ensure that we survive the last of the global financial crisis.
Some are saying that everyone will need to do the heavy lifting in this budget, but this is simply not true. What we are seeing are that the most vulnerable, those with the least income, have to pay the most. We have seen that for a young job seeker on an income of $13,000, this budget will cost them $7,000. We have seen that for an age pensioner on an income of less than $22,000, this budget will cost them $7,000. As young Rachel said in her letter to the Prime Minister about this budget: 'We are absolutely shocked by your actions and we believe it is unfair and a disgrace.'
Ms O'DWYER (Higgins) (17:31): I welcome the opportunity to speak on these combined appropriation bills. I found it very interesting just now to listen to the Keynesian economic analysis by the member for Bendigo. I think if she were to stay she might learn a few lessons from the analysis that I am about to give, which is that Labor turned a strong budget position into a very weak budget position over six short years. We cannot forget that Labor inherited a strong budget position: no net debt, $50 billion that had been invested in the Future Fund and a position where the government was not only living within its means but being able to set aside money for the benefit of future generations, for such schemes as the Higher Education Endowment Fund and the like. But it all changed when Labor came into power. It all changed because Labor believes in spending big and borrowing large. We should have known this lesson of history because, of course, in 1996 we had to repay over $96 billion of Labor's debt. But what we inherited coming into government just eight months ago was even worse.
I am just going to cite the facts because there is a lot of emotion in this debate and even Labor denialists cannot ignore these facts. Between 2008-09 and 2012-13, Labor delivered deficits—deficit after deficit—totalling over $191 billion. It also, though, left deficits of over $123 billion going forward, through the forward estimates from 2013-14 to 2016-17. In the entire period of time that Labor was in government it did not deliver one surplus budget. It did not once live within its means and, going forward, was never going to live within its means. What does that mean? It means that the interest bill is about a billion dollars per month. And if you add that up over a year and put it in context it is more than the total cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme that we are working up to in 2023-24. That is based on the Commission of Audit figures. It is actually around what we currently spend as a Commonwealth on our schools funding. So this is not a small amount of money. We cannot disregard the fact that this is money that we are paying in interest that could be better spent on those programs that we as a government think are worthwhile.
Under Labor's plan, debt was set to peak at around $667 billion, according to the MYEFO figures. That is the amount it would have peaked at within the decade, which would have blown out the interest we would have needed to pay to just under $3 billion a month. This was clearly an unsustainable spending spree with borrowed money. Over six budgets, Labor increased spending by over 50 per cent—that is, $137 billion. They promised that they would cap real spending growth. They said that they would cap that to around two per cent. But what they said they would do and what they actually did were entirely different. Real spending growth was, on average, around 3.5 per cent. But in the fifth year—the out year just beyond the forward estimates period—it was set to increase by more than six per cent. That is the year that comes into this particular budget.
Clearly Labor had a spending problem. We are not the only ones who have pointed this out. We are not the only ones to have acknowledged this problem. This has been acknowledged by so many others, including the International Monetary Fund, which recently reported that Australia's government spending growth between 2012 and 2018 under Labor's budget settings was projected to be the highest amongst 17 advanced economies. That is higher than Canada, the USA, France, Germany—and the list goes on.
The IMF are not alone. Respected economists in Australia called out this spending problem. Deloitte Access Economics partner and former senior Treasury official Chris Richardson said, 'Australia needs a conversation about its budget. It is our national social compact with ourselves. It is broken and it does need fixing.' Even Saul Eslake, who I know the others over on the other side likes to quote, on many occasions said: 'Certainly the situation is worse than the previous government had suggested it would be. Certainly it is worse than it should have been given that we are now 22 years out from the last recession and we have just been through the biggest upswing in commodity prices in over 150 years.'
At the risk of loading on the number of people who acknowledged this problem, even though there are denialists over on the other side, Phil Bowen, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said:
If you just continued on the trajectory of payments and revenues prior to the budget, net debt is forecast to grow rapidly, I think, at the highest rate in the OECD …
I don’t think that’s a fiction at all …
He went on to say:
Sure we’re currently at a very low level relative to the rest of the developed world, but frankly we don’t want to find ourselves where the rest of the world is …
You’ve got to have a buffer. One of the reasons we came through the global financial crisis so well was because we started with assets.
You only need to look at the very good work done by the Commission of Audit, particularly in table 4.2, which looks at the large and fast-growing programs, to realise how unsustainable the spending trajectory is. For instance, take the line item of the age pension. It is currently at around just under $40 billion, projected by 2023 to go up to $72.3 billion. The Medicare Benefits Schedule is currently around $19 billion. It is set to hit around $37.7 billion in 2023-24. Hospitals are at around $14 billion, going up to $37.8 billion by 2023. Schools are at $12.9 billion, hitting around $31 billion in 2023-24. That is clearly not sustainable.
As Nobel prizewinner Albert Einstein so eloquently said: 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.' But Labor do not always get it wrong. Sometimes they do actually get it right. I am going to quote Dr Andrew Leigh, the shadow Assistant Treasurer. He says, in the appropriation speech—amidst a lot of stuff that I do not agree with—'If you are serious about jobs, you have to get the short-term settings right and the long-term settings right.' And he is absolutely correct when he says that.
That is why the priority for this budget has been threefold: to pay back Labor's debt, to get spending under control and live within our means, and to put in place sustainable settings that allow business to invest in growth, which ultimately will result in jobs. In our budget we are going to reduce the budget deficit from almost $50 billion in 2014 to $29 billion by next year, and to just $2.8 billion in 2017-18. Seventy-seven per cent of our budget improvements come from reduced expenditure and only 23 per cent come from higher receipts. This contrasts very significantly with Labor's approach. Labor put an extra burden on Australian families and on Australian businesses when they were in government. They introduced more than 940 revenue measures over that time, which meant around $107.3 billion in taxes on those Australian families and businesses.
We want to cut tax, and in our budget that is what we setting about doing. We are going to reduce taxes by just under $6 billion in the current financial year; we are going to particularly cut the company tax rate for businesses by 1.5 per cent from first 1 July 2015. This is very significant, particularly for small businesses. It will help around 800,000 Australian businesses and take the burden off them. That is in addition to cutting the carbon tax and the mining tax, which are being frustrated by the Labor Party and the Greens in the Senate right now. We want to help business to grow, invest and employ, and this is one measure that will help them to do just that.
There are other measures that will promote growth. I will focus on two in the short time that is available. We will be making an historic infrastructure investment of around $50 billion over the next seven years, throughout Australia, into productivity-enhancing infrastructure. I know that in my home state of Victoria this will amount to around $7.6 billion, around $3 billion of which will go into the East West Link. All of these investments in infrastructure will help to get our economy moving, help business to move, and help our state governments to prioritise their spending in a more productive fashion. It will free them up to invest in other infrastructure measures, such as the Metro Rail in Victoria. With the added incentives of the infrastructure recycling package, all up—together with business and state governments—this will lead to an investment of around $125 billion in infrastructure that is so vitally needed to help our country and economy grow.
The other measure I want to single out today is the focus we have on helping young people earn or learn. We realise how important it is for young people to invest in their future, whether that be in acquiring new skills or in achieving a higher diploma or a university degree. We are making those incentives much stronger for young people to do that, by giving them a choice. Instead of being able to get straight on the dole, if they have the capacity to work they will be supported into employment—if that is what they want to do. If they want to achieve a higher education degree they will be supported in that. Our higher education reforms are absolutely critical in ensuring those people who want access to higher education—even advanced diplomas—are on equal footing. They do not have to pay one dollar up-front but will instead contribute to their educational expenses once they start earning over $50,000.
When it comes to higher education, the balance needs to be more fairly split between the Australian taxpayer and those that benefit from the education they are receiving. We know that those who receive a higher education are often able to earn around $1 million more throughout their lifetime than those who do not receive the same benefits. Currently the split between the taxpayer and the student is around 60 per cent for the taxpayer and 40 per cent for the student. With our changes, that will be balanced so that the student is funding more of their education than the taxpayer, while still receiving strong support from the taxpayer. We believe that it is fair for a plumber who is working hard to be funding less of the education that, for instance, somebody like me would be receiving and that I would pay a higher proportion of that myself.
It is all about balance and fairness, and that is what this budget focuses on. It focuses on getting the right incentives in place and making sure that together we can build a strong, prosperous economy and a safe and secure Australia. It calls on everyone and every business to contribute, to grow our workforce, to boost productivity and to help build the strong economy we need.
Ms MacTIERNAN (Perth) (17:46): I was interested, listening to the member for Higgins' address, to hear this incredibly conventional view of what we need to do to take Australia forward. We are dealing with Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2014-2015 and related bills. There is a lot in the budget we will have the opportunity to talk about as other more specific legislation comes before this House, but I particularly want to talk today about a range of agencies whose funding will be cut as a result of the appropriation bills we are considering today.
It shows the government's very narrow and short-sighted understanding of our economic needs and what the role of government in the 21st century is in driving the economy forward. From my point of view, I am just going to put aside all of the discussion of the great unfairnesses in this budget for the time being and concentrate on the great stupidities. In particular I want to look at the cuts that have been made to science and research agencies across this country.
Implicit in all the commentary we get from the Treasurer and, indeed, from the member for Kooyong—
Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—
Ms MacTIERNAN: Excuse me—I mean the member for Higgins. I knew you were part of the Liberal royal family somewhere.
Inherent in the discussion of the member for Higgins—and you get it from the Treasurer also—is the notion that the thing government has to do is to keep as small as possible; to create the conditions for the private sector and then keep out of its way, and that will see business flourish. Indeed, they say very often that the public sector is crowding out the private sector and creating a constraint on private sector development, and that is what is holding our economy back.
Whilst of course one has to be very mindful of creating the environment and the operating conditions in which the private sector can thrive, this is to completely underestimate what really is driving the modern economy, where the big changes in the economy are going and where indeed those big changes have come from. Very critically, if we look at the great developments over the last 30 or 40 years, the vast majority of those, interestingly, turn out to have been developed by the public sector. These are development that never would have taken place in the private sector. Sure, once the research is done and the great idea has been developed, it is the private sector that grabs that and commercialises it, but without the active and strong investment in the public sector, we would not see those things that now form the basis of our economy.
The internet itself was developed in the United States under the government defence and science programs. We have seen the equivalent in Australia in terms of the development of Wi-Fi, which came out of the CSIRO. We have seen other developments—the touchscreen which is now increasingly part of the technology that is driving industry forward, again, was developed in the United States.
I had a very interesting example when I went to visit Oak Ridge Laboratory in the United States, that developed the atom bomb, to see the creative work that was being done and to hear the researchers in this government-funded instrumentality explaining the funding that they receive from Toyota for the sale of every Toyota Prius. A royalty is paid to the Oak Bridge Laboratory with each sale because the fundamental technology of that fuel cell that drives the hybrid car was developed in that government-funded agency through government-funded programs. The amount that has been spent in the United States through their largely defence-oriented operations and research agencies has been extraordinary and the benefit that has yielded for the US economy has been tremendous.
We have got some examples here in Australia. We know that CSIRO has been responsible for the Wi-Fi. I believe the CSIRO has also been involved in the development of radar, the first effective influenza treatment, and the Hendra virus vaccine, amongst many more. They are doing very, very interesting research that would not be done by the private sector. As one of the world's biggest producers of titanium, they finding new ways for the production of titanium and the use of 3-D printing with titanium. All of this really important but very expensive work that requires long lead times and very patient investment would not be done by the private sector.
So what is the response to the reality, for our need to be out there participating in the new science and technology? What have we done? We have absolutely gutted our scientific agencies and gutted the research effort. Within these appropriation bills we are looking at today we see cuts of at least $878 million across the forward estimates to our major science and research agencies. CSIRO alone are receiving funding cuts of $111 million and they are going to be losing approximately 10 per cent of their capacity and staff, and this at a time when we know we need to reposition ourselves, when we know that we cannot rely on just being a quarry, that we need to create a future for ourselves. If we had any sense, if we were looking at what has worked around the world in countries that have got that edge in science and technology, we would know that we need to be pouring more money into these agencies, not stripping them of funds.
I find it really very worrying that we have got such narrow-minded, undeveloped intellects seemingly in charge of making these very important strategic decisions. We have people who are very much locked in a small government Ayn Rand mould, and there is no doubt of that on the part of the Treasurer, who really do believe that is all we have to do. Where is the imagination that is going to drive us forward? Where are we going to find those people who are prepared to understand how investment in science and technology needs to come from the government in order to create those circumstances where we can be players on a global scale. We should not be entities that are just technology takers; we should also have the ability to facilitate being technology creators. We quite rightly talk about wanting to have our universities in the top 10 or the top 20 in the world, but if we are not investing in research, if we are stripping out $800 million over the forward estimates from research, then we are not going to be up there. We will not be fantastic world-class universities; we need to invest.
We had an interesting debate this morning in the other chamber. There was a lot of pontification about how fantastic this government was going to be for the development of the north of Australia. In the course of the hearings that have been going on with the northern Australia committee, it is very evident that the availability of water is the absolutely No. 1 essential issue that we need to address, that we need to get right for the development of northern Australia and for northern Australia to be able to take its rightful place and to have a sustainable level of development catering for the increase in food needs—not only for our own communities, but also for those of Asia to our north. The evidence we have been getting is that CSIRO have been doing tremendous work in this area. They have, over the past four to five years, produced some very, very important studies. But they stressed to us that for them to be able to really get a clear picture of the sustainability needed to enable us to be able to develop at an appropriate scale, then there is a lot more detailed work to be done. So what have we done? As I said, we have slashed $111 million from the CSIRO budget; we have reduced its capacity by 10 per cent at a time when we say that we want to drive northern Australia forward. And we know water is going to become an increasingly important issue as we have a drying climate in most of the southern half of the continent.
I want to look at the funding reductions. The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program: that has been cut by $324 million. That is perhaps not so much a research program, but the purely research programs have likewise been cut. The water resources assessment research grant has been cut; I mentioned the science and research agency before, $146 million. So in addition to the $111 million that has been cut from the CSIRO, we have had an additional $30 million cut from other agencies. I believe the CRCs have lost something in the order of $80 million over the next four years. CRCs are really important because they bring together a very important collaboration of government skills from across a number of government entities with the private sector.
CRCs are in fact very much the agencies that will be driving forward innovation into the future. But we have seen a dramatic cut, and indeed the next round of funding has been entirely chopped out. Those CRCs are extremely concerned, because in February this year they were asked to make submissions for the next round of funding. A great deal of effort has gone in by those organisations, taking the government at its word in February that there would be an additional round of funding. They have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars, to be cut out of the budget. That entire round will virtually not exist.
The Fisheries RDC would be one of the hardest hit by the changes. Fisheries research is also taking a big hit through reduced Commonwealth funding for the Fisheries Resources Research Fund program. If we go through and look at the list of projects that are being cut, the science and research budget that is being stripped, we see a critical failure to understand that there is increasingly an important role for government to invest in this level of science and technology. It is only in that way that we are going to be able to participate as something other than technology takers into the 21st century.
Ms HENDERSON (Corangamite) (18:01): I rise to speak on the appropriation bills before the House. Appropriation bills Nos 1 and 5 deal with the ordinary annual services of government while appropriation bills Nos 2 and 6 fund new activities. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) also seeks appropriation authority from the parliament for measures announced in the 2014-15 budget, and it is the measures announced in our budget which I focus on in my contribution today.
The budget reflects our determination to get the budget back on track, to get the nation's finances back on track. It reflects our determination to rein in Labor's mess—year after year of spiralling debt and deficit. It reflects our determination to deliver on what we committed to do so that we can restore the nation's finances and build a stronger and more prosperous economy. Why is this important? It is important because a stronger and more prosperous economy delivers jobs growth and certainty. It helps build confidence in new industries and a future for our children and grandchildren. Our budget calls on everyone to build and contribute. While we have had to make some difficult decisions, our budget also reflects our determination to invest in jobs and infrastructure.
I want to remind Australians about Labor's record—year after year of record deficits: $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $43 billion, $19 billion and, in this current year, $50 billion. Let us not forget that we are currently paying more than $1 billion a month in interest payments just on the borrowings. Without the hard decisions we are on track to deliver $123 billion in cumulative deficits and $667 billion in debt. Of the top 17 IMF countries surveyed, Labor left us with the fastest growth in spending of anyone in the world and they left us with the third highest growth in debt of anyone in the top 17. Let us not forget how we left the economy, how the Howard government left the economy back in 2007: no net debt, a $20 billion surplus and some $50 billion in the bank.
Our government is making the difficult but necessary decisions to get the budget back on track.
As the budget papers outline, the budget deficit will fall from its current $50 billion to $29.8 billion next year. And by 2017-18 it will be slashed to a manageable $2.8 billion. We are on track to deliver a surplus—the surplus Labor promised it would deliver some 500 times, but never did. As Margaret Thatcher once famously said, 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.'
And that is what Labor did. It spent money—more than we earnt—year after year, with a reckless disregard for the bottom line and with a reckless disregard for our economy and for future generations. Our decisions in this budget have contributed a $36 billion improvement in the bottom line, and while there is still much work to be done over the next 10 years, we will reduce our debt by nearly $300 billion—from $667 billion to $389 billion.
We have heard from member after member opposite, but what is Labor's plan? What is Labor's plan to stop this reckless spending spree that we have seen over the last six years? Unfortunately, to date we have heard absolutely no plan. We have heard no plan from Labor. All we have heard are suggestions from members such as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to add another $16 billion to foreign aid. But we have heard no plan whatsoever as to what Labor would do to rein in this reckless spending.
We have some very important features in our budget. Yes, we have had to take some unpopular measures. We have had to make some difficult decisions but, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a budget that reflects that this government has a head, a heart and a backbone. The infrastructure growth package that we have announced will take the government's transport investment to $50 billion by 2019-20. As a result, total infrastructure investment from the Commonwealth, state and local governments, as well as the private sector, will build to over $125 billion. This is so important for jobs and for our future.
We have also announced the full deregulation of the higher education sector, which will remove fee caps for universities and higher education providers and expand the demand-driven system to bachelor and sub-bachelor courses at all accredited higher education providers. This opens up enormous opportunities for providers in my electorate of Corangamite and also for Deakin University—a great university headquartered in the Geelong region. Some fees may go up; some fees may go down, but what we are seeing is greater competition and greater opportunity in the higher education sector.
We have proudly delivered a $20 billion medical research future fund. We have proudly announced a strong strategy such that young people will be required to earn, learn or participate in a work-for-the-dole program. This has been received incredibly well in the Geelong area, where this program will be rolled out as of 1 July, because over the past six years we have seen so many young people languishing on the dole. The previous government had a mickey mouse work-for-the dole program that has made no substantial difference. So we are now proudly saying, 'We care about your future. We want you to gain confidence. We want you to gain skills, and we have a way of doing it.'
The budget also reflects our strong commitment to older Australians. Businesses will receive up to $10,000 for employing workers older than 50 who have been on income support for more than six months. So we have a very strong agenda of driving jobs and driving incentives to employ young people and older people.
I want to put on the record some facts. There has been a lot of misleading statements in relation to a range of issues on this budget. I want to make it very clear that over the next four years Australian government funding to the states for public hospitals will increase by some 40 per cent. Total spending on health will increase by more than $10 billion a year over the next four years.
I turn now to the facts about schools. The government is investing $64.5 billion in schools over the next four years—over $1.2 billion more than Labor would have spent. When it comes to Medicare, 10 years ago we were spending $8 billion a year; today, we are spending $20 billion. We are asking everyone for a modest contribution to ensure that Medicare is sustainable, just as Labor did when it asked for a $6 co-payment for PBS medications. We have a very strong safety net. Australia's 8.6 million concession cardholders and children under 16 will only pay the contribution for the first 10 visits or 10 services each year.
In my electorate of Corangamite, we are making some incredibly important investments. We have announced some $321 million for local projects. These very important projects include the duplication of the Princess Highway and the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road. There are small projects in places like Rokewood, such as the upgrade of the Rokewood War Memorial. There is $200,000 for the Grovedale Sports Club; $3.5 million for Shell Road in Ocean Grove; and $2.5 million for the Colac Central Reserve to address issues of disadvantage as well as to invest in sporting infrastructure. There are a wide range of projects that we are proudly funding.
But the big focus for me is jobs. After being a member of the Victorian economic review panel, chaired by Minister Macfarlane, I am very proud of our $155 million Growth Fund, which is investing in the next generation of jobs—$60 million for next generation manufacturing and $30 million for regional infrastructure. It reflects a very strong focus on investing in long-term sustainable jobs. I refer to the contribution by the member for Corio a short time ago in this debate and the reference to Alcoa. The closure of Alcoa at Point Henry is a terrible blow to our community, but what we are focused on is investing in long-term jobs—not coming up with short-term fixes like Labor did, offering $40 million to Alcoa and promising a long-term future, only to see that collapse.
I want to put on the record that the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund has increased by some $5 million to $29.5 million, thanks to a very important contribution from Alcoa—something that the member for Corio did not acknowledge. This is a very important contribution to the skills and the retraining of Alcoa workers. Through the GRIIF, companies like Carbon Revolution are benefiting. We have heard about Carbon Revolution and the many other companies in my region that are working in advanced manufacturing. Carbon Revolution received a $5 million grant under this scheme and it is delivering another 150 new jobs. So we have a very bright future in advanced manufacturing; but, importantly, we need to focus on delivering long-term sustainable jobs, not the short-term fixes that Labor delivered.
The member for Corio also mentioned Land 400, and I am pleased that he did because, despite his lecturing of our government, this is actually the first time that he has ever mentioned Land 400 in parliament. This is an incredibly important project. I have championed this project. The mayor of the City of Greater Geelong, Darryn Lyons, has also championed this project. It is a $10 billion project. We are fighting very, very hard to bring Land 400 to our region. It is not in the budget, because it has not been approved as yet. That will happen at some point this year, when it comes up for first pass approval. Perhaps Labor does need to get it facts right in relation to that particular project.
I also want to make the point that we have funded the NDIS. The Prime Minister proudly opened the NDIA headquarters in Geelong a number of weeks ago. Despite the scare campaign run by Labor, we have funded the NDIS within the agreed funding envelope with the states—a very proud delivery by our government as confirmed in our budget. Of course, there are some smaller projects, such as the Green Army. There are about four Green Army projects in my electorate. There is a wonderful Surf Coast Solar Town program of some $300,000.
Let us also look at some of these major infrastructure projects. One of the big commitments that the Prime Minister, our infrastructure Prime Minister, has made is to build the roads of the 21st century. I make particular reference to the $3 billion that our government is investing in the East West Link and, importantly for the people of Geelong, in the western section stage 2, which will cut travel time for Geelong commuters by some three hours a week. This is an incredibly important project for Western Melbourne and for Geelong. It will do so much for our productivity and for our local economy but—would you believe it?—Labor is opposing this project. It is one of the most important infrastructure projects for the Geelong region and Victoria that we have seen for some time. Then again, Labor also opposed the upgrade of the Great Ocean Road, such an important upgrade for jobs, tourism and our local economy. I am still mystified by the very deceptive campaign that Labor ran in relation to that critical project. I am very, very proud today as we see more news about the Great Ocean Road projects being rolled out.
Our government is proudly working hard to deliver the structural reform that our economy needs, to grow jobs and to deliver a stronger and more prosperous economy and a safer Australia. We are abolishing the carbon and mining taxes. Of course, Labor is standing in the way, which is an absolute disgrace after it committed in the previous government to terminating the carbon tax. We are cutting the company tax rate by 1.5 per cent. We are cutting red tape by some $1 billion a year. We are investing in the roads of the 21st century. And, most importantly, we are getting the budget back on track. This budget reflects our strong commitment to the Australian people. I commend these bills to the House.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (18:16): I rise to speak on the appropriation bills and to make some commentary on the budget that was handed down by the Treasurer a couple of weeks ago. This budget really is disastrous for our nation and for every Australian. It is a budget that has been built on a web of broken promises and twisted priorities and it is a budget that has the wrong priorities, priorities that are focused on making cuts to low- and middle-income earners, and that has not a word about jobs.
During the election campaign Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey promised that there would be no cuts to education, health, pensions, the ABC or SBS. They also made a commitment that there would be no tax increases, that taxes would go down not up. But this month's budget has brought reality back to home. There are broken promises, mean cuts, new taxes and extra costs to low-to-middle-income families. If it was not enough for the Prime Minister to promise that there would be no cuts to health and then bring a $50 billion cut to health and hospitals to the states and territories, he has also ensured that every single household has more health costs to find from their pocket by putting a $7 tax on going to the doctor.
This is the greatest attack on Medicare since its inception. It is an attack on universal health care, which has been so critical for our nation. This scheme really makes it more expensive for people to go to the doctor, to get a prescription, to have an X-ray and to get a blood test. The scheme will have the greatest impact on those lower income earners, the seriously ill, those with chronic disease and our senior Australians. This will cost families $3.5 billion a year. In my constituency of Kingston in South Australia the GP tax equates to approximately $7 million.
I have been speaking to people at railway stations and at street-corner meetings, and in my electorate office, as well as when I have been out and about, and have been inundated with hundreds of people concerned about the impact of this GP tax. They are concerned particularly about what it means. They are saying to me that this government just does not get it. It does not get what is to work hard for a living, to have a small income coming in and not be able to access universal health care. One of these people is Paula Tonkin from Seaford, who is among 87 per cent of people in Kingston who get bulk-billed. She wrote to me and said:
My husband and I are a single income family, we get nothing from the government in the way that benefits us and work hard to keep things that way. My husband has a life threatening illness, he frequently visits the local GP. Demanding that GPs charge $7 rather than bulk bill patients like us is only cruel, it is short-sighted and inhumane. We pay our taxes and are law-abiding citizens. It's about time we got a break
Paula is right. This GP tax is a cruel, short-sighted policy, and I am proud that Labor will oppose it.
The co-payments create a disincentive for our most vulnerable Australians to get the health care they need. Last week we saw the Australian Medical Association report that its members are already seeing patients not presenting to a GP because they mistakenly believe the GP tax is already in place. This is just the start of the Prime Minister's assault on universal health care. This country does not need a US-style health system that can be accessed only by the wealthy.
The Prime Minister has also broken a promise, as I have mentioned, by ripping $50 billion away from Australia's public hospitals. In South Australia it is estimated that this will result in a $655 million cut in health funding over the next four years. These cuts are the equivalent of the entire Flinders Medical Centre that services my electorate. That is nearly 600 hospital beds and equates to 500 nurses. The Abbott government's own budget papers clearly demonstrate that the cuts to hospitals start this financial year and totally ignore an agreement that state and territory governments signed up to. It is not just in Labor states that the premiers are incredibly concerned and upset about this; it is in Liberal states as well.
The Prime Minister promised before the election that no Medicare Locals would be shut. But, in another broken promise, he is axing the Medicare Locals and replacing them with primary care health networks on 1 July. However, the cuts have already started, with money being moved away from Medicare Locals if it is not for direct services to the public. Indeed, support, assistance and advice for GPs in running their practices have been ripped away. This is a short-sighted decision and does not recognise the localised nature of these Medicare Locals.
I was recently joined by the deputy leader of the Labor Party, the member for Sydney, to hear firsthand the concerns of the Southern Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Island Medicare Local. That is the Medicare Local that looks after my electorate. This Medicare Local was one of the first set up and it has made a huge difference to people's health in Kingston. For example, its childhood immunisation program has boosted rates from 88 per cent to above 91 per cent. We spoke to the senior team there, who expressed deep concerns about the impact of abolishing the Medicare Locals and particularly the impact it will have on front-line services. But it is not only that. They are concerned that it will have an impact on the coordination of health care. One of the critical elements of these Medicare Locals was that they would respond to gaps in health service provision for local needs. I know that the Medicare Local in my electorate has been doing that in nursing homes. Nursing homes were unable to attract GPs and doctors. It has been working hard to fill those gaps. So cutting these Medicare Locals is a real step back in time.
I understand that the Minister for Health did not like them because they were a Labor idea. I ask him to put his partisanship aside, actually look at what these Medicare Locals are doing and, for one of the first times, put patients first. I ask him to put people and the health of our community first.
This budget is also incredibly cruel on those who need our support the most. There is the freezing of the rate of family tax benefit to many. This will have an impact on many low- and middle-income families that will have to foot the bill for the Prime Minister's broken election promises. Then there is the cut to pensioners. The Prime Minister made a solemn promise before the election. He said he would make no cuts to the age pension. He is trying to convince us that slashing and lowering the indexation is not a cut to the age pension. Well, he has a big job trying to convince pensioners of that, because pensioners can tell a trick and spin when they see it. They have said clearly to me that these indexation arrangements and the changes will hurt them over a period of time and will erode their standard of living.
There are also deep concerns in my electorate about the Prime Minister and the Treasurer's plan to ensure that you cannot get a pension until you are 70 years of age. What people have said to me is there seems to be a lack of understanding—there is a huge amount of age discrimination out there in our community. I have many people under the age of 60 who are saying they are trying to find work, but no-one will employ them. They cannot find jobs, because of age discrimination. Without a plan for jobs, this government has condemned these people to a period of unemployment, and this will only get more difficult. Without a strategy to address jobs and age discrimination, their policy is making it more difficult for pensioners.
The Prime Minister is also ripping away Commonwealth support for state and territory based seniors' concessions, leaving the future of these concessional programs in limbo. It does not stop there. The promise of no new taxes quickly changed, with the broken promise of ensuring there is a new fuel tax and an increase in excise indexation. Once again, no-one would have expected the Prime Minister to agree to it in this budget but, of course, it is another broken promise. This will impact my constituents in a more disproportionate way than in many other electorates. Many constituents in my electorate travel a long way to work—in fact, 40 or 50 kilometres. They spend a lot of time in the car going off to work. As a result of this and of the Prime Minister's pledge of no investment in public transport—he does not think public transport is very useful at all—it will cost even more for those in my electorate to get in a car.
We also have the Prime Minister's broken promise of ripping $30 billion from our schools. The cost of getting a decent education will be put out of the reach of many ordinary Australians, especially through the deregulation of tuition fees. We will see the cost of university courses rise and an increasing amount of student debt. It was interesting to hear the Minister for Education being contradicted by the Prime Minister in question time today. We heard the truth today in question time. The changes in interest rates that go onto student debt will occur to anyone who has a HECS debt. So even if you entered the system before these arrangements were put in place, you will have a new interest rate put onto your HECS debt. There is a lot of concern in my local electorate.
Funnily enough, I took the Minister for Education at his word. When I was out in my local community, people were coming up to me with this concern. I said, 'No, the Minister for Education said it will not apply to new people.' I was then informed about a letter, from a constituent, that contradicted that. She said her son had received this letter and that, indeed, he would have to pay the higher interest rate, and there was huge concern about what that would mean. So it is good we have the truth now from the Prime Minister that it is not just those students who go in with their eyes wide open, it is indeed many students who are finding difficulty.
There is so much that is difficult about this budget and it hurts my electorate so much, but in the limited time I have left I would like to talk about Youth Connection, which was axed. Indeed, when we talk about youth unemployment, what seems to be missing from this government is support to ensure that young people can get the experience, that they can get the support, to find a job. Youth Connections was doing just this.
Dannika Harrop, a 17-year-old from Aberfoyle Park, credits Youth Connections for turning her life around. Before Youth Connections stepped in, Dannika would regularly skip school and faced the prospect of dropping out of school in year 9. Thanks to the help of Youth Connections she has returned to school, has finished year 12 and is now volunteering at the local youth centre. This is the work that Youth Connections was doing. Of course, that has been cut.
There are also many other organisations that are still in limbo after this budget. Many organisations whose funding is expiring on 30 June were hoping that the budget would give some clarity. It has not. Indeed, the carers support and respite centre was funded by a number of programs in the budget. It supports around 7,000 carers and their families in the south and east metropolitan areas. It is still not sure whether it will be funded. Also the Hackham West Community Centre is still not sure whether it will be receiving funding. All these expire on 30 June. These organisations need some certainty. They thought the budget would give them clarity. Of course it has not.
This is a cruel budget. It is a budget that illustrates that the government is not in touch with the ordinary people on the street. These measures are incredibly disappointing. I hope the government sees sense on many of these measures and will ditch a lot of them that hurt ordinary Australians.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for the Environment) (18:31): The iron law of economic history is, whether it is a family, a small business or a nation, no entity can continue to live beyond its means for an extended period and prosper. From the Medicis to the Spanish Empire, the Ottomans, the Asian financial crisis and the issues we have seen in contemporary Southern Europe, the evidence is absolutely clear: nations or empires that live beyond their means on any extended basis are condemning their next generation and those that come after to repay the debt. It is the equivalent of parents leaving the bill for the kids. It is cruel, it is irresponsible, it is utterly against the flow of history and it is an abrogation of responsibility for each and every government that engages in an act of intergenerational theft.
Lest this just be thought to be words, let us deal with the facts and the reality of the last six years. Over the last six years the then Australian government spent $240 billion more than it received in income. The Labor government ran annual deficits over its six budgets during its period of government of $27 billion, $54 billion, $47 billion, $43 billion, $18 billion and $49 billion. It is an extraordinary period of fiscal profligacy unmatched in Australian history.
What does that actually tells us? It tells us that they started with net government expenditure of approximately $270 billion from the 2007-08 budget and net government revenue of $290 billion—a surplus of $20 billion. Over the next six years that was then increased with additional revenue because we had been told that we had a revenue crisis and it was all about a collapse in revenue. We had additional revenue of $70 billion to take the total revenue for the Commonwealth of Australia, the government of Australia, to about $360 billion. In other words, over that six-year period there was a $70 billion increase, so almost $12 billion a year average increase over the period of the Labor government. At the same time their annual expenditure went from $270 billion up to $410 billion. In other words, the revenue increased by $70 billion and their expenditure increased by $140 billion. It was an extraordinary period of fiscal profligacy, which always means the next generation has to pay the bill. And what is that bill? That bill is an annual interest payment of about $12 billion, $1 billion a month. Because we are running in deficit, each of those monthly billion-dollar payments has to be borrowed and added to the deficit. It is putting money on the credit card to pay just the interest on the mortgage. No family and no business can sustain itself under those conditions and nor can any other country. There is an inevitable, fundamental day of reckoning.
Against that background we have made significant changes to redress the fiscal deficit. We have made significant changes which will save approximately $300 billion of national debt which would otherwise have been accrued in the period out to 2023; a consequence of that is the difference between almost $3 billion of interest a month, which would have been accrued, and a little over a billion. It is a massive difference in the situation facing Australia compared with what it otherwise would have been. If you talk about intergenerational responsibility, nothing could be clearer or more fundamental. If you talk about intergenerational irresponsibility, theft or cruel action, nothing could be clearer. Leaving the bill for the next generation is the sign of a diminished generation, not a great generation. A great generation is one which makes sacrifices now for those who are to come in the future.
Against that background we are still running a Commonwealth budget of approximately $412 billion this coming financial year. Part of that is the environment portfolio. Our portfolio resources are about $2.4 billion. Our national environment plan comprises four pillars: clean air, clean land, clean water and heritage. In terms of clean air there are two fundamentals here. The first is to address climate change by directly reducing our emissions rather than to imagine that a higher electricity tax will achieve the job when, as we know, in the first year of the carbon tax, after a $7.6 billion payment, Australia's emissions dropped 0.1 per cent. It is the definition of pain without gain. In this budget we will be abolishing the carbon tax, and we intend to do that by introducing the legislation in the last week of June and then having that debated in the Senate in the first two weeks of sitting. We hope to have it passed during that fortnight, the new Senate willing, but we come with a mandate from the Australian people and an express, clear, absolute commitment not to stop until that is done. It will take effect as of 1 July. In other words, there will be no remittances due to the Commonwealth for any period after 1 July 2014. I make this as a direct statement which can then be used by the Australian Taxation Office.
Beyond that, we have now allocated an additional $1 billion in this budget to take to a total of $2.55 billion the emissions reduction fund. The breakthrough in this budget is twofold: there is the additional billion dollars and the full amount of the $2.55, which can be used from day 1 by the Clean Energy Regulator for the writing of contracts to reduce our emissions on a lowest-cost basis. We will achieve our targets. We will do it clearly, we will do it easily and we will do it without a carbon tax.
The second of the clean air pillars is to work towards a national clean air agreement by mid-2016. Particulate pollution is a killer, and we need to address this issue. I know that the member for Corangamite has raised this issue with me directly as well as in public and there are those with deep concerns in areas such as Anglesey. Particulate pollution is a deep personal project for me, and to have secured the agreement of all the states and territories to work towards a national clean air agreement by 2016 was a singular breakthrough on behalf of the government.
The second of the environmental pillars is clean land. This budget delivers $2 billion in the natural resource management stakes. That has been misrepresented by some in the opposition and so let me be absolutely clear: under the new National Landcare program there is over $1 billion available through the NRM program for NRM and Landcare projects, but then there is another $525 million in Landcare extension, an additional $200 million in the Working for Country program and an additional $200 million through the Land Sector package, as well as $40 million for the Reef Trust. The Green Army is coming. It will provide jobs, opportunity and genuine environmental outcomes for young Australians and for the community. The Landcare package is significant. All up, the Natural Resources Management program, as set out in the portfolio budget statement at page 27, shows over $2 billion, compared with $1.7 billion which was set out for natural resource management at midyear economic forecast period.
Then we turn to the one-stop shop, which is a fundamental part of what we are proposing. We have already cleared $500 billion of delayed project approvals which were left in limbo by the previous government and we have put in place memoranda of understanding with every state and territory for a one-stop-shop approach, which was announced and trumpeted by the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, which was embraced and endorsed by the Labor Party at the time and which was defined as absolutely essential. Unfortunately, nothing happened. We have delivered the MOUs; we have already delivered agreements with New South Wales and Queensland; we have published agreements with the ACT, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia; and I am very hopeful that Tasmania and Victoria will come soon; and we will have operating agreements, in my judgement, with all those states and territories in the relatively near future. That is a huge step forward in maintaining standards but reducing green tape and, in many cases, we are lifting the relevant standards.
This then brings me to the issue of clean water. I am thrilled that we have completed the work which has now spanned three governments and began under John Howard for a Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. It is an early-signature achievement of the current government, and I acknowledge the work of previous governments in this space. An amount of more that $2.3 billion is allocated to water infrastructure—the grand task of replumbing rural Australia to create productivity and water efficiency and to allow more water to be used by both our farmers and our rivers without detracting from the overall balance. It is a fundamentally important approach. Similarly, we are not afraid of new dams in Northern Australia, where appropriate, and there is the grand, long-term Reef 2050 Plan, which is underpinned by the Reef Trust with $40 million initial Commonwealth seeding, potentially up to $89 million of private sector offset funds and more to come as different projects are considered over the coming years.
Against that background there is also the Heritage Strategy, and I am absolutely thrilled and delighted that we have been able to support a national Community Heritage and Icons program. I have garnered support through the decision of the Cabinet to approve a new national icebreaker, which is absolutely fundamental to protecting and preserving our Antarctic heritage. It is a great project; it was critical national infrastructure left unfunded by the previous government. When you put the icebreaker and the Bureau of Meteorology super computer—another piece of critical national infrastructure left unfunded by the previous government—together, that is half a billion dollars of scientific hard infrastructure which is being invested in by the new government. It is the largest ever investment in the future of Antarctica in Australia's history. I think that is a profoundly positive outcome. Against that background, I am delighted that we have played our part in the budget. The environment department and the environment portfolio have contributed significantly, but these are outstanding outcomes: the billion dollars for the Emissions Reduction Fund, the half a billion dollars and more for the Green Army, the Reef 2050 Plan and the Reef Trust and, beyond that, the extraordinary outcome for the Bureau of Meteorology super computer and the icebreaker. These are investments that will last decades, in the case of the icebreaker, and have a profound impact on farm and national productivity in the case of the Bureau of Meteorology.
But at the end of the day our grand historic task is to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of other empires, states and nations who, faced with a period of prosperity, spent more than they had in their treasury. They ran into complacency and left the bill for the next generation. We have a solid foundation but we were on a terrible trajectory. That is what the emergency was: our direction was unsustainable. We are determined to put this country back on a sustainable footing because anything less would be to rob our children and we will not do that. I commend the bill.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (18:45): The budget is an opportunity for the government to send a message to the nation about the things they stand for. The sad thing about this budget is that it sends the wrong message to the nation. It is a very sad message indeed, and it goes something like this: do not get old; do not dream of going to university; for god's sake do not lose your job; and do not get crook. If you are unlucky enough to get sick, make sure you have a credit card, because your Medicare card is not going to be enough for you to see a doctor anymore.
The unfortunate thing is that it did not have to be like this. It did not have to be like this, and Australians were promised it would be very different. We all remember the Prime Minister—the Leader of the Opposition as he then was—telling Australians there would be no cuts to pensions, no changes to Medicare and no cuts to health. That is what Australians voted on but it is not what they got. It did not have to be like this. When they came to office, they inherited an economy with low unemployment rates—one of the lowest in the Western world—and growth. We have been growing at trend growth through some of the toughest economic times in the world's economic history; there is no other nation on earth that can make those sorts of claims. Even through the darkest days of the GFC there was one quarter, and one quarter alone, when the Australian economy did not grow.
That did not happen by accident; it happened because of deliberate decisions by the government—decisions that said that, when the economy is grinding to a halt, the role of government is to support confidence, business, and jobs and keep the economy ticking over. So yes, we did spend money, and we did take the budget from surplus to deficit. We did that because it was the right thing to do. There was an alternative—it was the alternative cheered for by the opposition at the time, the now government, and those policies would have seen over one million people thrown onto the unemployment heap.
So when the government came into power it inherited a very good set of economic circumstances: low unemployment, a growing economy, a triple-A credit rating—they do not in those out like confetti—and low interest rates. You would have thought, with an inheritance like that, they could have kept faith with their pre-election promises. Instead we are seeing in this budget something very different. We are seeing, if the bills associated with this budget find their way through both houses of parliament, that Australia will have the unenviable title of having the oldest retirement age in the world. Increasing the age before you are entitled to a pension is nothing more than a breach of trust.
This picture says it all. This guy is a fellow by the name of Bobby Turner.
A government member interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN JONES: Those people who have never worked with their hands might want to listen to this because it is important, and I will get to the point that the noisy member from the other side of the chamber makes.
This guy started work at the age of 14. By the time Chris Pyne was running around university campuses in Adelaide telling people, at that point in time, that he was in favour of free education because he knew he had to say that get elected, Bobby Turner had already worked eight years. He went to sea at the age of 14 and worked with his hands every day of his life.
You can see that this message says it all. Only a bloke who has worked in an office his whole life would think that you could work until you are 70. It says it all. Little wonder that this photo was seen by over eight million people on Facebook. Over 250,000—about a quarter of a million people—said that they agreed with this and it evoked over 40,000 comments. Sometimes a picture says 1,000 words. Increasing the age of retirement is nothing more than a kick in the guts for millions of Australians who work in physically demanding jobs. There are over 60,000 of them in the Illawarra, my region, and the proposition which is in this budget is completely out of touch with those people.
It will hit regional Australia even harder because these are the areas where people are more likely to be working in that sort of work. These are also the sorts of areas where you have a lower life expectancy.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN JONES: The noisy member from the other side of the chamber says perhaps this man is only thinking of himself. I know that she does not understand older Australians and that somehow she thinks that Bobby Turner only cares about himself. He knows that these changes are not going to impact upon him but he is one of millions of other Australians who care about more than himself.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr STEPHEN JONES: The people on that side of the chamber do not get that. They cannot conceive that there are Australians out there who care about others apart from themselves. I can tell you that Bobby Turner is one of them. He is worried about his kids and his grandkids—something that you might want to think about.
This proposition contained within the budget that says that irrespective of the work that you have done for your entire life you now have to wait until age 70 to be able to access the age pension is nothing short of a breach of faith. No changes to pensions, no cuts to entitlements—I tell you that the Bobby Turners of this world and the other 60,000 people who work in similar occupations in my area will remember this in 2½ years time.
This year marks the 30th birthday of Medicare, and I sincerely hope that it has a 35th birthday. Before the election, we heard the Prime Minister say that they would be the best friend that Medicare has ever had. I have got to say, Deputy Speaker, to borrow words from the communications minister, with friends like these you hardly need enemies. The bills before the House propose to slug every Australian a $7 GP tax just for visiting their doctor. The cost in regional and rural communities alone is $1.4 billion—that is right, Deputy Speaker, a $1.4 billion slug to patients in rural and regional Australia.
On top of that, we are seeing an increase in the price of PBS medications, a $5 hike for general patients and a 80c hike for people on concession cards, a hiking up with the safety net—the amount that you spend on PBS items over the course of a year before you can access them for free—around $145 per year increase in the PBS safety net.
Probably one of the harshest measures within this set of bills is the provision which will punish GPs who try to do the right thing by their community. It is hardly believable. After five years when the previous government put a lot of effort into ensuring that we could increase bulk-billing rates for Australians when they visited their GP, as the shadow health minister told the House today around 83 per cent now are able to access bulk-building services, a fact that seemed to surprise the health minister himself. The objective of these proposals is nothing more than trying to kill bulk billing. They say, 'Don't worry about it, because doctors will be able to continue to bulk-bill.' But the AMA has put a stop to that nonsense today. They have made it quite clear that they are going to be financially penalised if they try to do the right thing by patients within their community. It is bizarre. A doctor tries to do the right thing by patients in their community and the Commonwealth turns around and financially penalises them.
There is another good practical sense why these provisions are going to kill bulk-billing. I find this very amusing. Those opposite like to talk about red tape on small businesses. Well, Deputy Speaker, you have never seen a proposal which is going to heap a greater amount of red tape on GP practices in electorates like your own and in electorates like mine—in electorates around the country—than this proposition for a GP co-payment. After years of GP surgeries removing cash and associated items from their front-of-house, can you imagine them reintroducing it to put in place this government's madcap proposal? Imagine: you go to the GP who used to bulk-bill and the GP says, 'I will bulk-bill you for the Medicare rebate, but can I have $7 from you for the remainder? The government says I have to charge you a $7 co-payment.' You say, 'Here is $10' and the doctor says, 'Here is your $3 change.' It simply will not happen. It is an administrative nightmare and it introduces all sorts of security concerns into medical practices that they simply do not need.
What it means is that when you go to a doctor you are not just going to be hit with a $7 co-payment; you are going to be hit with the lot. Whether your doctor charges roughly $38, which is the Medicare Benefits Schedule listed fee for a basic consultation or whether they charge the AMA rate, which is closer to $72, you are going to be hit for the lot. This proposition is going to do exactly what it is designed to do—that is, kill bulk-billing and put the thin edge of a very thick wedge into the national institution known as Medicare. If these were the only two proposals—the breach of faith on pensions and the changes to Medicare—you would say it were bad enough. But everywhere you look with these propositions you find more black art.
If you look at the proposition for unemployment, you would not want to lose your job. I have heard the Prime Minister, the Minister for Social Services and others say: 'We want to change the culture, moving from welfare to work. We want people to be earning or learning. We want to move from a culture of the handout to the hand up.' What they did not say is that the hand held out to you is not a hand up; it is something that is about to give you a clip around the years. If you are unfortunate enough to lose your job—thousands of people do every year—you have no hope of receiving government support for six months.
I have heard the minister pull out the example of fruit and vegie picking in Tasmania. I do not know about members opposite, but I have actually done fruit and vegie picking in my life. I have done a lot of seasonal work. The thing I know about it is this: it does not go all year. Generally speaking you will have a couple of months here or a couple of weeks there and then you move on to the next joint, or maybe that is all you will be lucky enough to get in that particular year. Think about this: every time you lose a job or you are out of work, you are off benefits for six months. A seasonal worker would want to get a damn good pay rate for those three months that he is in work, because he is off benefits for the next six months. If ever there were a provision which removed the incentive for unemployed people to go out and find some casual or seasonal work, this is it, here in one. If employers have difficulty finding seasonal labour now, I can tell you it is going to go through the roof after these provisions are introduced.
There is so much more that could be said about the black arts that are contained within this budget. There are others here who want to speak on it, but let me say this: these are the wrong decisions for Australia. These are the wrong priorities for Australia. A budget is all about your values, and the government have their values all wrong. They inherited an economy which was in a very good position, one of the strongest positions of any of the countries that we ever like to compare ourselves to. They have sent it backwards by increasing the budget deficit themselves and insisting on moving forward with their mad gold-plated maternity leave scheme. This is the wrong budget, the wrong values and the wrong priorities and should be rejected by Australians.
Mr COLEMAN (Banks) (19:00): Mr Deputy Speaker Jones, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent ascension to the Speaker's panel. I am thrilled to have the opportunity to speak on the appropriations bill this evening because this is absolutely at the heart of the government's agenda. Indeed, it is at the heart of the distinction between the government and the sorry, sorry record of those opposite. We all understand the fundamentals about bank accounts. We understand that one wants to have money in the bank rather than a very large debt. That applies whether you are a family, a small business in any electorate or, indeed, a government. When the previous government came to power they were in the tremendous situation of having about $50 billion in the bank. What would be the logical human reaction to that? I think it would be to say, 'We should do whatever we need to do to preserve this fantastic economic situation which we have inherited.' That would be the logical thing to do. That would be the right thing to do by the people of Australia. But that is not what happened, of course. That is, unfortunately, not what happened at all.
In six short years that $45 billion to $50 billion of cash in the bank went to almost $200 billion of net debt. That is a debt that not only increased very rapidly in a six years but is increasing at an increasing rate—so much so that, if the government does not act, we are on track for debt of $667 billion within a decade. That introduces a new word to the Australian economic lexicon, which is 'trillion'. That is because $667 billion is two-thirds of $1 trillion. We are a mid-sized economy. We are not the EU or the United States. We are not used to throwing around trillions of dollars, but that is the reality of where we are headed unless we change course—and change course we will, because we need to.
The spending growth under the previous government was projected to be the fastest in the OECD from 2012 to 2018. In order to understand why that was happening you have to look at the underlying motivations of those opposite and contrast them with the government. Those opposite never saw a government program they did not like. They fundamentally believe that government is here to solve every single issue—'If you only get a few politicians and bureaucrats around the table you can fix every problem and really dictate to the nation how things should be.' As we know, that is not how the economy works. That is not how the real world works because government does not create wealth. Wealth is created by the enterprise and expertise of business and individuals. What we saw from the other side in those six sad and sorry years of government was an incapacity to manage right across the board. That was the only consistent characteristic.
We talked this morning about the NBN. Unfortunately, we only had five minutes to address that issue and it was very difficult in that time to cover off on all the incompetence. The NBN was an extraordinary example of the mismanagement of government funds. The former Prime Minister, from your own state of Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker, was gravely intoning back in 2009 that the government would step forward and build this NBN, which was going to be wonderful and done very quickly. Of course, what we saw by the time of the 2013 election was that even though $6½ billion had been spent on the NBN only three per cent of homes were actually covered. There was a real lack of operational capacity and a real lack of regard for the taxpayers' money.
We saw that in border protection as well. Those opposite like to assert humanitarian superiority on this matter, but that is entirely inappropriate because the previous border protection policies were an absolutely failure from a humanitarian perspective and they were an absolute failure from an economic perspective, with a blow-out of some $11 billion for border protection—or, indeed, the lack thereof. With the borders once again under control under the leadership of the minister for immigration, we now see savings of $2½ billion through the closure of redundant detention centres. We also see a humanitarian benefit that those opposite do not like to dwell on, and that is the introduction of about 4,000 additional places under the special humanitarian visa program for people who perhaps did not comply with the strict letter of the UN convention but nonetheless are in desperate situations. Those people were not being allowed in in any significant numbers under the previous government because the illegal boat arrivals were overwhelming the system. That has been fixed, with a fantastic economic and humanitarian benefit.
It is not a good idea, when seeking to manage funds, to send cheques to stimulate the Australian economy to people who (a) do not live in Australia or (b) are in fact dead. That is not going to stimulate the Australian economy, but the previous government did that and that contributed to its appalling record. There were no budget surpluses under the previous government after 1989—a very long time ago. It was a different era then, some 25 years ago: 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, then you go into more recent memory from 2007 to 2013, but there were no surpluses at any stage during that entire period. If it happened once or twice you might say it was a difficult time, perhaps it was an aberration, but for 12 or 13 years in a row? That is just a way of life. That was the way of life under the previous government.
Turning to the solution, which these appropriation bills embody, we will be going from a deficit of $50 billion in financial year 2014 right down to $3 billion in financial year 2018. That is a huge reduction in the operating result of the Commonwealth, saving $300 billion in debt over that period. That is a truly dramatic saving. On top of that, of course, there is the saving on the interest which you would otherwise have paid on the $300 billion. Right now, with net debt of around $200 billion, we are paying interest of a billion dollars a month and we are borrowing money to pay that interest. It is really interesting to reflect on what we get for our billion dollars a month. What we get for that billion dollars is the capacity to not go into any further debt. We basically get to stand still. We do not pay off any principal for that billion dollars, we simply pay the interest which is accumulating on a daily basis. We are basically going out to the markets, borrowing more than $30 million every day and at the end of the day saying, 'We didn't increase the principal on our debt'—but nor did we paid it off if we are only paying that interest bill. So we face a very difficult situation.
There are structural issues that need to be addressed in the budget. Good governments tackle problems. Just as, in life, you have to be honest, in government you have to confront issues and you have to address them in a serious and sober fashion. What you cannot do is just kick them down the road to another day. What you cannot do is sleepwalk into the future, pretending everything is okay, when it is not. We are not going to do that. We are not going to sleepwalk into the future. We are going to address the economic mess that the previous government so shamefully left our nation in.
It is important to talk a little bit about some of the specific measures that are contained in these appropriation bills, because one thing I have learned in the brief time that I have been in this parliament is that misinformation is quite common in this whole area of politics. Lots of misinformation has been promulgated by those opposite in relation to the budget, so it important to reflect on some of the reality.
I turn to hospital funding. When you manage the budget in a sensible way—when you make the difficult structural decisions—you find that it is possible to make some investment in important areas, where it is appropriate to do so. Hospital funding is going up by 40 per cent in the next four years. And, indeed, thereafter it will increase by CPI each year. The notion that hospital funding is being cut is absurd, because every single year we will be setting a record. Hospital funding will go up by nine per cent, then nine per cent, then nine per cent and then six per cent, and then by CPI every year after that. So ever year will be a record year when it comes to hospital funding.
Funding for schools is similar—34 per cent in four years. Indeed, as the member for Mitchell well knows, we will be putting an additional $1.2 billion into schools that Labor had so cruelly taken out of the school budget. School funding will also increase by CPI every year. So it will be a record every year. Within the envelope of sensible economic management it is possible to provide for these important areas.
Pensions will increase every single year. There will be important structural reform of universities. We should have a university system that competes with the world. We should not sit idly by while nations around the world grow their university sectors more effectively than we do. And that is why the initiatives contained in the Minister for Education's plans are so important; they will enable universities to stand on their own two feet and compete.
To address those myths that, unfortunately, get promulgated from time to time it is important to note that no student, under these reforms, is required to pay up front. No student is required to pay back their HELP debt until they earn at least $50,000 a year. And the total contribution of students to their education relative to the contribution of taxpayers will be about 50 per cent. That sounds fair to me. Obviously, many of us in this chamber derived a big benefit from studying at university. It is appropriate that we make a contribution side by side with the taxpayer because there is a personal benefit in addition to a public one.
And what about infrastructure? Infrastructure is so critical because it is the economic gift that keeps on giving. If you build a road—you take that hard decision and go through the very complex planning and financial processes—at the end of the day you have something that will be there, not for a couple of days or a few weeks, but for decades. The productivity benefits are delivered on day 1, day 100, day 1,000 and day 10,000. That is so important in Sydney—in particular in my electorate, where WestConnex will provide a fantastic benefit. WestConnex will provide 20 to 25 minutes quicker travelling time from Beverly Hills to the city.
I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jones, there are probably limited traffic issues in Townsville, where you are from, but certainly in Sydney there are very substantial traffic issues and 25 minutes less in travelling time from Beverly Hills to the city is a massive win for the people of my electorate. That has been made possible by both a $1.5 billion cash injection and a $2 billion concessional loan from the Commonwealth—a fantastic initiative.
If those opposite really care about the standards of living and the cost of living of ordinary Australian families, there is something very, very simple that they can do. It is something we have been talking about for a long time now. It is a simple measure. All that is required is the Leader of the Opposition to get in touch with his senators, perhaps gather them in a room and it just say to them, 'It's time to stop getting in the way of the removal of the carbon tax.' The removal of the carbon tax will save the average family $550 per year, and that is a very substantial saving. It will provide broader economic benefits, because it means that the small businesses and broader businesses that are currently shackled by that tax will be unshackled and much more free to compete. I am delighted to speak in favour of these appropriation bills and I commend them to the parliament.
Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (19:15): This government's first budget stands perhaps as the single worst budget this country has ever seen. That is a fairly large claim but one I think this budget lives up to. Not only is built upon broken promises and untruths pedalled to the Australian people before the election last year; it is deeply unfair and indeed cruel, pushing the worst of the Treasurer's cuts and tax increases on to those that can least afford it. This so-called 'spreading the burden' is a myth, all to fix a so-called budget emergency—an emergency so severe, so detrimental to this country's future, that the first significant act of the Abbott government was to double the size of the deficit with a spending increase of $68 billion.
This government's barefaced duplicity with the Australian people would be a source of great hilarity if the consequences of its actions were not so dire. After coming into office, the Abbott government has borrowed $68 billion to fund its own decisions and new measures, such as the spending measures associated with the repeal of the carbon tax, which will cost $2.8 billion over four years; funding land transport infrastructure programs, costing $5.6 billion over four years; implementing its cruel border protection policies to the tune of $2.1 billion over four years; and paying an $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank of Australia. This is all new Abbott government spending. It is not Labor spending; it is Liberal spending—fact-checked and verified.
But still they persist with the concoction of a budget emergency, a crisis on our fiscal horizon that will shackle our children for untold generations—and why? Because this concocted budget crisis is being used as a smokescreen to hide the hideous truth of this budget. This budget is not simply about saving money; it is a budget which seeks to fundamentally and permanently change the social structure and programs which keeps this country fair and maintain the living standards of people on low and middle incomes. It is the legislation manifesto of the wish list—or, more accurately, the hit list—drawn up by the faceless men of the Institute of Public Affairs, who have, Medicare, pensions, public education, affordable universities, public broadcasters, government-owned infrastructure, Public Service jobs, government agencies and any meaningful action on climate change all firmly in their sights.
The Prime Minister may not have put the policies of the faceless men of the IPA to the people of the electorate, but he is certainly implementing them now. There are so many injustices and economic fallacies laid out in the Treasurer's first budget that it can be hard to know where to begin. But my electorate is home to two of the biggest university campuses in Victoria, indeed Australia—Monash University at Clayton, and Deakin University in Burwood—so I will begin there.
Despite promising before the election that the coalition had 'no plan to increase university fees' and then in the November last year repeating the pledge: 'We're not going to raise fees. I'm not even considering it, because we promised that we wouldn't. We repeat: we promised that we wouldn't.' This budget has nevertheless pressed ahead with item 11 of the IPA's faceless men hit list—deregulation of university fees. But, of course, why stop there, when at the same time the government can cut its contribution to each student course by 20 per cent, which is exactly what it has done. If young people were not already daunted by the prospect of embarking on a degree which has suddenly become more expensive, despite not offering any more qualifications or outcomes, the government intends on increasing the rate of interest on all HECS and HELP loans, dramatically increasing the cost of a university degree. Let us be clear on this interest-rate increase. Every person who has a HECS or HELP debt, as of 2016, will pay this higher rate of interest. So if you are studying now, it could impact you. Anyone who plans to study, is currently studying or has recently finished studying will pay this increased interest rate of up to six per cent per annum.
Even those who attain their degrees, whose degrees have not changed since graduation and whose degrees offer no extra qualifications today than they did the day they graduated, will pay more for education they have already received. There are people out there who have been looking at the HECS or HELP deductions in their pay packets and are planning and budgeting for the day when these loans are paid and gone. The Treasurer has shifted the goal posts of all these people. Whilst you say it is a debt and you can pay it off, it is a debt. You are carrying that debt. You cannot progress with many of the things you would like to do when you start work—buy a home, maybe even go overseas or buy a car. You are straddled with this debt, and it is growing. Again, the goalposts have been shifted. Many of them will now have families and are already facing increased costs of Medicare, reduced family-assistance payments and cuts to child care.
Consider also the recently graduated student struggling to find work, and facing ballooning debts far beyond what they had originally bargained for and which would have been paid back sooner. Surely all graduates and current students must be asking themselves: how is it fair that a contract I entered into when I began my studies has now been changed? And what of students of tomorrow? They will be paying 80 per cent of the cost of their degrees. These are degrees which the Vice-Chancellor of Melbourne University, Professor Glyn Davis, has said will cost students up to 61 per cent more at Melbourne University as a result of the government cuts—not of the deregulation but of the cuts. There is an increased fee of up to 40 per cent for humanitarian and social sciences.
The government excuses its inequities with the claim that only one per cent of all university graduates are unemployed, and graduates earn 75 per cent more than people who do not go to university. Both of these claims are false, and again were repeated by the Minister for Education during question time today. The unemployment rate of university graduates is 3.3 per cent, and a range of studies into the lifetime earnings of university graduates found that graduates are more likely to earn only 30 per cent more—not 75 per cent—than those who do not attend university. This is an average figure and varies widely for many degrees.
A report by the Centre for Labour Market Research, CLMR, found that while males can expect an average rate of return of 15 per cent per year for education it is 12 per cent for women—again, there is the differential, which is a bit sad, seeing as you have the same degree—in some degrees but, and this stat really impressed me, with Arts the annual rate of return is only three per cent for men and nine per cent for women. It is not 75 per cent. This is one differential where women are actually going to earn more than men from their degrees. It is the only time it happens. The report's author, Professor Phil Lewis, said that for the average student the rate of return is quite good. But there is a whole crowd of people where that is not the case. Alarmingly, he said that for about one in every five students their degree is not financially worthwhile at the moment. So they are paying this huge amount that is not giving them the return that everyone in the government says it will.
The government's changes to university fees will possibly bring that figure to one in three—or worse. So that is one in three students, not getting a benefit, who are the spending a small fortune on their education. Labor made it easier to access university education, increasing student numbers by 750,000 and boosting revenue by 10 per cent per student. The Abbott Liberal government—at the behest of the faceless men of the IPA—is hell-bent on a path that will radically change our higher-education system and entrench a two-tiered system similar to the United States.
I have two very large universities in my electorate. I can envisage going back to pre-Dawkins days and seeing one as a very intensive university of research and one as a teaching centre. Some people may say that is a good thing—and I am getting looks from across the chamber that it may be a good thing—but that is not a university education. A university education is about embracing all aspects of going to university: research, learning and progressing. Maybe even going to a tute, where somebody might actually engage with you on something, which I am not sure many university students do anymore—or are allowed to because the class sizes are already impinging on universities. This is going to make that experience of a university degree that much worse.
And why do we want to have a two-tiered system? Why do we actually want to entrench this system again—going back to the days where my mother did not get to go to university and my father-in-law had to sit his leaving exam twice to get the results that would give him the full scholarship to go to university? I do not want to see those days entrenched again. I do not want to be here in generations hence hearing about others being the first generation of university graduates in their families because people choose not to go to university because it will be far too expensive and they will be saddled with too much debt. It will be a system where access to education will depend on your bank balance, and the low-income students will struggle to find an affordable degree in the field they want to pursue. It will be a system where people must choose their course based solely on the financial return they hope to achieve, leaving low-paid and in demand professions such as social work and teaching in long-term and systematic decline. This is a situation the Labor Party can never support. Australia's strength as a future economy depends on achieving world-class standards of education, encouraging innovation and ensuring that all our citizens are able to access the transformative opportunities that affordable education provides.
Where will we be left in a future global economy where cutting edge research and innovation has become the benchmark of economies like ours? This brings us to item 21 on the hit list of our faceless friends at the IPA, which seeks to reduce government investment in research. The budget cuts $114 million out of CSIRO, which will see whole research programs slashed, departments removed and 500 researchers put out of their jobs. I have no doubt many of these jobs will be lost from the CSIRO facility in Clayton in my electorate—again, one of the largest facilities that CSIRO operates in Australia. These cuts will force CSIRO to cut funding for research into geothermal energy, marine biodiversity, liquid fuels and radio astronomy. It was the radio astronomy section of CSIRO that discovered wi-fi, a patent which has earned CSIRO well over $230 million and counting and makes my children very happy. It makes my children very unhappy when the wi-fi goes down. Let us understand the benefit to all of our communities of wi-fi. And this is only one of the decreased departments. These are cuts to profitable government agencies that develop sustainable technologies for all Australians. CSIRO is not only our peak scientific body but also a flagship for Australian innovation and development. A properly funded CSIRO is a critically important tool in making sure that we are thoroughly investigating ways to reduce carbon pollution and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Australia is one of only a handful of OECD countries to maintain a AAA credit rating. Yet to maintain the fiction of a budget emergency, the government will sacrifice funding to the CSIRO—funding which could lead to greater revenue. And in this day and age of decline in manufacturing, it is CSIRO that will lead the charge to the jobs of tomorrow—jobs that are being lost in my electorate today. These cuts to CSIRO, with further cuts to research and development, are not only detrimental for the pursuit of science they are also detractors to economic growth and will inhibit private investment as much as they do government investment.
In its response to the budget, NAB expressed its view about the cuts to CSIRO. It said it would 'detract from the agency's ability to assist with industry-enhancing innovation'. And Jennifer Westacott, CEO of the Business Council of Australia, said:
Growing the economy requires Australia to adopt a more global mindset and an unprecedented focus on innovation and knowledge infrastructure.
Some of the cuts to research and development and industry assistance programs are not consistent with this imperative, nor is the constant chopping and changing in the R&D funding arrangements which by their nature need to be long term and predictable.
That is the problem: there is no predictability.
It is clear that this budget, and, indeed, this government's whole approach to research investment, is simply not capable of delivering Australia the dividends we need from research investment. Australian science, innovation and research will go backwards and we will fall behind competing countries, placing our industries at a disadvantage and robbing us of future opportunities. The government will still argue they are committed to research, citing the $20 billion research endowment fund built from taxes of the sick. Can there be a more unethical way to increase funding to medical research than taxing the sick? I would think that, based on the Australian public's reaction to this atrocious budget, the government already has the answer to the question.
This is a budget that breaks every promise the Prime Minister made to the Australian people, a budget with so many appalling injustices and inequalities there is simply not enough time allotted to cover them all, but that does not mean those cuts and inequities have gone unnoticed. I will still be speaking about the terrible cuts to foreign aid, the cuts to community services and emergency system funds, and other hidden cruelties in this budget at other opportunities in this place.
This is a budget that cuts $80 billion from health and education. It makes universities more expensive and less accessible. It destroys the very foundation of our universal healthcare system and increases the cost of living for very low and middle income earners in the country. And it is not because the government really believes they have a budget emergency. It is because they believe that right now they can change the fundamental social structure of life in Australia and tick most of the boxes of the hit list of the faceless men of the IPA.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (19:31): It is difficult to know where to start after that contribution from the member for Chisholm, but I would say there are a great deal of myths being perpetuated about the first Abbott budget, which has been delivered by the Treasurer in the past few weeks. It is a good day for me to be able to stand up and say that this is a tough budget. It is a budget where there are not a lot of clear winners, and that is because it is in the context of a budget where we have debt projected to reach $667 billion, we are paying $1 billion in interest every month and we had a profligate government over the last six years that delivered budget after budget without regard for the consequences for the Australian taxpayer and, indeed, the bottom line.
That is well seen by the contributions from members opposite, and the member for Chisholm is no exception. They say we are cutting $80 billion out of health and $80 billion out of education, all this money going up in smoke. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do not criticise any of the state premiers for rushing to sign agreements with the last Labor government. Frankly, when you had a bunch of people in the central government in Canberra willing to hand out money so willy-nilly—'Would you like $20 billion?' 'No.' 'Well, would you take $30?' 'No no.' 'Would you take $40 billion?' They promised money beyond the forward estimates that they had no intention of ever funding, no method of funding and no ability to pay except to borrow it—endlessly borrow it. So of course any premier in this country sat down with the last Labor government and said, 'Can we do a deal?' Absolutely they could do a deal. Whatever the price was, the Labor government in Canberra doubled it.
It was unsustainable, so it is no surprise that in this budget we had to make some tough decisions to rein in that expenditure beyond the forward estimates—that money that can never be funded without massive tax increases and complete societal change. It is simply unsustainable to promise money that you have no intention of ever funding or ever being able to deliver. And we saw that in so many ways.
Instead we see a budget here which is making important structural reforms, and structural reforms in particular are very important because we have a structural deficit. I know members opposite struggle with this problem as well, but structural deficit problems need structural solutions. We see so many nations around the world today burdened under structural deficit problems that they cannot fix. If you do not make the decisions early enough and structurally, you will have no chance of paying back your debt or bringing your budget back into line. Unlike the previous government, which promised surplus after surplus—the ridiculous scenario of the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, promising a surplus every single year, saying he had achieved a surplus, having David Bradbury, the member for Lindsay, issuing statements to his electorate as the Assistant Treasurer telling them how great the surplus was—we are not promising a surplus in this budget. We are soberly telling the Australian people that, with all of our best endeavours, simply put, we can only reduce debt by $300 billion over the forward estimates. That is just a start on the debt and deficit legacy left to us by the Labor Party.
It is only the beginning, and it is oh, so important that we do so. It is a great credit to Tony Abbott and to the Treasurer that they have delivered a budget in which we can continue to see important economic infrastructure delivered. In fact, we have $50 billion of infrastructure still going ahead in the context of a very difficult budgetary environment. That decision has been taken by the government because it is that key economic infrastructure that will enable our economy and society to continue to progress, even in the difficult budgetary times we have seen because of a profligate government over six years.
The member for Grayndler, who was the infrastructure minister, did not deliver a cent for Sydney's infrastructure—nothing at all—but hundreds of millions of dollars for studies that had to be handed back. The member for Banks might remember that: the state government had to hand it back because the last Labor state government was so incompetent. The member for Grayndler talked a big game in infrastructure but in his home town—in the biggest economy in the nation and, as some would argue, the most important city—there was nothing. It is good to see a government that is providing the infrastructure needs for our biggest economy. We are seeing a Western Sydney infrastructure plan, including the great decision on Badgerys Creek, which gives certainty to the community and to our city and plans for our future needs; upgrades to the Northern and Bringelly Roads; a new motorway from the M7 to the Northern Road; a $200 million Local Roads package. These are not promises; construction starts in 2015. Four thousand construction jobs are to commence, and the federal contribution for that is $2.9 billion. The WestConnex program, which the member for Banks so eloquently spoke about, is a 33-kilometre motorway linking western and south-western Sydney with the city. There are projects at Kingsford Smith Airport and the port precincts; another tackles the M5; 10,000 jobs are to be supported.
I want to record my thanks to the state Liberal government: Liberal governments provide the necessary infrastructure—Labor only talks about the problems and promises to do something about it. That is what they did for over 10 years in New South Wales. I want to thank the state Liberal government in particular for the $10 billion rail line currently under construction in my electorate. It is wonderful to see cranes in the air and tunnel boring machines about to be put into the ground. It will be the biggest rail tunnel in the southern hemisphere. I want to record for this House for the first time in recent history that it is on time and on budget. People in New South Wales lost their faith in government to deliver projects on time and under budget. We now have a state government that is taking care of projects—with proper funding, management and delivery. When you are talking about tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure, you are talking about a serious project. For it to be on time and on budget is a serious tick to the management of the New South Wales government. We are going to see similar management from the federal level for these massive infrastructure projects for roads in the Western Sydney basin. The WestConnex, the NorthConnex, the northern Sydney freight corridor—these are vital infrastructure arterials from our major city and major economy that will deliver great benefits. Finally we have a federal government committed to real improvement in the economic infrastructure in our biggest city.
It is not just infrastructure that the government is delivering in the budget. There are many other things. I want to commend the government for its approach in managing our unemployment problems and our structural deficit problems in the welfare area. There are many critics of some of the changes we are proposing. I am not one of them; I am one of its supporters, because it is so vital that we do something to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment. The Labor Party has ruled out any industrial relations changes—it is unwilling to be a modern labour party—by not realising that the role of unions and collective bargaining is to work with the employer, not against the employer. We have a situation in Australia now where so many young people cannot get a job or access casual work because of the stiff industrial relations system that we have, because of the inflexibility of unions and the unreasonableness of so many decisions which prevent employers who really want to take on young people. Small businesses in my electorate and throughout Western Sydney would love to have extra workers. They are already working too hard themselves, but they do not have a flexible industrial relations system to help them.
We saw the member for Fraser, the shadow assistant Treasurer, underscore his failure in understanding youth unemployment when he asked: what is a young person in Tasmania supposed to do with the government's changes to the dole?
He said the factors that had caused so much youth unemployment in Tasmania—perhaps without realising the irony of what he was saying—were structural: the decline of the manufacturing and forestry sector in Tasmania led to the situation. He then lamented the federal government's attempts to do something about it. The member for Fraser was exactly right: the problem was structural. It was a state government structural problem—a Labor-Greens alliance which deliberately drove business from the state of Tasmania. Everyone here knows a young Tasmanian who had to flee the island to seek work on the mainland, either in Melbourne or one of our major cities, because of the structural problems created by an incompetent and deliberately antibusiness government in Tasmania. So it is particularly galling to hear the member for Fraser attack the federal government for saying we want to tackle youth unemployment, saying, 'What about places like Tasmania?' When you pursue policies that are deliberately designed to create high unemployment—to chase business from your state, to chase out all of your manufacturing and other sectors like forestry—then of course you are going to end up with unemployment.
The answer is not to keep people on government payments permanently. The answer is to have a pro-business, pro-economic growth government that understands the budget. We welcome the new government in Tasmania which is already taking a pro-business, pro-industry approach that will allow people to go back and get jobs in Tasmania. They have policies that will promote growth.
The Labor Party has been in denial about the state of the budget. They are in denial of the problem they caused. I was here in the chamber last week and it was particularly interesting to see the new member for Scullin come in to the chamber and say:
Of course, there is no fire, no emergency.
I am referring to the Prime Minister's metaphor of the fire being started by the Australian Labor Party and us being the Fire Brigade.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: Perhaps the member opposite also wants to suggest there is no fire. The member for Scullin had a case of poor timing because that was just before—literally just before—the Parliamentary Budget Office announced that if Australia's spending continued at the same rate, the nation's debt forecast would increase at the fastest rate in the OECD. We have heard the criticism drop off since that statement, but it is a sobering statement and one we all ought to reflect on.
How are we supposed to tackle the problems of debt and deficit left by the previous government if the Australian Labor Party and their voters in the Senate refuse to acknowledge we have a problem? The first stage of addressing any problem or crisis is to acknowledge we have a problem. I would say to members opposite: stop being debt deniers and get with the program. You helped create the problem; you need to help find the solutions. This government is proposing solutions to the debt and deficit crisis. Even with the measures we are taking, only $300 billion of your debt will be wiped out over the forward estimates—only $300 million. That is less than half of the projected net debt.
It is a very serious situation. It is a debt crisis. We are not a big nation and we are not an economy with a huge GDP that can afford to sustain large levels of debt. It is not enough to point to Europe, the sick countries in the world and the United States—they would kill to be in our position. They do not know how to solve their debt problems and return to the level we are at. They look at us with envy. It is not appropriate for us to chase them at the fastest rate of debt growth of anywhere in the world, especially in the current world economic climate. Take the member for Chisholm's previous points about us. She lamented us not being competitive. At the moment we are certainly not competitive with countries in Asia which have low taxation rates and economies that are very competitive—countries that are structurally geared towards encouraging investment, entrepreneurship and development.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr HAWKE: It is galling to hear members opposite interjecting on this point. You could go to Singapore where the corporate tax rate is capped at 17 per cent; no wonder business wants to go there from Australia. People are now making investments all around the world and looking at Australia, saying, 'The top marginal tax rate is almost 50c in the dollar. Why would I invest in Australia?' It is unacceptably high all through the income tax scales, all the way down. That is because we have to pay for all the nonsense that Labor came up with, whether it be the pink batts scheme or the school hall scheme. I had a school in my electorate, the member opposite would be interested to know, where there were only 100 pupils. They already had a library but your last government built them a second library. The second library, you might be interested to know, member for Banks, did not have air conditioning and did not have any internet connections. The first library was better than the second library. That poor little school got two libraries for 100 pupils. That was the Labor government. That is the Labor way: spend money willy-nilly because it is not yours and you never have to pay it back.
In this budget we have taken tough decisions. The budget is tough because it needs to be. It is not tough because we want it to be but because we are in the context of $667 billion of projected net debt. We have one of the fastest growing net debts in the OECD. Without structural reform we will go further into debt and be paying off this debt for a long time to come, off the prosperity of future generations of Australians. That is a position I am not prepared to accept. I fully support the budget measures. It is difficult and tough, and I understand that many people, not only from my electorate but all around Western Sydney and Sydney in general, will find this a tough budget. But they will acknowledge that this is a necessary budget when we pay back $300 billion of Labor's debt and we have smaller interest bills to pay and more money for the federal government to do good work.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (19:46): I rise to speak in relation to the appropriations bills. The Abbott government's first budget is a budget of cuts and broken promises. The Abbott government would do well to remember what Arthur Miller said: 'Betrayal is the only truth that sticks.' What we have seen in this budget is betrayal of Australians and betrayal of the Australian way of life, not to mention attacks on pillars of our society such as Medicare and access to education.
I have spoken about the Abbott government's attacks on universal health care in this country on a number of occasions. The Liberals have always opposed Medicare, and in this year's budget they have shown their true colours. Tony Abbott promised before the last election that there would be no cuts to health. He has not just broken that promise he has smashed it. The government's first budget includes an $80 billion cut to Australian public hospitals and education. It is right there in the budget papers. The Prime Minister has broken his promise that there would be no new taxes with a $7 GP tax. That will cost Australian households an extra $3.5 billion in out-of-pocket expenses and it is something that I am very concerned about. In the Griffith by-election—it feels like a long time ago, now—I spoke out against the GP tax. My opponent was for it. Of course he tried to retreat once he realised how unpopular was his support for the GP tax. Everyone from the foreign minister to the Prime Minister swanned into Brisbane just to claim that there were no plans for that GP tax. 'No plans!', they said. 'Scaremongering!', they said. Yet what have we seen? We have found out that those were just weasel words calculated to make people think, before a by-election and a Senate election in Western Australia, that a GP tax would not happen. But they could not hide it forever, because, here we are, down the track, with a budget that, of course, has a GP tax.
The worst thing about the GP tax is that it is not actually about savings; it is about philosophy. It is part of the government's plan to end universal health care. It is a lazy policy that will deter Australians from seeking early care and treatment. It is going to lead to greater complications and sickness when people do not get diagnosed early because they do not go to a GP. The purpose of the GP tax is to dissuade people from going to the GP by sending a so-called price signal. The Abbott government is calling Australians hypochondriacs. People are rightly angry. We know from international experience that people will not seek preventative care for follow-up treatment when there is this so-called price signal in place. We know that people will not fill a second script, because they will not be able to afford it. That is exactly what this measure will do. The only people advocating for this are the Abbott government and the Commission of Audit. Why does Tony Abbott think that he knows best when it comes to Australians' health care? The AMA, the college of emergency physicians, the Doctors Reform Society, the Public Health Association, the College of General Practitioners, the Consumer Health Forum, the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association and countless health academics are against this tax, but the government is doing it anyway. The government also wants to get state governments to have hospital taxes. If you go to an emergency department they are expected to collect taxes from you as well. That is not to mention making medicines more expensive for every Australian by adding an additional $1.26 billion burden to household budgets across this country. In addressing these appropriation bills it is obviously important to talk about attacks on Medicare, because they are almost the worst feature of this budget, if you had to choose one.
There are a number of other cuts that I want to speak about this evening. First are the cuts to public broadcasting and the arts. Of all the problems with this budget and of all the cuts and attacks on middle-class Australia and on the Australian way of life, it might be that the cuts to the arts and public broadcasting are under the radar in a comparative sense. It is important to recognise that this budget cuts $43½ million from so-called efficiency savings from the ABC and SBS. That is $8 million from SBS and $33½ million from the ABC. The government is abolishing the Australia Network. It is a $196.8 million cut. And that is not the end of it. We are expecting more cuts to both the ABC and SBS. It is spelt out in the budget papers, clear and simple. It says that this is an adjusted down payment on the ABC and SBS efficiency study. This is the study that Malcolm Turnbull commissioned in January, even though in September, before the election, the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, had claimed there would not be any cuts to the ABC and SBS. The ABC Managing Director, Mark Scott, has said that the funding cuts will regrettably and invariably result in redundancies and a reduction in services. It is a shame that the government said one thing to get elected and is now saying something else, now that it holds power in this country.
There are other cuts to arts and culture. Dr John Gardener-Garden of the Parliamentary Library has written a very useful summary about the budget's effect on arts and culture. He says the budget includes 'significant funding reductions to arts, screen and cultural bodies'. There are cuts to the arts of $87.1 million over four years; $33.8 million of cuts to come from the arts programs that the Attorney-General's Department administers; and $28.2 million in cuts to the Australia Council. As Dr Gardener-Garden observes, that cut will hit individual artists and smaller arts organisations the hardest, because these are the people and groups who usually are not in three-year or one-year funding deals.
In addition—and it is surprising, I think, that in this country right now there is going to be a cut to Screen Australia—there is $25.1 million in cuts to Screen Australia, making it harder for that body to support home-grown film and TV. Funding is going to cease for the Australian Interactive Games Fund. This is typical of the Abbott government's failure when it comes to industry policy and innovation. As Screen Australia says, the purpose of the Interactive Games Fund is to help build a sustainable base for companies to grow in a global market. Screen Australia says that the fund:
… recognises the international potential and originality of our local interactive entertainment by assisting Australian companies during a period of increased pressure following major shifts in the market.
The objectives of the Australian Interactive Games Fund are to:
• promote industry growth and sustainability
• support the development of new intellectual property
• encourage skills retention and renewal
• maximise the creative opportunities of fast broadband.
Screen Australia explains the importance of interactive entertainment. Games are big business. Screen Australia goes on to say:
Like going to the cinema and watching television, interactive entertainment is a mainstream activity in Australia. Due to cultural and technological shifts in the industry over the last few years, there is now a wider variety of games that are more accessible to more people.
A recent study commissioned by the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association … found that 92 per cent of Australian households have a device for playing computer games, up from 88 per cent in late 2008.
The report shows that the demographic profile of people playing interactive games is moving closer to that of the general population, with 75 per cent aged 18 years and over. In fact, the average age has risen from 30 to 32 years old since 2008. … women now make up 47 per cent of the total gaming population, up from 46 per cent over the same period. It goes on to state that the average adult who plays games has now been playing them for 12 years, with 26 per cent having played for more than 20 years.
As a some time gamer myself, not averse to the odd bit of World of Warcraft, I can identify with those demographic shifts in the gaming industry. Screen Australia goes on to say:
Beyond levels of engagement there is also potential for real economic growth. The global interactive entertainment industry is forecast to be the fastest growing entertainment and media sector, expanding from $56.8 billion in revenue in 2011 to $80.3 billion in 2016 …
Those are the forecasts. Further, it goes on to say:
In Australia, the market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.4 per cent to reach $2.2 billion in 2016. This is in large part due to the exponential growth of online distribution of games… The physical retail console and PC market is expected to recover slightly over the next five years after a recent decline, expanding globally at a growth rate of 1.7 per cent. The growth will be driven by the release of the next generation of console hardware.
I have gone into some detail to recite a length what Screen Australia has said in an attempt to outline for the parliament the importance of the games industry. It is not a fledgeling industry worldwide anymore. It is a massive industry that involves millions of people, and here in Australia we have seen this demographic shift when more people are gaming. So you would think that in a well-off country with people who have got the capacity to have gaming consoles—given that statistic of over 90 per cent of people having gaming consoles—that we would want to have a home-grown games industry strengthened. That is exactly why the Interactive Games Fund was established. The reason is that there had been growth in consumer demand. Screen Australia said:
… while this growth in consumer demand is impressive, it does not necessarily translate into benefits for local games developers.
They were saying that we actually needed to harness that growth and make sure that jobs and investment were not going overseas. They said that there are a number of threats confronting the Australian industry and that they can be broadly grouped into two interrelated areas: falling foreign investment and talent being driven offshore.
The Interactive Games Fund money was to support industry to combat those challenges. In my family there are young gamers who are extremely skilled, people who have got degrees in technology. One of them is working in Jakarta because that is where the industry is really firing at the moment. Yet here in Australia where we have got the capacity to harness that growth and profit from it, the Abbott government has decided to cut the Interactive Games Fund money. There are no plans for jobs and no plans for growth. This cut just shows how backward-looking this government is and how twisted its priorities are. And that is not the only arts funding cut. There is a range of other arts funding cuts as well.
As it is Reconciliation Week until tomorrow, it is timely to comment on the cuts to Indigenous affairs in this budget. Under the government's first budget there is an incredible $549.4 million cut, over half a billion dollars out of Indigenous programs, cuts which have been criticised as threatening the Closing the Gap efforts. Of course that is gravely concerning.
In the arts space, I have spoken before about the importance of heritage languages in our community. That includes Indigenous languages, part of the oldest continuous culture in the world. So in the arts space it is particularly concerning to see the cut to heritage languages in relation to the Indigenous language program. As I have quoted before, the New South Wales government's program Racism No Way describes the significance of heritage languages, saying:
Language is intrinsic to the expression of culture. As a means of communicating values, beliefs and customs, it has an important social function and fosters feelings of group identity and solidarity. It is the means by which culture and its traditions and shared values may be conveyed and preserved.
That is part of why language is so important. We know that there was a very recent parliamentary inquiry in 2012 calling on the then government to respond to an urgent need to support Indigenous languages. Labor responded. Labor heeded that call. Yet the Abbott government is cutting funding for Indigenous languages by 9½ million dollars. The Get Reading program is suffering cuts as well and the government also seems to think that they are going to make savings by moving to a shared services model, as Dr Gardiner-Garden has noted in relation to some of the arts institutions. Steven Schwartz, the Executive Director of the Council for Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences has been reported as saying that a similar idea was tried in Queensland—my home state—'to save money and see those savings redirected [but that] neither of those two things occurred'. All of these cuts are in stark contrast to Labor's record of investing around $200 million in the arts through our national cultural policy, Creative Australia.
Not content with taking the axe to health, the arts, public broadcasting and Indigenous affairs, this government is also failing our nation's future when it comes to science. Everyone already knew that the Abbott government does not care about science. We all know what the Abbott government thinks of the science of climate change. There is not even a science minister in this government. In this budget we see more evidence of the disregard for science. Nearly $150 million has been cut from the CSIRO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Last week I visited a local school, the Cannon Hill Anglican College. The principal showed me their new science block where students had access to facilities and equipment of a very high standard. She was really proud of those facilities and of her students' achievements and, like Principal Bell, I believe that science needs to be front and centre in our nation in the interests of our future.
In the short time I have left to me I want to mention one other cut that I think is very important. $120.1 million has been cut from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the organisation that is supposed to ensure that our financial markets are fair and transparent and provide information to consumers and investors alike. It is a cut that has raised eyebrows.
It is worth quoting ABC business reporter Pat McGrath's interview with Professor Ian Ramsay, who heads Melbourne University's Centre for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation. He is surprised by the cut. He said to Pat McGrath:
There is absolutely no doubt that this is very serious and I'm sure will significantly impact upon the broad range of responsibilities that ASIC is called upon to exercise.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Ewen Jones ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed on a future day.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (20:00): by leave—I move:
That orders of the day Nos 2 to 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Question agreed to.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Debate resumed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Ewen Jones ) (20:00): The question is:
That grievances be noted.
University of Western Sydney
University Fees
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (20:00): I am going to speak tonight about a wonderful university in the electorate of Parramatta, the University of Western Sydney. At various times in my 10 years here it has straddled the border with Bennelong but, with the latest redistribution, it is firmly back in the electorate of Parramatta, and I am very glad to have it. It is an extraordinary university. It is not a sandstone university, it is not in the Group of Eight and its alumni are not as old or as wealthy as those of some other universities. But it is a university that cares greatly for the community it is in and that serves it incredibly well. The majority of students at the University of Western Sydney are first in family. When you go to a graduation ceremony at the University of Western Sydney it does remind one a little of a university match, with lots of shouting and strange chants coming from the floor—not the usual serious graduation ceremony at all but very much a family party.
I am incredibly worried, as many in my community are, about what the government's changes will do to the University of Western Sydney, not only the $5 billion cut to funding across the nation and the 20 per cent reduction in the government contribution per student but the deregulation of fees across the nation. There can be no doubt that fees will rise. I have heard the minister say that fees will not rise, that some fees will fall. But given the change they are making to the fee structure, it is impossible to see how that can be true. The average change in the amount of fees the government pays per student to universities is a 20 per cent cut. It is 20 per cent less on average. Students on average pay 40 per cent of current fees. So, by my calculations, they will have to cover 60 per cent of total costs even for the university to meet the cut the government has made. Then, if the university does charge a 20 per cent increase in fees, they will have to give 20 per cent to scholarships, so the actual amount the universities will have to raise their fees by is 25 per cent. That is not 25 per cent of 40 per cent. That is 40 per cent plus 25 per cent, or 65 per cent. Overall, that is a 62 per cent increase. It is impossible to see, given that the government is reducing the amount of subsidy per student, that universities will not have to move in to meet that shortfall and increase fees by 25 per cent.
For the University of Western Sydney this would be a disaster. I am both pleased and distressed really that the university has announced that it is going to freeze its fees for students commencing in 2014. It is doing this because, as we know, students commencing this year do not know what fees they will pay in years 2, 3 and 4. The level of uncertainty at the moment is quite extraordinary. I have had some people in my office recently. I met with a group of high school students a couple of days ago who were very worried about what the fees might be. It is already starting to impact on decisions people are making. The University of Western Sydney has decided to lock in its current fee structure for all domestic students commencing in 2014, even though it knows that that will have a considerable impact on the university's revenue. I thank it for doing that, but again I worry about the impact of that revenue drop for the University of Western Sydney.
It is also likely that the universities that are able to charge greater fees, who then have to contribute 20 per cent in scholarships, will provide scholarships to their own universities, so we are also likely to see the universities with the highest fees being able to attract with scholarships the smarter students from poorer areas—again hollowing out universities like the University of Western Sydney. This again would not be a desirable effect.
When I first got elected in 2004 I was really quite appalled at the disparity in the number of people enrolling at the University in Western Sydney when compared with the rest of the country. In 2004 people enrolled in universities in Western Sydney at 3.2 per cent compared to five per cent Sydney wide, so it was just over half the Sydney wide rate. In the 12 years of the Howard government that gap widened. In one of the biggest boom times we have ever had that gap widened. A boom is when you can make a difference to students with a disadvantage, but the Howard government failed to do that and, in fact, the gap widened.
When we came to government in 2007 we set about trying to address that widening gap. The federal government invested in the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program with the universities and that significantly turned around the enrolment rate for people, particularly those of low-socioeconomic status. In fact, at the University of Western Sydney the number of students from low-SES families increased by nine per cent between 2011 and 2013. That was quite an extraordinary turnaround.
The government set a target that, by 2020, 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds would have as a minimum a bachelor level qualification and that 20 per cent of higher education enrolments would be students from low-SES backgrounds. The government's focus on that low-SES group was based on the philosophy of social justice and economic prosperity.
It is incredibly important for a community like Western Sydney that we have a strong university. Historically university enrolments in Western Sydney have been quite low. In fact, for many years we did not have a university. We found it incredibly difficult to attract highly skilled people back to Western Sydney. Once a young person leaves Western Sydney, moves to the inner suburbs and goes to university it is really quite difficult to get them back to Western Sydney, but we have found that since the opening of UWS, in areas such as law and medicine, we now have people raised in Western Sydney, trained in Western Sydney and working in Western Sydney. I cannot stress how important this is, how destructive it would be if we find a hollowing out of our incredibly important University of Western Sydney in favour of fees. Let us face it: the sandstone universities that are able to charge high fees will essentially hollow out the universities in areas like Western Sydney and regional areas.
There is also the issue of the HECS debt. We heard the minister on Sunday morning saying that current and past students would not be affected by the HECS increases. We know now of course that that is not true. What worries me here is that, of two students who attend the same university and do the same course, the one who goes into community work will actually pay more than the one who goes for a high-powered job in the banking sector, for example. We will find that people who give back to the community—for example, people who go into aged-care nursing, people who work in counselling services and people who work in financial planning for the poor—will actually pay more for their degree because of this compounding interest than a person who goes to, say, Macquarie Bank.
We have heard the minister say that it is four per cent, but the average bond rate over the last 10 years has been between five and six per cent, so we can expect that eventually that will bounce back and we will have people paying compound interest at six per cent right across the country. For people who have already made decisions about their study, have finished their study or are currently studying on the basis of a cap of two per cent to be suddenly hit with an increase in the cap of up to six per cent is unfair in anyone's terms. We heard this government when they were in opposition talk about certainty. We heard them talk about certainty until they were blue in the face. Well they have not provided much certainty since they have come to government. We have people enrolling in universities now or considering enrolling in universities who do not know what their fees will be. People who have heard what the minister said yesterday and have not caught up with the correction will believe that they will not be hit with a six per cent interest bill in 2016, yet they will.
We have had people enrolling at university on one contractual arrangement to find that contract swept away by the government. The level of uncertainty in this is extraordinary, and it is already impacting on the decisions that people are making about whether or not to go to university, and which courses to take. The issue of certainty is incredibly important. People make decisions about their lives—where they live, how much rent they can afford, which one in the family works and how much, whether they take overtime et cetera—based on the things that they know. And this government has ripped away, with no notice, a very fundamental principle in this country: we go to university based on the capacity of our minds, not on the capacity of our wallets.
This is shameful legislation. It is a shameful change to our universities. It will be very destructive. (Time expired)
National Indigenous Youth Parliament
Mr JOHN COBB (Calare) (20:10): I rise to speak about a young Bathurst student from my electorate, who is participating in the 2014 National Indigenous Youth Parliament, which started last Wednesday and finishes tomorrow. As we all know, this is a leadership program for young Indigenous Australians to learn how government works and how laws are made.
It is not just young Indigenous people who need to learn about how laws are made and about what happens in parliament; young Australians generally need to learn about that. I think that those 30-odd young people who have been involved in this for the last few days—it is going until tomorrow—will be way in front of the average young Australian, who, by and large, has an awful lot to learn about.
More importantly, I believe this is about empowering people to become leaders within the communities and to encourage and motivate their peers. The figures show that less than half eligible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are enrolled to vote. Those of us who have, or have had, rural or remote electorates are all too familiar with that fact. It is quite a small proportion, traditionally, who vote at local, state or federal government elections.
Angel Towney, who is 22 years old, was selected from an outstanding field of over 220 applicants, to take part in this year's National Indigenous Youth Parliament. She is one of only six who were selected from New South Wales. I had the pleasure of meeting Angel in Bathurst recently, and caught up with her again last week while she was in parliament with the other participants in the program. I should say that Towney is a well-known name in the central west. In fact, Angel would have an uncle who was—he may still be—on Dubbo City Council. I am not surprised that Angel was selected from such a competitive field. She most certainly impressed me and demonstrated her incredibly strong community involvement and leadership potential.
I would call Angel a Calare local. She grew up in Parkes and Peak Hill and she now attends Charles Sturt University in Bathurst. At CSU she was studying a double degree—Bachelor of Exercise and Sports Science, with a Bachelor of Business Studies. She also formed, and is chair of, the Bathurst campus Indigenous student body which is raising funds to attend the National Indigenous Tertiary Education Student Games in Perth from 21 to 25 September.
I found out that Angel is also a talented athlete, having represented Australia internationally in martial arts—specifically karate and kick boxing—which took her to the USA, Japan, China and Thailand. She is also preparing to undertake a one-year exchange program at the University of St Gallen, in the city of St Gallen in Switzerland, before graduating from CSU at the end of 2015.
As you can see, Angel is far from the average 22-year-old. She is a proud, confident and ambitious Indigenous woman. She is a proud, confident and ambitious woman and is determined to make a change for herself and for her community. Angel convinced me that she is a very firm believer in working to change attitudes in the community on education, health, wellbeing, crime and violence. She is the first in her family to finish high school—the rest dropped out in year 8—and then to go to university. It is a fantastic achievement to be the first in your family to take what, in that situation, is a huge step.
Angel is motivated to take a career path which will enable her to develop communities. She has hinted that this may be in politics; however, she is not too sure yet. A few days in this place may have totally encouraged her to follow this pursuit or totally put her off it. It is just fantastic that Angel is shouldering the responsibility at the age of 22 of being a role model and using the lessons from the Youth Parliament to be a voice for Indigenous people and for her community. Through the Youth Parliament, Angel has learnt from the experts about the parliamentary process and democracy. Along with her fellow youth parliamentarians, she has participated in a debate on a bill on Indigenous studies with the object of seeing the inclusion of Indigenous cultures and histories as a mandatory part of primary school curriculums Australia-wide. But I think what she has valued most is meeting other young Australians from across the country, building her skills and confidence as a strong advocate for her community.
At the lunch last week with Angel I had the opportunity to meet some of the other participants from New South Wales, particularly those from Wollongong and Broken Hill. I think we and the Indigenous people in New South Wales and Australia are going to be very well served by the people I met last week. As I mentioned earlier, I believe the true aim of the Youth Parliament is to develop young latest willing to advocate for their community and willing to do so beyond what you might say was the call of duty. I wish all the participants in the 2014 National Indigenous Youth Parliament all the very best for their future endeavours. I am confident that Angel will be an incredibly strong representative for our area and do us all proud—and when I say that I do not mean just a strong representative that Indigenous people should be proud of. Everybody in the electorate of Calare can know that this girl will represent all of us to the very best of her ability and make all of us very proud of her.
Budget
Mr CONROY (Charlton) (20:18): Budgets are about choices. They are about getting the policy settings right to ensure future prosperity, but they must also ensure that nobody is left behind in the process. This Liberal government has made its choices. With this budget the Prime Minister has chosen to cut hard but spend big. He has decided that what he said before the election should not matter after it. He has decided that the biggest burden should fall on low- and middle-income earners. He has decided the sick, the elderly, the young and the unemployed should suffer more.
There are 26,800 in the electorate of Charlton who receive a pension of some sort. Each of them is a beneficiary of this country is proud history of social support for the aged and those in need. It was at the turn of the last century, in 1909, that means tested, flat rate pensions were first paid to men from the age of 65 and women from the age of 60. Since then, Australian governments of all persuasions have supported payments to pensioners, until now. Before the election Tony Abbott promised he would not cut the pension. We now know this to be false. For the pensioners in Charlton and across the country there will be a cut to the pension and life will become a lot harder.
The budget cuts $1.3 billion from the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders. This money paid to states and territories supports discounts for pensioners, Commonwealth seniors and health care card holders on their rates; water, sewerage and power bills; car registration; and public transport discounts. It remains to be seen how each state will make up this funding shortfall, though, with a budget looming within weeks, both the Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales have made clear their thoughts on Tony Abbott's hit to their budget bottom line. Andrew Constance, the man who now has to decide whether New South Wales government will cut other services to continue these concessions or see pensioners go without, has called this move 'cruel and callous', and I agree with Treasurer Constance.
For the past 20 years the age, disability and carer pensions have been indexed in line with male average weekly earnings. This helps the pensions keep pace with the true cost of living for pensioners. The budget outlines a change to the indexation rates to pensions from average weekly earnings to the consumer price index. These changes will mean that pensioners will generally receive less of an increase in their pensions in March and September. If this indexation had been in place for the last four years, a single pensioner on the maximum rate would be around $1,500 a year worse off than they are today. This effectively would have wiped out the $30 pension increase applied by Prime Minister Rudd and Minister Macklin. Mr Abbott will have you believe that this is not a cut, but it is. The reality is that 26,800 people in Charlton will have their cost of living go up but their pension will not rise in line with it. There are 26,800 people in Charlton who will have less money each week because of these changes. No matter which way you look at it, that is a cut.
The action from pensioners has been quite marked. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and this coalition government need to know that the choices they have made in this budget will hurt people—every community will suffer. But I do not ask the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Liberal Party to simply take my word for it; I ask that they listen to the stories of pensioners in my electorate who are genuinely fearful of how these measures will hurt them.
Judith is 64 years of age. About 30 years ago she fell down 28 concrete stairs, which has left her with damage to her spine, knees and hips. She suffers debilitating arthritis and she has developed a disease on her spine which means she cannot walk unassisted. She relies on wheelchairs and crutches for mobility. Judith has also suffered a heart attack and stroke and is prone to bouts of vertigo. It takes a lot of medical attention and advice to manage these conditions. At least once a week Judy visits the GP superclinic in Morrisette to see her GP, physio or specialist doctor or to use the hydrotherapy pool there. These visits are currently bulk-billed. They will no longer be free of charge and instead she will face the GP tax. In addition, her medication costs have gone up. With her chronic conditions it is not surprising that she reached the PBS safety net threshold last year. As a disability pensioner, Judith lives on a fixed income and manages from week to week. She boards with an elderly lady who also lives on the pension and together they share household expenses to make ends meet. Judy is a generous lady. The pride in her voice was evident as she described to me her regular donations to charities because, she says, 'There are people out there worse off than me.' However, Judith is fearful that these donations will be the first thing to go as she is forced to pay more for her medical and health care costs. She will have to pay more to see her doctor, she will have to pay more for medication. She will have her pension payments eroded at a time when her cost of living is going up. I asked Judith what she thought of these changes and how she felt about the Prime Minister's decision to make her life harder. She told me: 'It feels money hungry. If it were for a genuine need, then I wouldn't mind. But it's not. Hospitals will suffer. People around here will suffer. Please, Prime Minister, don't do this. A lot of people are finding it hard. Water rates, electricity, land rates., everything is going up. We can't afford any more.'
I heard a similar story from Lorna, who will be 70 next year and receives the age pension. She rang my office after hearing of the measures in the budget because she wanted me to know how angry she was. She is angry because it will make life harder for her, her family and for those who live in her community. Lorna's adult son has battled severe mental illness for many years. It has taken a lot of work but together with his doctors and specialists, Lorna's son is now, thankfully, stabilised and is living life to the full. His only source of income is the disability support pension, which goes some way to covering is essential living expenses. His medication costs add up to around $70 a month, and Lorna helps him make ends meet by paying around $30 of this cost each month. He has regular blood tests and visits his psychiatrist on a monthly basis for ongoing recovery and prescriptions. Of course, it is vital that he stays well.
But this budget will ask both Lorna and her son to pay more—to see the doctor, for medication, for blood tests and X-rays, and for petrol. With indexation changes to both of their payments, as well as the cut to support for pensioner concessions, Lorna and her son will be paying more with less income. Lorna told me this makes her feel sick. She said, 'The Prime Minister and Treasurer may say that a GP payment is not much or that the medicines will only go up by 80c each. It might only mean a cup of coffee to them, but for me it could mean I can't afford my next meal. Only the rich will be able to afford proper health care; pensioners and people with a chronic illness will not be able to afford it. The heavy lifting is being done by pensioners, the sick, the unemployed and low-income earners. I don't understand why the Prime Minister is doing this. He's got no compassion.'
Besides changing the indexation, which means a real cut to pensions over time, and cutting funding to pensioner concessions, the government is also playing with the deeming thresholds used in the pension asset test. These will also be lowered. For singles, higher deeming rates will apply to income over $30,000—down from the current threshold of $46,600. For couples, higher deeming rates will apply to income over $45,000—down from the current threshold of $77,400. This will mean a real impact on those receiving a part pension.
The changes will also affect self-funded retirees in receipt of the seniors healthcare card. Most notably, the seniors supplement will be abolished, which is a loss of $876.20 per year for singles and $1,320.80 per year for couples. This will have a real impact on those self-funded retirees who need this money for their family budget.
Finally, the budget posits that people have to work harder for longer. Increasing the age pension to 70 will mean Australia has the highest pension age across the OECD. My brother is a concreter, and he and I have serious doubts about whether he will be able to remain in the workforce until the age of 70. My wife is a nurse. It is a white collar profession that generally requires a university degree, but it is a job that is very physically intense. Again, I have doubts about whether she will make it to 70 in the workforce in her current job. It will be a real tragedy if people who have worked their whole lives have to work harder and longer because of this callous and cruel government.
These are all results of the budget. These are all choices made by this coalition government. They have chosen to make life harder for pensioners in Charlton and across the country. They have chosen to change the rules for seniors and self-funded retirees in Charlton and across the country. They have chosen to favour the wealthy and punish ordinary workers and the vulnerable. Budgets are about choices—but so are elections. The people of Charlton made the choice at the last election to be represented by me and the Australian Labor Party. They made this choice based on the values that I, and Labor, subscribe to—fairness, equality and social justice. There is nothing fair or just about this budget, and Labor and I will fight against this unjust budget.
National Archives of Australia
Mrs PRENTICE (Ryan) (20:28): I wish to place on the record my appreciation to the coalition and the House of Representatives for giving me the privilege of serving as their representative on the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council. As I have said before in this place, the National Archives is, indeed, one of our best kept secrets. I encourage all members to act to rectify this by promoting its role and activities to their constituents.
The National Archives is in reality the memory of our nation, collecting and preserving Australian government records that reflect our history and identity. Its collection traces events and decisions that have shaped the nation and the lives of Australians. As well as preserving our history, the National Archives plays a key role in helping to ensure the Australian government and its departments are effective and accountable to the people.
A highlight for the National Archives in the last financial year was hosting the very successful International Council on Archives Congress in Brisbane in August 2012. I pay tribute to former council member Aladin Rahemtula and now Attorney-General Senator George Brandis, who had the foresight to bid for this event during the Howard government. It is reasonable to state that one of the reasons for our successful bid is that Australia is one of the world's leaders in the digitising of records. Indeed, we now have more than 25 million digitised pages loaded to the Archives collection database RecordSearch. You can understand just how important it is to digitise our records going forward when you look at the 2.57 shelf-kilometres of records transferred from government agencies to Archives during the 2011-12 period alone. To quote from the annual report:
The Archives places great value on its international leadership and collaboration with other national archives in the Asian region. In the recent past the Archives has had memoranda of understanding with the National Archives of Korea and Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia, allowing for the exchange of ideas, knowledge and training. The Archives has hosted visiting delegations from these institutions and Archives staff have provided professional development in Korea and Indonesia. The Archives undertakes similar activity in countries where there is no memorandum of understanding in places such as Japan, China and Singapore. In August 2012 the Archives hosted representatives from the national archives of Singapore, Japan, China and Macau at meetings to discuss common operating challenges.
During the last financial year the Archives continued to embrace technology to provide users with new and innovative ways to access and interact with the national archival collection. Significant achievements during this time included more than 3.6 million visits to their websites and over 206,000 people visiting their exhibitions or attending their public events; more than 6.3 million requests for records from the Archives’ collection made online; announcement of the Transition to Digital 2015 strategy, where records created digitally after 2015 can only be transferred to the Archives in digital format; proceeding to establish the National Archives Preservation Facility; and the Design 29: creating a capital exhibition, which featured original entries from the 1911 federal capital city design competition and was the Archives’ flagship initiative for the centenary of Canberra celebrations. The exhibition was also enhanced by an augmented-reality application. The app, loaded onto an iPad, supplemented and provided extra layers of meaning to the designs on display. Other achievements included greatly increased engagement and collaboration in the online sphere, including the Destination: Australia, SODA and ArcHIVE websites; establishment of the Indigenous Services Unit to assist Indigenous Australians to access the national archival collection; and enhancements to the display area at the national office, including the 'Banned' display of censored material from the mid-20th century—some of it is quite tame by today's standards; others are still quite racy.
Overall, it was a very active and successful year for National Archives. During 2012-13 we increased our holdings by 1.75 kilometres of records, including 11,168 items of audiovisual content. Our digital archive increased by more than 61 terabytes. Two of our publications were acknowledged with prestigious Mander Jones awards: the Digital Continuity Plan, produced to help Australian government agencies and other businesses keep digital information for the future; and a 300-page research guide, by author Ted Ling, to Northern Territory archival records. Both publications can be downloaded from our website free of charge.
I would also to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr David Fricker, the Director-General of the National Archives, who has been elected the next President of the International Council on Archives, the highest post in the ICA. It is the first time for an Australian. David takes up this prestigious four-year role in October this year. As our chairman, the Hon. Dr John Bannon, said:
While this is an honour for the National Archives of Australia and a tribute to its international reputation, it also recognises the high regard in which David Fricker is held by our archival partners and their acknowledgement of his efforts to strengthen those partnerships.
David himself modestly commented that his election is:
… recognition of the key role Australia plays in the international archival community and, in particular, our partnerships with Asian archival institutions
The annual report also says:
On 11 January 2013 the Governor-General issued the Letters Patent and Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Archives subsequently issued a disposal freeze to all Australian Government agencies on records that may be required in evidence by the Royal Commission. This will ensure that relevant records are retained and protected, and therefore available if required. While Australian Government agencies are not expected to hold large numbers of case files, they are likely to hold relevant policy and administrative records. Our disposal freeze also provides a useful model for state and territory governments and the not-for profit and private sectors, which may hold case files relevant to the Royal Commission.
… … …
With 98.5 per cent of people now connecting with our collection online [the National Archive] continue to change how we engage and socialise the archive through expanded websites, blogs, social media forums and innovative in-gallery experiences to facilitate expanded access to the records. For the second year we sponsored the national GovHack event, challenging talented programmers to imagine and build new uses for our online collection data. This year, the dataset released was our Passenger Arrivals Index.
The winners of our Digital Humanities prize was the Brisbane-based group Hack the Evening for their project ‘One, but many’. Hack the Evening combined the index with Australian Bureau of Statistics historical migration data, creating an application to help users learn more about Australia’s migration history. The application used a virtual map to show migration departures from ports around the world from 1921 to 1949. Using additional video footage and Wikipedia information, the group aimed to show what events might have influenced migration patterns.
… … …
From 2014 to 2018 Australia will be commemorating the centenary of our nation’s involvement in World War I. The Archives holds a wide range of defence and war-related records and, as part of the centenary program, we aim to encourage Australians to engage with them through a range of projects.
The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has provided funding to list and digitise a sample of World War I repatriation records of servicemen and women who set sail from Albany on the first convoy in November 1914.
Other plans include our new interactive website Discovering Anzacs, an Anzac centenary exhibition site (known as the 'exhibition-in-a-box') and other online education resources. This will provide high-quality interpreted content that schools and community groups can use for their own centenary projects. We are also part of a project to help Indigenous Australians find service records of their families.
At this time of the Centenary of Anzac and unprecedented interest in family history, I encourage all members to promote the wonderful resources of the National Archives and the many exciting and interesting displays and exhibitions they undertake.
National Security
Mr DANBY (Melbourne Ports) (20:37): On 24 May in Brussels a tourist couple and a French curator were brutally murdered when a man entered the Jewish museum in the centre of the city and opened fire with a Kalashnikov. Mehdi Nemmouche, a French national, was detained in the bus station in Marseille a few hours ago with the Kalashnikov used in Brussels. He also, bizarrely, had a video with a voice-over that resembled his own voice. This is not the first murderous attack by an individual with this kind of ideology, but this jihadi from France is an embodiment of the Western nightmare. There are 3,000 Western jihadis who are believed to be travelling in Syria. If Nemmouche is taken to court and it is proven, he will be the first killer known to be a Western volunteer with these Islamist fanatics who have returned from Syria. This is a fear in all of our Western countries.
Nemmouche is one of 800 jihadis with French citizenship in Syria. The French are not only concerned about their own citizens; in an article in Le Monde on 16 October last year Australia was singled out as one of the source countries of these foreign fighters in Syria. When France, with many of its own citizens heading to Syria, is noting the number of Australians involved in jihad, then surely this is a wake-up call for our 'splendid isolation' on this side of the world.
They were lucky to pick Nemmouche up; he was arrested during a random check at a bus terminal. I notice very ominously in the reports just breaking that this Jihadist who trained in Syria with all those frightening skills that he has acquired was recently in Bangkok, Singapore and Malaysia—in our part of the world. The thing that concerns me is the apparent dichotomy between the views of people in Australia who are concerned only with the issue of privacy but do not understand that, in order to keep this country safe from people like this, our security agencies need to work under the rule of law, as they have been effectively doing, to prevent an attack on mainland Australia. More than 80 of our countrymen died in Bali, but it is a great credit to these hard-working agencies—working under the strict supervision of judges, the Attorney-General, the Director-General of ASIO, the Director of Intelligence and Security—that they prevented our countrymen from being attacked in a similar way to what occurred in Brussels the other day. When we have these laughable arrangements like the changes to security here in Parliament House, I think to myself, 'Do these people live in cloud cuckoo land or do they live in the real world?'
I want to deal with the views of people like Mr Snowden and Mr Assange, who seem to be principally concerned about privacy in the surveillance of American citizens. Yet, they leak how the Five Eyes countries—the United States and others—intercept telephone traffic of Al Qaeda in the Mosul area of Iraq. The entirely reasonable Middle East reporter for the Christian Science Monitor asked publicly: how does this have anything to do with preserving the privacy of western publics in Manhattan, Melbourne and Manchester? All Snowden is doing is preventing us stopping these people bringing their evil acts to Australia. Mr Snowden is, of course, based in Russia at the moment. Like Assange, he is idolised by those nihilists and anarchists who think that the internet is the be all and end all of the world. I think the security of society and individual people is just as important as some young person accessing internet pornography and wanting the government to know about it.
Snowden is not simply a person who is on the radical left of American politics. In 2006 he was something of a gun nut. He is quoted as saying, 'I have a Walther P22; it's my only gun but I love it to death.' He criticised the White House's attempts to ban assault weapons. He is unimpressed by affirmative action and is shocked by the number of Muslims in England. He is perfectly entitled to speak about his whacky views—anyone is—but the point is that I did not elect Mr Assange or Mr Snowden to make decisions about the security of the Australian people. The four people sitting in this chamber are much more responsible to the public and much more entitled to make decisions, as we struggle through the democratic process to preserve the privacy of our citizens and look after the security of our people.
Snowden's real motivations were explained in a front-page interview with retired General Keith Alexander, the long-serving director of the National Security Agency, who said of Snowden:
I think it's the greatest damage to our combined nations' intelligence systems that we have ever suffered. The biggest ever. And it has had a huge impact on our combined ability to protect our nations and defend our people.
Alexander also stated:
At the end of the day, I believe people's lives will be lost because of the Snowden leaks because we will not be able to protect them with capabilities that were once effective but are now being rendered ineffective because of these revelations.
Despite criticisms of Snowden's actions, I do not argue against the necessity of having a thorough debate on security versus liberty in our democratic society. Unfortunately, Snowden's leaks have generated a debate about alarmist claims of a mass totalitarian-style surveillance of citizens. Of course, Mr Putin would never dream about these kind of things. He just suckles Mr Snowden to his bosom.
The point about Snowden's leaks is that we need to have a debate about real things that affect people's privacy. The most important attack on privacy via the internet comes from criminal and commercial organisations seeking to hack people's data for their own benefit. My impression from working on the intelligence committee is that government agencies in Australia are constrained by vast amounts of legislation; by a non-partisan parliamentary committee on intelligence; by various Attorneys-Generals, who are very zealous about ensuring they are not politically embarrassed later on by these agencies going too far; by an independent inspector-general of security; by judges; by warrants—all the kinds of systems that rightly should be put in place in a democratic society. I am very concerned that the undemocratic activities of people like Snowden and Assange are jeopardising our ability to make those decisions in a logical and rational way.
I think the agencies in Australia, far from being rogue agencies, are doing very well. Professor Stone, who is a leading American civil libertarian, said in an interview in the Financial Review about his investigations of the NSA:
… I approached my responsibilities as a member of the Review Group of the NSA—
after the Snowden revelations—
with great skepticism about the NSA. I am a long-term civil libertarian, a member of the National Advisory Council of the ACLU … I was skeptical …
I came away from my work on the Review Group with a view of the NSA that I found quite surprising. Not only did I find that the NSA had helped to thwart numerous terrorist plots against the United States … since 9/11, but I also found it is an organization that operates with a high degree of integrity and a deep commitment to the rule of law.
That is exactly my impression of the agencies that are working here. In particular, the soon to be retired Director-General of ASIO, Mr Irvine, is the epitome of that mentality, a devoted civil servant who wants to see the country protected but who wants to make sure that nothing untoward happens here.
In Australia various assorted critics have been the shrillest voices in this debate. In reality, Australia's well-governed and well-administered security agencies follow the rule of law, which means that we do not have to do choose between security and liberty. If some accuse the US of hypocrisy for using the same snooping tactics as China, since when did we object to democracies defending themselves against dictatorships? Edward Snowden and Julian Assange portray themselves as warriors defending the internet realm of pure freedom. Instead, in my view, they are dupes that have left us exposed to a dark online world exploited by terrorists, dictators, warped loners and criminal gangs who are far more likely to steal our personal data than any Australian government agency. (Time expired)
Electorate of Cowan: Roads
Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (20:47): The electorate of Cowan is just 180 square kilometres. It is north of the Perth CBD and consists of 25 outer metropolitan suburbs. It runs from Warwick in the south-west to Tapping and part of Banksia Grove in the north and down to Ballajura and Malaga in the south-east. I would like to talk about the infrastructure that helps Cowan residents get around, and I am talking about roads. I am not talking about public transport, because that is purely a state government responsibility because its regulation, fare structures and other administrative aspects are controlled completely by state governments.
Roads are, of course, the preserve of all levels of government. There are local government roads which are the responsibility, in Cowan, of the cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo or Swan. There are also main roads, such as Wanneroo Road, a major north-south arterial in the electorate, which is the responsibility of the state government. In Cowan there are also roads that the federal taxpayers have contributed towards. It is right and proper that the federal government uses taxpayers' funds not only to maintain national roads but also to assist the state and local governments to build and maintain their roads. Unlike with public transport, the federal link is appropriate and clear. Federal excise is generated from the users of petrol and consequently the users of roads around this country. It is therefore a fair expectation, to assist people to get around using our roads and to reduce the number of black spots, that the local, main and national roads should be the beneficiaries of excise revenues. Roads therefore, unlike public transport, is a clear area for proper federal involvement.
In Cowan, the western border, which runs along four suburbs, is the Mitchell Freeway. The Mitchell is clearly a vital road and transport network as it also has a railway line that runs down the middle of it. The northern border of the electorate is Joondalup Drive and then Neaves Road. The eastern border is Beechboro Road, and most of the southern border is Beach Road, but also near Malaga it is the Reid Highway.
Within Cowan there is a history of federal involvement—and I am not just talking about black spot funding—an example of which was the very important Ocean Reef Road extension, which was funded predominantly by the Howard government's Auslink program. Funding of $7 million came from the federal government and, with funds from the City of Wanneroo, Ocean Reef Road was extended from Hartman Drive to Alexander Drive. That is now an excellent road and has aided local people and businesses not just with a smoother option but also directly addressed the safety issues of the old Gnangara Road. The extension of Ocean Reef Road replaced the most dangerous parts of Gnangara Road, being the entry and exit points around the suburb of Landsdale. Before the decision to fund the road was made, I submitted a petition surrounding the safety aspects of that area. I believe there were over a thousand names on that petition. That is therefore an example of an excellent use of federal funds to improve infrastructure and safety.
Another example of federal support was before the 2007 election, when the then Treasurer, Peter Costello, made a funding announcement to extend Hepburn Avenue using federal funds. Although the funding agreements were not able to be signed off before the caretaker period, I am nevertheless pleased that the Rudd government saw the value in it, and now Hepburn Avenue extends over to Beechboro Road and also to Marshall Road in Malaga.
It would, however, be wrong to not mention the Swan Valley Bypass in any discussion of the roads in exactly that area. As I mentioned, Hepburn Avenue currently terminates at Marshall Road, but under the $615 million commitment for the Swan Valley Bypass, the Abbott federal government will fund the project, which will involve the construction of a new 40-kilometre highway from the Reid Highway and Tonkin Highway intersection in Malaga to the Great Northern Highway at Muchea. The Reid and Tonkin intersection as it currently exists is not good and is a choke point. It will benefit greatly from this upgrade. The 40 kilometres will include dual carriageway for 15 kilometres and a single carriageway for 25 kilometres. I am also pleased that the east end of Neaves Road will also receive an upgrade where it connects to the new road. These are therefore examples of real improvements and outcomes that will make a big difference to the day-to-day lives of people in Cowan and elsewhere in Perth.
I know that Labor opposes our budget measure of restoring indexation to the petrol excise, but instead of just borrowing more and more, instead of just racking up the debt, through this measure, that money goes directly to these sort of projects. The user is helping to pay.
Elsewhere in and around Cowan we have seen great improvements to traffic flows and I congratulate the Barnett government for leading the way on getting the overpasses done on the Reid Highway at Alexander Drive and Mirrabooka Avenue. I also look forward to the state government's promised Reid Highway overpass at Malaga Drive as this too has been a problem intersection for congestion. Obviously, when business and worker traffic from the major light industrial suburb of Malaga has to move through that intersection, it is a heavily congested place.
Elsewhere in Cowan, or at least affecting the people of Cowan, I would like to mention the Mitchell Freeway, which runs from Currambine South into the city. The entry and exit points from Cowan to the freeway are, from the north, Ocean Reef Road, Whitfords Avenue, Hepburn Avenue and Warwick Road. The Mitchell Freeway has train lines in between the freeway north and south lanes, and these are served by feeder bus services to railway stations at Warwick, Greenwood and Whitfords. The Mitchell Freeway north of Hepburn Avenue was only two lanes wide on each side and this created a significant choke point. Fortunately, the Barnett state government has now completed a third lane on the northbound side, which helps commuters get back to their homes in Cowan more quickly each night. They will also in the future complete a third lane on the southbound lanes as well, and everyone looks forward to that achievement too.
I would, however, like to focus on Wanneroo Road, as that too is somewhat of a choke point along much of its route from the north to the south of Cowan. Wanneroo Road runs parallel to the Mitchell Freeway about two kilometres east of the Mitchell. It is the major north-south arterial route within Cowan. Many commuters from the suburbs of Tapping, Ashby, Sinagra, Wanneroo, Hocking, Pearsall, Woodvale, Kingsley, Madeley, Greenwood, Marangaroo, Warwick and Girrawheen all use the road, as it borders their suburbs. Also, the business traffic from the Wangara and Landsdale industrial areas as well as a lot of traffic from the horticultural areas make use of it.
As I said before, it is a state road and is under the control of Main Roads. I know that Paul Miles, the state MLA for Wanneroo, has been working hard on getting Wanneroo Road upgraded, and together with the City of Wanneroo a great deal has been done from the Wanneroo town site north to Joondalup Drive. The problem south of the town site is, however, that there is just not enough room for a third lane in both directions. In some places in the suburb of Wanneroo and further south, between the road itself and the fences of houses, there is only enough room for the footpath. I have asked the state minister about the options for the upgrading of Wanneroo Road and, sadly, it appears that there are some real limitations. I do, however, hope that options will be considered in the future to take away part of the significant nature strip in the middle of Wanneroo Road to provide another lane that could then alternate between northbound and southbound traffic. I also think that, in the future, overpass possibilities must be considered for the intersection with Ocean Reef Road and Hepburn Avenue; also, when the realignment of Gnangara Road occurs, it should link directly with Whitfords Avenue. It is useful to note that the realignment of Gnangara Road with Whitfords Avenue will allow the removal of a set of traffic lights and improve the traffic flow along Wanneroo Road; that is always good news.
I would also like to acknowledge the good work of the City of Wanneroo in particular. Since Tracey Roberts came to be mayor I have noticed the focus of the city is very much on better roads in the area. The whole realignment of Pinjar Road and the upgrade from Wanneroo Road to Caporn Street has been a massive improvement. The city has also done great work on the Mirrabooka Avenue extension north of Hepburn Avenue.
I would also like to raise the issue of Alexander Drive as it is a north-south arterial in the east of Cowan which is used by many commuters. It is two lanes each way and, in the northernmost section, is capable of being expanded to three lanes each way. It too is a main road—a state road. While it has potential for widening that I hope the state government will take up in the future, Alexander Drive's main limitations are south of Cowan where, in some suburbs, an expansion to three lanes each way appears impossible; however, I can see three lanes being possible in Cowan and linking well to feed the Reid Highway. I also see the potential for Alexander Drive being extended north past Lake Gnangara and eventually linking up to Neaves Road. This will provide additional options for commuters but will also be of benefit for other traffic.
I know the state government's budget is constrained, as they work to provide the infrastructure and the big-cost health needs of the city, while also trying to reduce their debt. At the Commonwealth level there are also great challenges around reducing the size of the deficit as we work back towards a surplus; but that is why the budget measure of devoting the excise indexation revenue toward the projects already promised and, in the future, to projects such as I have mentioned, must be undertaken. We ask motorists to pay about 40c more a week so that the roads can be provided for their use. This is what happens when all the money has been spent over the last six years and all those promises made into the future. This is the outcome and now, with all the money gone and debt increasing, we must pay for these roads by seeking this contribution. It would be reckless and naïve to do it any other way. This is the challenge for our country: to achieve better roads and fix the budget at the same time.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 20:58.
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Legal Assistance Services
(Question No. 87)
Ms Rishworth asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, in writing, on 18 March 2014:
(1) In respect of the Southern Community Justice Centre in Southern Adelaide, South Australia,
(a) specifically how will this centre be affected by the $43.1 million cut to the legal assistance sector;
(b) is the Attorney-General aware that following the cut, this centre will no longer proceed with employing additional staff, and
(c) how will the Attorney-General ensure that the many individuals and families who benefit from the free child support and dispute resolution services offered by the centre will have access to justice.
Ms Julie Bishop: On behalf of the Attorney-General, has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:
(1) (a) and (b) The majority of the savings from the Community Legal Services Programme will be achieved from 2015-16 onwards. The Government intends to align all legal assistance funding arrangements to expire on 30 June 2015 and is currently considering arrangements beyond that date.
57 community legal centres which have funding agreements in place until 30 June 2017, including Southern Community Justice Centre, have been advised that those funding agreements will cease at 30 June 2015. This gives affected services adequate notice to address any potential changes in service delivery.
(c) It is the Government's intention that these savings will be structured in a way which protects the most vulnerable clients of legal assistance services.
Live Animal Exports
( Question No. 92)
Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, in writing, on 25 March 2014:
In respect of the implementation of live animal export reforms (excluding companion animals), what sum is:
(a) his department spending on this each financial year, and
(b) the live animal export industry contributing to this each financial year.
Mr Joyce: the Minister for Agriculture has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:
(a) The revised budget, total expenses for the Live Animal Export Division for 2013–14 is $16,984,313 (as at 16 May 2014). This is taking into account all officers (Canberra and Regional) and the appropriation and cost recovered portions of the budget.
This budget includes implementing reforms to the regulation of livestock export such as the roll out of Export Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS), and implementing the government’s election commitments to improve the performance efficiency and reduce unnecessary red tape in export certification and ESCAS. The budget also includes the regulation of all live animal exports - livestock, horses, reproductive material, companion animals and other animals (such as zoo animals). Regulation is cost recovered from industry.
(b) Questions about the costs to industry of implementing livestock export reforms should be directed to industry.
Industry research bodies such as Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) and LiveCorp have undertaken a range of activities to support the implementation of livestock export reforms.
Minister for Human Services
(Question No. 149)
Mr Danby asked the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 13 May 2014:
On (a) how many occasions, and (b) what date(s), has the Minister met with Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd chief executive Mr Nick Di Girolamo, and can the Minister provide the nature of each meeting.
Mr Andrews: The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:
See the response to Senate question 284
.