As indicated in my statement to the House of 4 December 2008, I have sought advice from all House committee chairs as to which committee reports from previous parliaments the committees consider still require a government response. All committees have now responded and seven reports were identified as no longer requiring a formal response. The reports will be deleted from the schedule of outstanding government responses that I table in the House twice a year. For the information of the House, I table a list of those reports.
I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 25 May 2009. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday 25 May 2009. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows:
Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR SOMLYAY: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—45 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Somlyay—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR RIPOLL: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—20 minutes.
Speech time limits—
Mr Ripoll—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Member—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MR TURNOUR: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Turnour—5 minutes.
First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes.
Other Members—5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS
Presentation and statements
1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMICS
Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2008 (First Report).
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 8.50 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr C. Thomson (Chair)—5 minutes
Opposition Member—5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =2 x 5 mins]
2 STANDING COMMITTEE ON FAMILY, COMMUNITY, HOUSING AND YOUTH
Who Cares…? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9 pm
Speech time limits—
Ms A.L. Ellis (Chair)—5 minutes
Opposition Member – 5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =2 x 5 mins]
3 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION
2nd report on migration detention.
The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 9.10 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Danby (Chair)—5 minutes
Opposition Member – 5 minutes
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking =2 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR GEORGIOU: To move—
That the House:
Time allotted – remaining primate Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm
Speech time limits—
Mr Georgiou—10 minutes.
First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins]
The Whips recommend that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Report adopted.
I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 14 May 2009 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 12 noon on Monday 25 May 2009 unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.
Mr Speaker, this is the normal procedural motion which gives effect to the opposition leader’s budget reply speech on Thursday night.
Mr Speaker, clearly the opposition supports this motion.
Question agreed to.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to reintroduce a bill to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent national body whose role will be to improve occupational health and safety (OHS) outcomes and workers’ compensation arrangements across Australia.
This bill is being reintroduced because I am obligated under an intergovernmental agreement to use my best endeavours to deliver Safe Work Australia in the same terms as the intergovernmental agreement.
The bill is also being reintroduced to normalise the operational arrangements for Safe Work Australia and to establish these arrangements under statute.
In July 2008, for the first time in the history of our federation, governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth formally committed to the harmonisation of occupational health and safety legislation through an intergovernmental agreement.
The Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety commits the Commonwealth and all states and territories to the adoption of the approved model legislation and, in a demonstration of the new spirit of cooperation, the agreement also provides that the body to progress the harmonisation of occupational health and safety and workers’ compensation arrangements, Safe Work Australia, will be jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
The government set itself the important task of creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary state duplications, overlaps and differences. Occupational health and safety is a key area requiring regulatory reform.
Tragically, more than 260 Australians are killed each year at work. Many more die as a result of work-related disease. Each year over 135 000 Australians are seriously injured at work. The cost to our economy has been estimated at $57.5 billion per year. Obviously, the cost to those injured and to their families, workmates and friends is beyond measure.
As I have previously stated in the House, Safe Work Australia will be an inclusive, tripartite body comprised of 15 members, including an independent chair, nine members representing the Commonwealth and each state and territory, two members representing the interests of workers, two representing the interests of employers and the CEO. The members will be supported by the CEO and staff who together, will form a statutory agency under the Public Service Act. The body will be subject to Commonwealth governance regimes and will be a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act.
Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in realising the government’s commitment and the commitment of all state and territory governments to work together to achieve harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws. It will have the important task of developing the model Occupational Health and Safety Act, model regulations and model codes of practice for approval by workplace relations ministers.
Safe Work Australia will also take forward the initiatives of the Commonwealth and the states and territories to streamline and harmonise workers compensation arrangements.
The government sought to have this bill passed last year but three times the Liberal Party proposed unacceptable amendments to this bill. The Liberal Party stood firmly in the way of this crucial reform, reform which the business community has demanded of governments across the country for over two decades.
When I took the extraordinary step of laying this bill aside late last year I said that the Liberal Party were economic vandals. I do not retreat from that view. The Liberal opposition continually stands in the way of this government’s efforts to achieve a reform that will significantly advance a seamless national economy.
You ask yourself: why this economic vandalism? Is it because they talked about this reform for 10 years but could never achieve it or is it simply because they just do not understand the magnitude of the risk that the global recession presents to Australia’s economic wellbeing?
In the face of this opposition the government has not been idle. The important task of harmonising occupational health and safety has continued. With my state and territory colleagues on the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council, we have administratively established the Safe Work Australia Council and have asked the council to commence drafting the model occupational health and safety legislation.
Despite the default position of the opposition to oppose all government efforts to improve Australia’s productivity and to assist the economy, we are still on track to deliver uniform occupational health and safety legislation by the end of 2011.
States, territories, employers, workers and their families understand the importance of a single occupational health and safety system for Australia. They understand that the reform of occupational health and safety and workers compensation is too important to be stymied by the opposition any longer. They understand that workers’ lives and the efficiency of our economy are at stake.
Occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform will increase profitability and productivity and better protect the lives and health of Australians. This reform is clearly good for business, good for workers, and importantly good for the national economy when every ounce of effort by Australian businesses and workers is vitally important.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Albanese.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009.
It renames the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005 (the principal act), as the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Act 2009.
This bill is central to the effective delivery of the government’s road and rail infrastructure investment through the Nation Building Program—a program currently worth more than $26 billion.
In New South Wales we are investing over $8.7 billion through the Nation Building Program.
We are making a record investment in the Pacific Highway which will see a range of projects delivered, including:
The Ballina bypass; the upgrade to the Sapphire to Woolgoolga section; the Banora Point deviation; the Bulahdelah bypass and the Glenugie upgrade.
We are also investing in the Hume Highway to finalise its duplication by 2012.
The final work on the Hume Highway is the construction of the bypasses at Tarcutta, Woomargama and Holbrook.
Due to the funding the government brought forward in its December 2008 nation-building package, the Tarcutta and Woomargama bypasses will commence earlier and be completed in late 2011—more than six months ahead of schedule.
The Holbrook bypass is scheduled for completion by 2012.
Further projects in New South Wales include:
In Queensland we are investing $7.3 billion through the Nation Building Program.
We are investing in the Pacific Motorway, including the Daisy Hill to Springwood South upgrade, the Robina and Varsity Lakes interchanges and the Nerang South interchange.
We are making a record investment in the Ipswich Motorway, including the upgrade between Dinmore to Goodna, Wacol to Darra and the Logan interchange.
Our record investment in the Bruce Highway includes:
In Victoria we are investing a record $4.3 billion through the Nation Building Program.
Projects in Victoria include:
In Western Australia we are investing $2.8 billion through the Nation Building Program.
Projects include:
In South Australia we are investing $1.7 billion through the Nation Building Program.
Projects include:
In Tasmania we are investing $800 million through the Nation Building Program.
Projects include:
In the Northern Territory we are investing over $580 million through the Nation Building Program.
Projects include:
In the ACT we are investing close to $200 million through the Nation Building Program.
This funding includes the road upgrade in Canberra’s airport precinct as well as the Tharwa Road-Lanyon Drive upgrade.
Other investments through the Nation Building Program include:
All states and territories have signed up to deliver the Nation Building Program.
It should be noted that, when in government, it took the now opposition more than a year to get all states and territories to sign up to their AusLink program.
Our Nation Building Program has the full support of all states and territories and its implementation is underway.
Last night we announced an additional investment of $8.5 billion in rail, roads and ports infrastructure for Australia to lift productivity.
Investing in nation building today to support jobs and provide infrastructure for tomorrow.
The Rudd Labor government will invest $35 billion over six years on transport infrastructure.
The Howard government failed to deliver on Australia’s infrastructure needs and left us with an infrastructure deficit.
In relation to the bill, the amendments to the act put in place the appropriate provisions to ensure the effective delivery of the suite of initiatives now funded under this program.
The bill proposes changes to ensure:
Given the transition over the last 18 months from AusLink to the implementation of the Nation Building Program, this bill changes the references to AusLink in the act so that it is now referred to as the Nation Building Program.
The bill will also amend the principal act to make it clear that part 6 can be used to approve funding for projects which are off the national land transport network in both regional and metropolitan areas of Australia.
This bill also makes appropriate provisions to allow sites that are on the national land transport network to become eligible for black spot projects funding under the act. Previously, only off-network black spots were eligible under this part.
This change will facilitate the effective implementation of the additional $150 million investment in black spot projects by the government.
The bill will also provide further flexibility around the Roads to Recovery program by enabling the amounts of funding to local government authorities to be increased if the minister sees fit.
Previously, no increases could be made to the amounts specified in the Roads to Recovery list after the initial list for a funding period had been determined.
The bill will also enable the minister to exempt a funding recipient from having to call for tenders on a project approved under section 9 of the act where the cost of the work will be under an amount prescribed in the regulations.
Finally, an amendment to the principal act is being made to ensure the minister can specify a funding condition that a funding recipient adheres to the terms of a matter contained in any other instrument or document as in force or existing from time to time.
The intention of this amendment is to enable the minister to require recipients of federal funds to adhere to the terms of a nominated instrument or document as they are at any given time.
So, if the terms change in any way, the funding recipient is required to adhere to the changed terms, not those which were in force at the time the funding condition was originally made.
This bill plays an integral part in advancing the government’s Nation Building Program and deserves the support of the parliament.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Roxon.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
There can be no doubting that Australians enjoy one of the best health systems in the world.
One of the reasons we have such good health outcomes is because of the quality of our health workforce.
Our doctors, nurses, midwives, allied health professionals, paramedics and researchers are the backbone of our health system.
It is absolutely essential that we do all we can to support our health workforce in their work.
That is why today I rise to introduce the Rudd government’s latest initiative to building a sustainable health workforce—the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009.
Unfortunately we are currently dealing with the legacy of a historic underinvestment in our health workforce. The end result of this neglect by the previous government is there are now chronic shortages in general practice, various medical specialities, dentistry, nursing and certain allied health professions.
These shortages are particularly acute in rural and remote communities around the country, with some communities having limited access to health services and state and territory health departments spending vast sums of money to send health professionals to work in understaffed facilities.
Workforce shortages and inflexibilities and inefficiencies in training and service delivery can contribute to poor health outcomes, particularly in certain regions, such as our rural and remote areas, and for certain population groups, particularly Indigenous Australians.
We also currently have very poor national data on the health workforce which further inhibits our ability to better plan for the health workforce needs of the community.
In addition to existing shortages, a number of imminent supply and demand issues will exacerbate pressures on Australia’s health system and its workforce in the near future. These factors include:
For instance, the ageing of the population will have significant implications for the health workforce in terms of demand, with the over 55s being the heaviest consumers of medical services, and supply, with increasing numbers of health professional expected to retire in the near future. Increasing levels of chronic disease are expected to increase the demand for services even further in coming years.
The Productivity Commission’s “Australia’s Health Workforce” report concluded that the workforce is a fundamental enabler in ensuring all Australians have access to high quality, effective, efficient and financially viable health services. Long-term planning and policy development are needed now and are needed on a national level.
Without action, access to appropriately trained health workers will be further reduced, ultimately affecting the health outcomes of the Australian population.
Although all jurisdictions are now investing more heavily in training of the health workforce, increased university and TAFE training places have resulted in a significant increase in the requirement for effective clinical training, which is essential to the development of practical skills and the quality of future health professionals. Training of health professionals is further hampered by the current split in clinical training responsibility between education providers and the health sector.
Improvements to clinical training arrangements, including funding and supervision, are urgently needed. There is also a clear need for greater effort and more effective governance arrangements around health workforce training, planning and policy development that can work across and with jurisdictions and the health and education sectors.
For too long the previous government ignored the warning signs and chose to do nothing, simply playing the blame game with the states.
But the Rudd government has chosen to act and to work with the states on solutions.
That’s why in November 2008 the Council of Australia Governments (COAG) signed off on an historic $1.6 billion health workforce package.
The package forms part of the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform, signed by all states and territories in March 2009. The package, comprising $1.1 billion of Commonwealth funding and $539.2 million from states and territories, is the single largest investment in the health workforce ever made by Australian governments.
This investment will improve health workforce capacity, efficiency and productivity by improving clinical training arrangements, increasing postgraduate training places for medical graduates, improving health workforce planning across Australia and enhancing training infrastructure, particularly in regional and rural areas.
A critical component of the COAG package is the establishment of a national health workforce authority—Health Workforce Australia—to produce more effective, streamlined and integrated clinical training arrangements and to support workforce planning and policy.
The Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 establishes Health Workforce Australia (HWA) and implements a majority of the COAG health workforce initiatives.
The bill specifies the functions, governance and structure of Health Workforce Australia, enables health ministers to provide directions to Health Workforce Australia and requires Health Workforce Australia to report to health ministers.
Health Workforce Australia will be responsible for:
The authority will also ensure best value for money for these workforce initiatives and a more rapid and substantive progression of the necessary policy and planning activities.
Given the functions and level of funding for which the authority will be responsible, it is essential that there is a legislative basis for its operations and governance arrangements that reflect the shared funding and policy interest of all jurisdictions.
HWA will be established as a statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.
It will be governed by a board comprising a nominee from each state and territory and an independent chair and may also include up to three other members selected by health ministers. A chief executive officer will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of Health Workforce Australia, and expert committees and consultants will be engaged to assist with functions as required.
Health Workforce Australia is to commence management of undergraduate clinical training from 1 January next year. The bill is required to establish Health Workforce Australia by July 2009 to ensure it is operational within the time frames agreed to in the COAG national partnership agreement.
The COAG health workforce package is a major investment to making the necessary improvements to the health workforce through effective planning and policy development.
It will work with and across jurisdictions and with and across the education and health sectors and is pivotal to the success of the COAG package.
For the first time, there will be one single body responsible for the delivery, funding, planning and oversight of all clinical training in this country.
I want to our hardworking and dedicated health professionals to know that the Rudd government is committed to addressing the chronic shortages which are afflicting our health system.
I am pleased to be able to present the Health Workforce Australia Bill 2009 to the House. It will help equip us with the tools we need to help improve the health workforce, and therefore the health system, and therefore benefit all of the Australian community. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Shorten, for Ms Macklin.
Bill read a first time.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Digital Television Switch-over) Bill 2009 makes amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.
The government has announced that all free-to-air television broadcasters in Australia will complete the switch from analog transmission to digital-only transmission by the end of 2013.
For viewers, this will require a number of changes to the way in which television broadcasts are received, including obtaining new equipment to receive digital signals.
Switching to digital television will be a straightforward and inexpensive task for the vast majority of Australians. However, some viewers may need practical, in-home assistance to make the switch to digital. To ensure these Australians are not disadvantaged by the switch-over, the government will implement an assistance program in regions switching from analog to digital transmission between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. These regions are the television licence areas of Mildura/Sunraysia, regional Victoria, regional South Australia and regional Queensland. Lessons learned from switching over these regions will inform the broader switch-over of the rest of Australia.
The amendments in this bill are necessary to enable the implementation of the Digital Switch-over Household Assistance Program to households in regions switching from analog to digital transmission between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. A household will qualify for the assistance program where one or more residents are in receipt of the maximum rate of any of the following payments: age pension; disability support pension; carer payment; or Department of Veterans’ Affairs service pension or income support supplement.
To determine qualification for the Digital Switch-over Household Assistance Program, Centrelink needs legislative authority to be able to use protected information it holds regarding recipients of age pension, disability support pension and carer payment. In addition, Centrelink needs to be able to provide the information about qualified Centrelink customers to the contractors engaged to supply the Digital Switch-over Household Assistance Program. A similar amendment for veterans to participate in the program is not required.
The amendments will authorise a person to obtain, make a record of, disclose and use protected information under the Social Security (Administration) Act for the purposes of the Digital Switch-over Household Assistance Program.
The amendments will ensure that Centrelink and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy do not breach the confidentiality provisions of the social security law. They will allow Centrelink to use information currently within their systems to advise customers of their qualification for, and to invite them to participate in, the Digital Switch-over Household Assistance Program.
Information disclosed to contractors and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy will be limited to that strictly necessary for the implementation of the Digital Television Switch-over Household Assistance Program. Contractors will not receive specific information about the customers’ age, payment type, disability or marital status.
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy will also put in place appropriate privacy safeguards with contractors to ensure that Centrelink customers’ personal information is treated appropriately.
Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Macklin:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009 deals with two measures from last night’s budget. The first aspect of this bill is the provision for an ongoing lump sum payment of $600 a year for people on carer allowance and on carer payment. This provision regularises payments that were made since 2004 under the Howard government. In the case of those payments, it was a $600 annual lump sum for people on carer allowance and a $1,000 lump sum for people on carer payment. The second aspect of this bill is to suspend for three years the indexation of the income thresholds for people accessing family tax benefits. It is a straight savings measure.
The opposition certainly does not begrudge carers their money. Carers are the unsung heroes of our society. Many of them do it very tough indeed and that money will certainly be welcome, although, as I said, it is largely a continuation of measures that have been included in budgets since 2004. As well, the opposition recognises the need for some savings in these circumstances and certainly the opposition does not intend to oppose this bill.
It is worth observing the context in which this bill has been presented to the House. For weeks we have been hearing from government ministers, from the Prime Minister down, about the tough decisions that were going to be in last night’s budget. The only really tough decision in last night’s budget was the cuts to the private health insurance rebate. I have to say that they are cuts which I think this government will live to regret—first, because the private health insurance rebate is a very good way of getting more money overall into our health system and, second, because the private health insurance rebate has been very important in taking the pressure off public hospitals. It is highly likely that, as a result of the cuts announced last night, there will be more people clambering to join the already very long public hospital waiting lists.
Members opposite have always hated private health insurance. I stood at the dispatch box on the other side of this House day after day prior to November 2007 and predicted that the private health insurance rebate would be cut, would be means tested and would be abolished. Day after day members of the then opposition, led by the Deputy Prime Minister, would stand up and absolutely deny any intention to cut the private health insurance rebate, but of course they have. This is an absolute crystal clear case of a broken promise. They have been caught red-handed breaking an important promise. A press release dated 26 September 2007 from the then shadow minister for health states:
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates … The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates.
This is absolutely untrue.
The untruth was not coming from the then government; the untruth was coming from the then opposition. The world now knows that this is a government which does not keep its promises. This is a government which says with a straight face one thing while all along intending to do something else. We learn from George Megalogenis in the Australian today that in fact the government wanted to do this last year. They were a bit scared of doing it last year, but now, under the impact of the so-called global financial crisis, they have summoned up the courage to implement it. All along their true belief was that this was bad policy. That was a belief that they did not have the courage to put into words prior to the last election.
That was, in fact, the only hard cut in this budget. It was the only cut that involved taking away from people something that they already have. All of the other spending cuts in this budget involve stopping people from getting something that they do not already have now. There is the change to the family tax benefit thresholds, which is the subject of this legislation. It will stop some future claimants from accessing the family tax benefit to which they might otherwise be entitled. There are the changes to the pension taper rates. Again, this is only for new pension claimants. There are the changes to the superannuation contribution rules. Again, it is only for future contributions to superannuation. Of course, then there is the change to the age pension eligibility age. That lift in the official retirement age will not even begin until 2017, which is three elections off, and it will not actually be completed until 2023, 14 years into the future, when almost none of us will still be sitting in this parliament.
What we saw last night was actually well anticipated by George Megalogenis in the Australian a few weeks ago when he forecast what he thought would be ‘a horror handout budget’. There was a lot of talk about the horror in the weeks leading up to the budget, but last night all the Treasurer could bring himself to talk about was the additional benefits that he was going to give. In fact, the one thing that never escaped his lips in his 30-minute address was the fact that there was a $58 billion deficit attached to the goodies that he was giving out.
What we have is a government that is very brave to spend. It is so courageous when it comes to handing out the money that other people have accumulated and handing out the money which has been borrowed at the expense of the future taxpayers of this country. It is very courageous when it comes to spending, but it is extremely timid when it comes to cutting, which is why so many of these cuts are soft cuts and why so many of them are scheduled to start well into the future. Yet, the regrettable truth is that a $200 billion plus forecast reduction in the revenue over the forward estimates period means that there must be cuts, there must be higher taxes or there must, as there inevitably will be, higher interest rates in the future.
This is a budget which is based on utterly unrealistic assumptions. Last night the Treasurer told us that the budget would return to surplus by the 2015-16 financial year—shades of former Treasurer Paul Keating saying that the budget would ‘whirr back into surplus’. That was the former Prime Minister in his ‘Captain Wacky’ days, a memorable phrase of which I am reminded by the presence of the parliamentary secretary across the table.
Thanks, Tony!
This idea that the budget is going to be rescued by returning to 4.5 per cent economic growth from 2012 is just utterly unrealistic. Economic growth of 4.5 per cent was barely reached at the height of the recent economic boom, a boom which members opposite say has gone, and gone forever, and yet now they are relying on the magical reappearance of 4.5 per cent economic growth to do the job which they should do themselves—namely, putting this budget and the finances of this nation back into the good repair that they inherited from the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer.
I want to pay tribute to the former Labor government, the Hawke-Keating Labor government, because that Labor government used the recession of the early eighties to introduce serious economic reforms from which this country is still benefiting. The Hawke-Keating government, for all its mistakes and for all its faults, was a government of courage and insight. The Hawke-Keating government turned out to be a different kind of Labor government: a Labor government that was, in significant respects, pro business; that could slay Labor sacred cows in order to produce a stronger economy and, ultimately, a better country. But I am afraid this Labor government is a government of a very different ilk. What Prime Minister Rudd has done is use the recession to revert to traditional Labor type. What we have seen confirmed over the last few weeks but particularly in last night’s budget is that this is a borrow-and-spend Labor government to its core. It has far more in common with the tradition of Gough Whitlam then with the tradition of Bob Hawke, and Australia will pay the price of this for many years to come.
I speak in support of the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. It is important to be honest with the Australian people, and that is what we are. Those opposite talk about slashing and burning and cutting. Their alternative would have to be, if they were really honest, that they would dismantle Commonwealth departments in relation to, say, education or health or they would raise taxes. And just what budget deficit would they have? They are never really honest with the Australian public. We believe it is important to be fair dinkum with the Australian people, and that is why we take them into our confidence and tell them what we are going to do. That is why we were upfront about what our plans were before the last election. That is why in this difficult time, when government revenue has been slashed by $210 billion across this year and in the forward estimates, we are upfront with the Australian people and tell them just what challenges we face in the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Those opposite are not fair dinkum about this, and we will hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say about it in a couple of days time.
I would like to outline to the Australian parliament and to my electorate of Blair in Queensland just what we are doing for pensioners and carers. That is the substance of this bill, not the rantings and ravings of the member for Warringah. Of course, he is a frustrated man. We know he wants to be in a more prominent position. We know he really does not want to be talking about these types of bills. We know he wants to be the shadow Treasurer or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition. We know he is frustrated in this portfolio, and he made that very plain.
This bill is about helping carers. We need to look at some history of what the Rudd government has done in this area. The Rudd government has a good record on caring for carers, particularly in my electorate of Blair as well as nationally. Let us look at what we are doing here. For year after year after year, carers had to worry, to be anxious and concerned, about what governments would do in the budgets and what assistance they might get. Is it a one-off I am going to receive? What sort of payment am I going to get? Am I going to be given anything for the self-sacrifice I make for those whom I love? What we are doing here is giving certainty and sustainability to carers. We are providing for them; recognising social inclusion and social capital; recognising their love, affection and commitment to those they look after. These are the unsung heroes of our community. These are the people who every day, 24/7, look after someone in need. They deserve our respect, our support and our financial assistance, to the extent we can give it in these difficult times. Let us look at what the Rudd government has done for those in need—pensioners, carers, people on disability support. Let us look at what we have done since we came to sit on this side of the House, as opposed to what those opposite have done. We have put support for carers on a sustainable footing in this budget, we have helped them in the past and we will continue to do so in the future.
In the 2008 budget we acted decisively to ease the pressures on the people who look after our most vulnerable, weakest, often disabled and challenged people in our community. We paid a lump-sum seniors bonus of $500. We increased the utilities allowance from $107.20 to $500 per annum. We increased the telephone allowance from $88 to $132 per annum for those with an internet connection. As part of our Economic Security Strategy, we announced a $4.9 million payment leading to a comprehensive reform of the pension system, and that is what we are seeing here: the most far-reaching and comprehensive changes we have ever seen to the pension system in this country. As part of our $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy, we provided lump-sum payments of $1,400 to single pensioners and $2,100 to couple pensioners.
We provided for carers, including the many carers in my electorate. Nearly 43,700 people in my electorate received payments from the Rudd government last year to ease the pressure on them. We have an enormous number of people who are veterans and people who care for disabled people. For example, there were 2,921 people in my electorate who received payments; 1,222 single carer allowance, 841 carer payment couple and 395 carer payment single. And we have a very large veterans community in my electorate. Looking after those people who are caring for those in greatest need in our community is a noble thing to do and it is the right thing to do. It is the decent thing. It is the honourable and just thing to do if we say we are a compassionate society.
In our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, many families on low incomes and people on pensions who are also earning some form of income received assistance. We saw 12,553 families in my electorate of Blair receive the Back to School Bonus of $900 to help with the costs of their children returning to school. And we saw farmers also receive assistance—people in need, people doing it tough on the land. One hundred and nineteen farming families received that assistance.
Our care for our community and for the people in greatest need shows what sort of society we aspire to be. It is true that as a country our spending on family payments is the third highest in the OECD at 2.2 per cent of our GDP, well above the average of 1.3 per cent, but we need to make sure that our payment system is sustainable in the long term. We need to make sure that we have reforms which will provide future security and certainty.
As has been said before, we have maintained the higher income threshold for family payments at their current level for three years, and that is a savings measure, but we are providing support for low- and middle-income families with the costs of raising children, particularly if they are carers. We are promoting workforce participation and inclusion, and we have provided significant assistance to low-income earners. Witness, for example, the increase in the low-income tax offset and the introduction of paid maternity leave. That will make such a great difference in my electorate, which is full of young families.
The benefits we have provided in terms of our education tax refund, the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and the 50 per cent childcare tax rebate are all great Labor initiatives that make a big difference in the lives of families, particularly those with young children and others in need for whom they care. We have put forward an ambitious goal and we have set aside the funding for it. We are providing $4 billion of additional assistance to low- and middle-income families over the next four years. That is a wonderful statement of Labor’s commitment to those in greatest need. A further example is the assistance we are giving to veterans, including those in my electorate.
The Amberley air base is the biggest RAAF base and perhaps the biggest military base in the country. We think it is a super base and we are spending in excess of $1.1 billion to make it the greatest base in the country. We have 9 FSB and we are getting another construction battalion there as well, in Ipswich, and we warmly welcome them. They are part of our community. They attend our schools, they worship in our churches, they play sport with us. We even have RAAF sporting teams. Ipswich has warmly welcomed the military since 1860—but of course there were not planes back in those days. It was only when we purchased the land in about 1938, and the RAAF Base Amberley was formed thereafter, that we saw aircraft in Ipswich. We hear those flights across Ipswich as the price of freedom, and we warmly welcome the military in our community. We will have approximately 6,000 people living in Ipswich who are associated with the military base. In fact, I have made the comment on many occasions that, until I was in my 30s, in the various houses I had lived in I had always lived beside people who were in the military or were ormer members of the military, because Ipswich and the military go hand in glove.
We are providing a tremendous amount of assistance through the particular payments under this piece of legislation for veterans and those in the military, and those who have suffered and those in need. About 500,000 carers across Australia will receive a new, permanent carer supplement, and that will help their security and their sustainability in the future. Knowing that you have got an income, knowing that you have got money coming into your family every week is important. How can you pay your mortgage or your rent, how can you put food on the table and how can you care for your kids and educate them if you do not know you have got money coming in?
I know that the 140,000 carers who receive carer payment or related income support will receive these pension increases with welcoming arms and be very grateful for the assistance that this government is providing. From 20 September this year, we will see increases in the carer payment of $32.49 per week for singles on the full rate and $10.14 per week combined for couples on the full rate. The new, annual carer supplement of $600 will be paid to people who receive the carer payment, both wife pension and carer allowance, both Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension and carer allowance, and the DVA carer service pension. That is why literally thousands of people in my electorate who are associated with the military will receive these payments. In my electorate, 23,500 families will receive support as a result of the budget measures that we handed down last night. That is an enormous number of people in my electorate. I have got about 155,000 people in my electorate, about 92½ thousand voters. This new supplement then will help so many people in my electorate.
The new supplement will provide about 450,000 recipients of carer allowance with $600 for each person they care for. The first payment of the new carer supplement will be made to carers before July 2009 and regular payments will be made from 1 July 2010 onwards. So carers know with certainty that they are getting the money. They do not have to watch the Treasurer, whoever he or she may be standing at that dispatch box, and worry whether they are going to get that additional assistance. They will know that it is in the budget. As I said, it builds on the 2008 extension of the utilities allowance to carer payment recipients, which is now valued at $518 per year.
The reforms here are vital. We need to ensure that our carers are included not just in the life of their families but also in the life of the communities. We would like to see their compassion and their understanding replicated out in the community. So many carers do not have the time or the resources or the money to be involved in community life because they are so wrapped up in caring for those in need whom they love. This is vital work they do. They provide untold and incalculable assistance to our community by caring for those they care for. So generally speaking, they are doing the work that we really should be doing at a broader level. The importance of this legislation cannot be underestimated. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of Australians now getting the kind of assistance they deserve and need.
This is a piece of legislation of which the Rudd government is particularly proud and which I am particularly proud to vote for. Not every time we vote in this House do we vote for things that we are particularly enamoured with. But we vote for lots of things that we think are necessary for the good of the community and the country. There are many pieces of legislation that the average person would think are particularly uninteresting but that we believe are necessary, so both sides of politics often vote for them. But the truth of the matter is that this particular bill will make an appreciable difference in the lives of people who live in the streets, in the suburbs, in the rural communities and in the cities of our electorates across the country, and for that I am very grateful and I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to make two very simple but important points in endorsing the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009 in this place. The first, and it is in line with the previous speaker’s comments, is about the importance and worth of carers in all regions—and the one I represent, of course, is on the mid-North Coast—and within Australia. If carers were removed from the system altogether within this country, in my view Australia would collapse. Similarly, on the mid-North Coast, if all carers were removed from their role in keeping our community together then, likewise, communities there would collapse. In my view they are the glue that keeps our communities together and keeps them strong. Their role has been for too long undervalued, and I think it is a significant step to see this $600 payment now included in an annual return to carers. Significant also is the $32.49 payment to singles and $10 to couples, increasing the full rate of the pension.
From an economic point of view we worked out as a very rough estimate last night that the pension rises in our area—where we represent one of the highest pension numbers in Australia—amount to about an $18 million injection into the economy on the mid-North Coast. So not only from an individual and a couple’s point of view but from a local economic point of view it is a significant step forward for the economic life on the mid-North Coast. Likewise for the carers’ payments, if we did some very rough calculations there would be approximately a $5 million to $6 million increase in the economic opportunities on the mid-North Coast—again, a significant contribution to the economic life on the mid-North Coast as well as for the individuals concerned.
Just picking up on the previous speaker, I really enjoyed one point that he did make, which was that a commitment from government—and I hope all governments, regardless of political persuasion—is and should be not only to make carers important in the lives of their families and the people they are caring for but also to make and, in many ways, showcase carers as model citizens at a community level. If that role is being played by government, or is attempted to be played through these financial contributions, then it is a good role and an important role, because the example that carers provide at a community level is an incredibly good one.
The other point I would like to make about this legislation is, I guess, the zero-sum game in the financials attached to this legislation where we see $460 million in commitments in 2011-12 to the carers supplement pretty well matched by $432 million saving in 2011-12 with regards to the removal of the indexation for three years on the various family assistance income threshold amounts. I would hope that that second factor on the indexation is one—and I am sure it is—that is constantly under review by government and by the executive over the next three years. For the very same reasons that I have just been talking about with regards to the value of these payments at the most local of community levels, the loss to the individuals and communities such as mine of not receiving those indexation payments do make a difference in many lives and in many communities.
I therefore ask this in good faith and with hope. I do assume that it is something that is under constant review. If you look at some of the reports coming out with regard to when we are going to come out of this recession and have the great recovery, some of the reports are saying that we are going to come out strong and hard and almost better than many other countries in the world. If that happens sooner rather than later, I hope that some of these questions are revisited—the freeze for three years on indexation questions and the related impacts on communities such as mine. I certainly support this legislation. It is really good to see carers getting a voice within this parliament. I certainly hope that from a financial point of view consideration is given to the other family assistance payments with regard to those threshold and indexation questions so that we can see more people recognised for the good work that they are doing at a community level on the mid-north coast of New South Wales as well as throughout Australia.
I too rise very proudly to support this particular budget measure, the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009. I do this because amongst a number of measures that were addressed by the Treasurer in the budget last evening, the support for carers that is contained within this particular piece of legislation is something that we as a parliament and a community should automatically be united behind. Indeed, I doubt that you could possibly find any criticism for supporting the carers in our community.
Before I go into detail, I first of all congratulate the Treasurer on the budget that he presented last evening. We all know that there is a very significant financial crisis within our country and indeed across the globe. We are facing the worst global recession since the Great Depression and these are very challenging times for all of us. For those who have to balance our books and manage expenditure it is particularly difficult. I do not envy the Treasurer his job. On a personal level, I think the budget that he introduced was one that we can all be proud of. In the past, in many political debates in our own party and elsewhere, the Treasurer and I have not always agreed on policy issues so I can say with genuine and heartfelt consideration that I am very proud to support the budget that he introduced. The reason is that it not only deals with the very difficult economic circumstances which we as a globe and as a nation face but it does so with fairness and compassion. It ensures that we address the investment that we need to make. It ensures that we put together a path to recovery that is sustainable and responsible. But it does so not at the expense of those who are most vulnerable and in most need within our community. So to be able to put together a budget that is responsible and that addresses unique economic circumstances in our modern history but does so with fairness and compassion is a testament to the skill of the Treasurer and indeed of the whole cabinet from the Prime Minister down.
No more so do we see evidence of that fairness and compassion than in the introduction of this particular piece of legislation, which provides some very important income security for carers in our community. I do not think we, as individual members of parliament, can stress too much the role carers play. Both the previous speakers have already talked about the invaluable, in fact incalculable, contribution that carers make to our community. We can look at the cold hard economic facts and, I guess, measure up what it would cost all of us as a community—and indeed all of us who are taxpayers—to provide the level of care that our carers provide to those in need. More importantly, I do not think we should acknowledge carers just in terms of the financial savings that they provide us as a community. We should acknowledge them because they do much more as carers than provide basic quality of life assistance. They provide emotional support, they provide encouragement and they provide a community for those they care for, which they otherwise might not have—they might otherwise be living in an institution rather than in the warmth and comfort of a domestic environment. Our carers do an incredible job when it comes to those they care for.
It is also important to acknowledge that it is not easy to be a carer, that it requires an incredible level of determination, patience, fortitude and tireless commitment often without any respite, or very little respite. It is a certain sort of person who is able to be a carer in our community. I think all of us who acknowledge that perhaps our patience and tolerance levels are not quite as good as theirs must also acknowledge how special those people are. I do not think any of us can talk for too long about their important contribution.
This particular piece of legislation supports carers on two levels. Those who receive a carer payment—indeed the 140,000 Australians out there who are full-time carers—will get a pension increase of $32.49 per week for singles and $10.14 per week for couples. This pension increase is not confined to carers. Indeed, it is for all of those in receipt of an old-age pension and a disability pension. Again, this is an initiative that I commend the government and the Treasurer for. On top of that, these carers will also receive a supplement of $600. These recipients are those on a carer payment, those on a wife pension and a carers allowance, those on a Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension and a carers allowance and those receiving a Department of Veterans’ Affairs carer service pension. On top of that, there is a further $600 payment that will be made to those who are in receipt of a carers allowance. All of those people who will receive the carers payment will also receive the extra $600 of as to a carers allowance. Indeed, some further 450,000 Australians will receive this allowance for every person in their care.
What is really important to note about this is not just that all this, at a time of economic uncertainty and crisis, is a very important injection into the cash flow of all of those households but also that this supplement will actually be introduced as a legislated annual supplement, not simply as an ad hoc bonus. I cannot express adequately how significant this change is. It does two things. It provides those people who are most vulnerable and the people who are caring for them with some level of income security without hoping and praying every budget night that they will continue to receive their bonus. At a time like this, when every dollar counts, it is a significant amount of money to put into their household and it is an amount that they can be sure of because it will be enshrined in legislation. Just as importantly, providing that income security is not just about the household’s ability to plan its financial affairs with more certainty. It is also actually about the dignity of that payment. It is about saying to people: ‘This is your income. You aren’t waiting for a handout which may or may not come every budget night.’ It is actually saying to them that this is part of their income, we value them, we value their work and we believe that they deserve this level of economic security. I believe that change alone will create great joy amongst the households that are the beneficiaries of this particular payment.
Why is it important that we introduce these measures in this particular budget? Because in fact it is in tough times, more so than in any other times, that you cannot leave people behind. It just does not make economic sense and none of us advance—when some people continue to prosper and flourish and when some people are in a position, in terms of their income and their employment, to weather the storm ahead—if those who are the weakest and most vulnerable in our community are left way behind. So, unless we actually address their needs and support them through this financial difficulty, we will all be disadvantaged.
It is also a great shame that the sorts of needs of people who are carers and pensioners or those most vulnerable in our community have been ignored for so long. We know, and this has been said many times, that the revenues, resources and productivity that came out of the boom times, which have now gone, were wasted by the previous government. There is no doubt that the windfalls that occurred through the mining boom could well and truly have been invested in much-needed infrastructure, support services and resources throughout our local communities. Unfortunately, they were not. But I think the greatest travesty of the previous government’s approach to this particular issue was its lack of care for the most vulnerable, given the fact that pensioners, carers or people on a disability support pension were completely ignored in the boom times. I think it is a shame and certainly an indictment of its period of government that those who were most in need were left alone and left behind when times were good. Good heavens, what would be happening to those people now? It is incredible to think that many families, often not even means tested regardless of their income, actually received more benefits from the previous government than did pensioners and carers and those on a disability support pension. It is incomprehensible to think that those people who could well and truly support their own families were provided with support at the expense of those who were caring in very difficult circumstances.
So once again I cannot understate how important this legislation is and what an incredibly good budget measure it is. It is wonderful for carers and it is wonderful for those in their care, therefore it is significant for all of us as a community. But do not take my word for it. A media release put out by the Chief Executive Officer of Carers in Australia, Joan Hughes, has already said:
… the $600 per year supplement for those receiving carer payment and the $600 per year in carer allowances for eligible recipients was very welcome because its status was assured in future budgets. Planning for the future will be a little easier now. They know they will get this supplement each year.
I think that is a ringing endorsement by the CEO of Carers Australia, who clearly acknowledges not just the significance of the increase but the significance of that being enshrined in legislation. It also goes hand in glove with other reforms that this government has already introduced when it comes in particular to the carers of children with a disability. Last week the minister introduced changes to the carer payment for a child which actually broaden the definition of a child with a disability, thus enabling more families to receive the carer payment. It is actually a much more realistic assessment of the needs of children with a disability and an acknowledgement of the struggle that many families have in catering for the needs of the particular child. The changes broaden the assessment so that you do not purely have a clinical or diagnostic assessment; you actually look at a whole range of things when it comes to the care of that child, not just their specific condition but their age, their medical requirements and a whole range of different categories that will enable a broader assessment and therefore will enable many more families to be eligible. Indeed, some 19,000 more families will be able to receive that carer payment.
I have three special schools in my electorate of Bonner: the Mount Gravatt Special School at Mount Gravatt East, the Mount Gravatt West Special School and the Darling Point Special School. I regularly visit them and talk to teachers and the parents and families of children attending those schools. I know that there are many parents out there struggling with the demands of raising a child with a disability while juggling the needs and demands of other children, and they are doing it with very little income support. So I am very pleased that, in conjunction with the significant reforms announced last week, the government has made a genuine commitment to greater income support and better certainty for those on carer payments.
We all know that this budget is not going to be unanimously supported and endorsed with the accolades that I think it deserves. We know that there will be criticism, and we are already hearing criticism about the level of deficit. I believe that these criticisms are unwarranted. We should be prepared to look at a temporary deficit if it is needed to support the people covered by this legislation, their families and their carers.
What if we did nothing? What would happen to our economy if we did nothing with this budget and let the global recession rip, as the Prime Minister puts it? We know that the recession is burning a hole in budgets across the world—it is not just our budget; it is happening across the globe. No matter what government was in power, regardless of how good it thought it was, it would inevitably be looking at a deficit. But I guess the difference is whether you address the fact that you are dealing with a recession that is beyond your control and bigger than anything we have seen our lifetimes. Should the government play an active role in dealing with the situation by not only addressing the underlying financial problems but making sure that those most vulnerable and in need in our community will not be completely left behind? Should we allow unemployment to increase and business activity to decline? Can you imagine what would happen to the government’s books if that occurred? What would happen to our revenue? What would happen to the size of the deficit if we had higher unemployment and a decline in business activity? It is too frightening to contemplate. On the other hand, should we invest in the economy? Should we acknowledge that it is worthwhile, indeed necessary, to have a temporary deficit in order to support employment and business activity by building the infrastructure that we need and increasing the assets of our community, thereby providing jobs not just now but into the future?
This may be a naive assessment, but it occurred to me that it is effectively a question of either sitting on your haunches and paying dead rent as debt or taking the initiative by accepting a responsible level of debt, taking out a mortgage and ending up with a valuable asset once you have paid it off. That is the fundamental choice—it is, I think, the fundamental difference between us and the opposition. We actually believe in taking action, being proactive, building up our skills and assets base and on the way supporting those who are most vulnerable rather than throwing our hands in the air, saying it is all too hard and possibly ending up in a worse debt position than we otherwise would.
In conclusion, I do not think the criticisms are valid. I commend the Treasurer for the budget he brought down. If there is any one particular program in this budget that indicates the compassion of the Labor government and its support for investing in our people, it is contained in this bill, which provides support for carers in our community.
Debate interrupted.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Most definitely.
Please proceed.
Today in the Border Watch, a newspaper that I am sure you are extremely well aware of, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is an article headed ‘Green budget, but country in the red’. That article reports part of a press release that I issued last night but leaves out some critical words. The article reads:
“Health and aged care in rural and regional areas need urgent attention and this budget does address that need,” Mr Hawker said.
In fact, in my press release I said:
Health and aged care in rural and regional areas need urgent attention and this budget does nothing to address that need.
I have to admit that my office issued a press release and within 60 seconds realised that those critical words ‘nothing to’ had been left out and so reissued the press release and recalled the first one. Unfortunately, it seems that the newspaper did not pick up that correction, so I would like to correct the record now.
Debate resumed.
Last night the Treasurer announced the government’s secure and sustainable pension reforms as a central part of the 2009-10 budget. These are the most significant reforms to Australia’s pension system since it was introduced 100 years ago and deliver a simpler, fairer and sustainable pension system to prepare Australia for the consequences of our ageing population. The government is certainly very proud of these reforms. They are long overdue and will both improve the adequacy of the pension system and secure its sustainability into the future.
The Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (2009 Budget Measures) Bill 2009 is the first of our budget bills that implement this pension reform package. The bill gives security and certainty for Australia’s carers. The government certainly recognises the selfless contribution made by carers every single day and, also, the very significant financial pressure many of them are under. Australia’s 500,000 carers will now have greater financial certainty because the government is replacing the ad hoc bonuses, which existed in the past, with a legislated annual supplement.
The bill introduces a new payment, called the carer supplement, into the social security law. The first carer supplement payments will be made before 30 June this year and on an ongoing basis from July 2010. Carer supplements will be ongoing payments. They are guaranteed by this legislation and will be available each year to eligible carers on carer allowance, carer payment and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs carer service pension. A carer who receives both carer payment and carer allowance will receive at least two payments every year in addition to increases to their pension.
This bill is part of the government’s response to the needs of carers; it highlights the government’s commitment to improving much needed assistance. Expenditure on the new carer supplement will total $1.8 billion over the budget period. These are very big reforms and, of course, we need to help pay for them. The bill also contains some of the savings needed to make these reforms affordable and sustainable. The bill pauses indexation of higher income thresholds for certain family assistance payments for three years. The family tax benefit part A higher income free areas, family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit and baby bonus family income limit will remain at their 2008-09 levels and will not have indexation applied to their thresholds from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2012. Indexation of the thresholds will recommence on 1 July 2012. These measures will limit the growth of family payments made to families at the higher end of the income scale and save $1.4 billion over the forward estimates.
I am pleased that the opposition are supporting the bill and I hope that they will support the rest of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform package and the tough savings that are necessary to pay for that pension reform. Australia’s pensioners, carers, veterans and people with disabilities need that certainty. I thank the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Financial Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 has a very simple purpose: it seeks to transfer $480 million in outlays—almost half a billion dollars—from next financial year into this financial year. That is $480 million of financial assistance grants paid to local government which would normally be paid next year as part of their full-year payments. It will be brought forward from next year and put into this year’s budget.
The bill provides no additional assistance to local government over those two financial years. The amount paid to local government will be exactly the same, so the only thing that is taking place is the transfer of the $480 million from next year to this year. It is a cash advance, if you like, to local government that provides a boost to this year’s budget for them but will leave a big hole at the end of next year’s budget.
When I looked at this measure after it was introduced last night and I re-read the submission from the Australian Local Government Association, I found no mention of such a request from the Australian Local Government Association for this measure which the government introduced last night. The issue of bringing forward cash advances for local government without any sort of alternative balance for next year creates the situation where they are effectively cash flowing the money back into this year but will have to keep all the money in reserve to spend next year. So it got me thinking about what the true purpose of this measure is.
The budget deficit that has been announced sits around $400 million shy of $58 billion. What I suspect has happened here is a bit of accounting slickness. When the Treasurer came into this place last night and stood at the despatch box he could not bring himself to actually mention that the size of the budget deficit would be $57.6 billion. Had this transfer of some $480 million not been countenanced last night, the deficit would be over $58 billion. The Treasurer did not have the courage to announce last night what the size of the deficit would be and he certainly did not have the courage to announce it as tipping the scales at $58 billion. We see with this government that when it comes to announcing deficits and things such as debt and unemployment it is all shrouded in all sorts of spin, mystery, leaks, the pre-preparation of messages and all of these sorts of things to dress up what they know is an absolutely disgraceful story.
There is a reason why the Treasurer did not come into this place and say ‘$57.6 billion deficit’. There is a reason he did not say ‘$220 billion worth of accumulated deficits over five years’. There is a reason why he did not say that the net debt of the government would rise to $188 billion. He would not use the dollar figure last night of $188 billion. He would not use the number of one million Australians unemployed. The reason they will not mention these figures in public is that they know how sensitive these figures are. They know that when the truth of these figures is explained to the Australian people they will be concerned, shocked and absolutely aghast at the level of financial mismanagement of this government. They try and shroud it in other terms: as percentages, trends, variations and in all sorts of other forms of language. But the cold, hard truth that was not uttered in this place last night is that the deficit is $57.6 billion—and were it not for the measure that is put forward in this bill it would actually be over $58 billion.
This is not something local government has asked for. It was not in their prebudget submission. It is not something they sought. All it simply does is transfer one set of payments from one year to avoid it being topped on to the deficit figure for next year, bringing it into the current year’s deficit of over $20 billion. So there is $9,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia, an annual interest bill that rises to $7 billion or $500 in interest payments—these are all the hard figures that are in this budget that the government does not wish to own up to, does not wish to proclaim and does not wish to speak plainly with the Australian people about.
They pride themselves on wanting to be up-front with the Australian people. But when it came to the financial bottom line of the nation’s finances, in what I think is an unprecedented point, the Treasurer did not disclose it in his budget speech. How embarrassed must he be of the fiscal recklessness of this government that he cannot even bring himself to actually speak the bottom line of the nation’s finances in an annual budget speech. Even former Prime Minster Paul Keating, when budget deficits hit 4.1 per cent of GDP, had the courage to come into this place and tell people what the budget deficit was, what the government’s bottom line was. But not this Treasurer. This is a Treasurer who wants to hide behind words and hide behind accounting measures as proclaimed in this bill which really do little to support local government. We are in May. We are well into the last quarter of the year. So we are going to transfer a bit of money. What they would have got in July they will get now. Somehow this is going to change the fortunes of local governments under financial pressure and stress. So this measure really does nothing to address any of the sorts of major financial issues that are being faced by local government; rather, it addresses the need to cover over a budget deficit eclipsing $58 billion.
It does, nonetheless, raise some fairly important points. It does highlight the need to address the pressures on local council. This bill does not address these, but nevertheless it highlights these. As the minister outlined in his speech last night, they are facing pressures from defaults on council rates. But, more importantly, there are questions that have been raised by me in this place to the Treasurer about the performance of council investments. The government has been aware of the problems being faced by councils with their investments for some time now. But I am yet to see any statement, policy, measure or reform suggestion from the minister for local government which will address the issues of financial governance in local government. What I do see, though, is government at the federal level, in the absence of any reform dividend coming back in return, being prepared to spend money and being happy to send money out there without expecting anything back from local government.
Under the Rudd Labor government there has been $800 million of payments made since around October of last year—or I should say ‘announced’; the actual money did not flow until a lot later—under the stimulus package. The initial $250 million was announced back in November. I remember being in the Great Hall when all the mayors were summoned to Canberra for this announcement. They were told by the Prime Minister that $250 million was to be provided to local government under a modified financial assistance grants formula, with the PM promising that it would be available immediately. He said ‘now’. That was in November. When people wondered about what he meant by ‘now’, the Prime Minister kindly went further to say:
By immediate, I mean immediate. It means now. It is ready to go now.
They were his exact words in his speech. But by late February we learnt in estimates, some three months later, that only one funding agreement of that $250 million had actually been signed. A number have been signed since then, and I hope they have. Hopefully as we ask those questions in estimates we will learn of many more funding agreements. But there was a three-month delay in approving funding that was provided under a formula, which was provided under a similar formula every year. It will require a tick-off process in Canberra, which basically told local government: ‘Look, we don’t trust how you’re going to spend this money. We need to tick off every single cent of this.’ That delayed the process at the very least—and I suspect a lot longer, and some councils are still waiting—months and months. So even where there may be very worthy measures to spend funds, particularly through local government, this government has shown an inability to see that money get to where it needs to get to for these projects to actually happen. This is a frustration being felt by local government.
We have a situation where the government is committing large amounts of funds but tripping over itself in the execution so these funds are not creating the stimulus. There are plenty of press releases. If there was an economic stimulus generated by media activity then we would be well on our way to recovery, I have no doubt. If it was a media response led recovery then this country would be advancing at a rate of knots, sheerly on the volume of media statements and media spin coming out of this government. But I do not think the government understands that that is not how it works. This government has a propensity to read its own publicity and believe it. As time goes on it will learn that the Australian public are far more discerning in their reading, and they will be able to look through and see what is actually happening on the ground. What they will see is that Australians are paying the price for Labor’s reckless spending and, I would add, its reckless administration of that spending. Funds, even when committed, are failing to get through.
In my own electorate when it comes to schools, the money that was supposed to go to local contractors has not gone to local contractors but gone to big contractors—contracted to deliver these projects over large areas. So the plumbers, the electricians and the other contractors in my electorate are not seeing the work and they are writing to me and they are saying that. They are saying, ‘I thought this was supposed to support us, but it is only supporting the big firms.’ Labor, in putting that funding forward, even when it may extract some benefit, have tripped over themselves in trying to achieve that benefit.
There are two very big challenges facing local government at the moment. One is a crisis of confidence in governance, following the disgraceful incidents in Wollongong. I feel very strongly for local government across the country. I feel very strongly for those now working in local government in Wollongong and the community of Wollongong who have to live with that stigma as they try to resurrect their administration for the benefit of their residents. Equally, local government across the country has had to deal with that stigma. Surveys show that levels of confidence in local government have fallen. So there is a very urgent need to address the issue of reform of governance and to improve the public perception of governance in local government if we wish to engage local government in a more direct role in the delivery of programs. The Howard government’s Roads to Recovery program, which has been continued by this government, demonstrated that local government can be an incredibly effective delivery agent for these types of programs. But, in order for it to be effective, we really have to raise the bar when it comes to governance.
The second challenge is a crisis of confidence in the financial management of local government, put under further stress because of the way state governments tend to cost shift onto local government predominantly. But, broader than that, there are the issues of the CDO investments of some councils and the lack of any financial oversight or measures undertaken at a federal level, or even at a state level for that matter, to really provide confidence about the management of ratepayers’ funds—and I should say ‘federal taxpayers’ funds’ because this bill itself is going to put over $450 million in the bank accounts of councils, which I assume will be invested as they are going to have to spend it next year, not this year. And so questions are raised legitimately about how the finances of local government are being administered, how the investments are being made and what level of governance, oversight and controls there are to protect taxpayers’ funds and ratepayers’ funds.
These are big reform items, and I raise them because every time I see cheques being written to local government by this government they are never accompanied by any requirement from local government to address these issues. It is a vending machine. The money flows out and we expect nothing in return in terms of a reform program. Local government has an enormous impact on service delivery and on business regulation at a local level. So, in the midst of an economic crisis, when we hand out money to local government do we ask them to reform business regulation? Do we ask them to do things that would assist small business in our local communities to get through the current crisis? No, we just write them a cheque. We say, ‘Here is some more money.’ Do we want anything in return for that? No, we don’t. We just say, ‘Here is the money; off you go.’ There is an expectation that builds up when a government behaves like that that this will continue. There is no pressure, therefore, on local government to engage in any serious reform. My strong suggestion to the government is that it gets serious about the issue of local government reform and goes beyond the issue of local government largesse. Payments must go with responsibilities. Opportunities must come with responsibilities.
Local governments are an incredibly important part of the governance framework of this country. We need to ensure that they develop and to encourage them to develop their capacity to step up to what I believe can be a completely new and exciting level of what local government can do in this country. But it does require them to bite the bullet on things like business regulation reform, it does require them to bite the bullet on things like shared services and better ways of doing business and it does require federal and state governments to put appropriate incentives in place through the levers that we have available to us to encourage them down that path. If we do not, all we will be left with is councils losing money on their investments, councils who are not in a position to support and encourage small business in their local communities and councils that are unable to meet the growing demands of their communities because of cost-shifting with state governments. The state governments have to be brought into this as well.
When I talk to local governments about regulation, they express their frustrations at the regulations they are required to administer. With a government that is pledged to end the ‘blame game’, these forms of regulation reform at a local council level must be paramount, whether it is in the land use and development approval process, or whether it is in basic areas of food certification, qualifications, other forms of licensing and so on. These things need to be addressed to ensure that small business in this country can get a go.
The measures that have been introduced by the government through the stimulus are concerning from many perspectives, but one is—as I have tried to make the point today—that they have been a lost opportunity, I think, to engage the attention of local government on reform. The government have put their hand out with a cheque and they have offered no other incentive, encouragement, support or requirement to actually get on with the job of improving governance and financial management within that sphere. I suppose if you are going to be into the grand gestures and not reform, which is what we have seen in the budget announced last night, then I surely should not be surprised. If we are going to have a government which is big into the big announcements but which fall shorts when it comes to the hard lifting of reform—as this budget, I think, will be widely seen as doing—we really should not be surprised.
When in government, we undertook the business of paying back $96 billion of debt—all paid back through surpluses, all paid back through hard decisions opposed by the then opposition. That was hard reform. That was hard reform which took a lot of work from the previous Prime Minister and the member for Higgins and their cabinet over many years—hard decisions, hard reform. They did not inherit the legacy that this government inherited. They did not inherit a legacy of a surplus budget and many surplus budgets, of money in the bank, of the soundest set of books almost anywhere arguably in the developed world—and within the space of 18 months we are back in the pack.
If you think that all the hard-won gains of the last 10 years simply fell from the sky, I suppose you can be forgiven for thinking that the budget will return to surplus with the casino like projections in this budget. These things just happen to go in cycles. It does not require any effort to turn these things around. So on a wing and a prayer we will hope that the budget will return to surplus on the basis of a level of growth which is simply unprecedented over the sort of period outlined by the Treasurer.
In conclusion, this bill simply tries to mask, rather pathetically, the size of this budget deficit. Through this bill, the government have kept it under $58 billion—$57.6 billion. The true figure, if this measure had not been brought in today, would be over $58 billion. Whether it is $57.6 billion or $58 billion, or if it is $220 billion over the five years, it is a level of deficit which the Treasurer does not want to own up to and refuses to speak of in this place. It is time that this government started to be honest about the state of the nation’s finances.
I rise to support the Financial Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009. I welcome the contribution to this debate by the member for Cook. I suspect his saying that he believes the government’s economic stimulus and the unprecedented level of investment we have made to local government has really just been a vending machine is going to go down just a treat with local government.
This bill amends the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 to provide greater flexibility in assisting local government. The bill provides greater flexibility in the way in which grant payments can be made to local government through the states, increasing the capacity of the Commonwealth to respond to unique or special circumstances by making payments timelier than is currently allowed. Recent examples of the need to do this have included the bushfires in Victoria and the floods in Queensland.
More broadly the global recession is placing added pressure on local governments. We have reports from the Australian Local Government Association that councils are facing increased defaults on rate payments, putting pressure on councils’ revenue base and capacity to invest in infrastructure, particularly those sorts of projects which we know will stimulate local economies, ensuring that they are making their way through what is an unprecedented global recession. Local governments have a critical role to play in supporting local economies through this recession.
Local government is a large employer, employing council workers from planners to rubbish collectors—around 168,000 people nation wide. Local government engages hundreds of independent contractors. Local government builds and maintains large- and small-scale social and community infrastructure and local government delivers vital social services from child care to home help and Meals on Wheels.
This government has already made unprecedented levels of investment in financial assistance to local government, whether it be through increases in the Roads to Recovery program and in the Black Spot Program, where funding has nearly tripled, or through the one-off $800 million Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, with councils receiving a direct share of 137 strategic large-scale projects now being rolled out across the country. The act that provides Commonwealth funding for local government has, however, lacked the means to allow the Commonwealth to bring forward payments from a future year to the current year—a measure which, in times of crisis, helps local government to manage cash flow.
As I stated earlier, the recent bushfires in Victoria and floods in Queensland are examples of a time when local communities need increased support and flexibility from the Commonwealth to help them deal with an unprecedented crisis. The councils affected warmly welcomed the opportunity to have funds brought forward to assist them.
This bill seeks to address a new challenge—that is, the global financial crisis. The proposed amendments in the bill increase the government’s flexibility to provide additional funding in a particular year, including by, in effect, bringing forward funding from a future year, when economic or other special circumstances arise.
In the 2009-10 budget, the Rudd government has allocated $1.9 billion in financial assistance grants to assist councils and shires across the country to provide local infrastructure and other services. As a result of this bill, $479.7 million will now be brought forward and paid in the 2008-09 financial year to support local government jobs in this time of global recession. Local councils and shires will now be able to use these funds when they need them most to support their local economies, which are doing it tough in the global recession.
Already across my electorate, and those of all members of parliament, councils and shires have been taking full advantage of the increased funding that this government has provided. A perfect example in my electorate is the progress of many projects that are already well underway. Across my electorate of Ballarat we have allocated unprecedented levels of funding: $2.2 million towards a community recreation facility at the Doug Lindsay Reserve in Creswick; $5 million towards the Eureka Centre for Democracy in Ballarat, which will form a partnership with the Australian Centre for Democracy in Canberra; $5.3 million extra to fix 18 black spots across the Ballarat electorate; $563,000 for 21 local infrastructure projects across Moorabool shire; $425,000 for four local infrastructure projects across Hepburn shire; $1.5 million for 11 local infrastructure projects across the City of Ballarat; and, under Roads to Recovery, $4.8 million for Ballarat, $3.5 million for Hepburn, $4.5 million for Moorabool and $4.9 million for Golden Plains.
This funding is not just being rolled out across my electorate but in every electorate across the nation. The amount of funding which has been channelled through local government for local and community infrastructure, for road projects and much needed black spot funding, is unprecedented, more than we have seen in a very long time. It is on top of the financial assistance grants that are also provided to every council and shire across the country.
With the introduction of this bill, councils and shires will now have Financial Assistance Grant payments accelerated. In my electorate this means over $2 million for the City of Ballarat, around $800,000 for Hepburn shire, over $1 million for Moorabool shire, and over $1 million for Golden Plains shire—much needed funding coming into the local economy, once again from the federal government, to stimulate our local economy. These funds are untied and can be used as determined by shires and councils on local priorities. The spending of these funds is in the hands of local government.
This is good news for councils and shires right across the country. It will provide local economies with a boost in funds in the short term to assist in tackling the global recession. This government has introduced these changes because we know that no community is immune from the impacts of the global recession, and this is no more evident than in rural and regional Australia. We know that by assisting local councils and shires in a time of need we can support local jobs and local economies right across the country.
The government showed in last night’s budget that we are working to support every local economy across that nation. On top of the $1.9 billion in financial assistance grants, we also announced a record $350,000 for Roads to Recovery and $310 million to be allocated to major community infrastructure projects being delivered by councils and shires. Let me reiterate that no community is immune from this global recession. The government understands this and I will continue to support measures that move to address this challenge right the way across our economy. I commend the bill to the House.
in reply—The Financial Assistance Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 makes amendments to two acts. It amends the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 by providing a mechanism for the Commonwealth to make payments to states and territories to assist local government as soon as possible. The amendments provide a flexibility that is lacking in the current act.
That flexibility is important. Local government faces its own challenges meeting the demands of the global economic recession. Our capacity to bring forward one quarter of the 2009-10 payments immediately, when the funding is most needed, is an important part of the government strategy to provide a targeted and timely economic response. Next year’s payment will then be reduced by the same amount, with the grants paid over four quarters. This will ensure that local government will have a steady and predictable income stream from the financial assistance grants over the course of 2009-10.
The second act amended by this bill is the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. The amendments will increase the general drawing rights from the COAG Reform Fund for the purposes of making grants of general revenue assistance to the states. The government looks forward to the passage of this bill within the current sittings of parliament to enable the Commonwealth to meet its budget commitments to provide general purpose financial assistance to the states and to help local government meet the economic challenges before us.
I thank the members for their participation in the debate. The member for Ballarat has played a critical role as the chair of the House of Representatives committee which has considered funding for regional Australia through community infrastructure. That has been an important process in reforming the way that we deliver community infrastructure support in local communities. In the past we have not gone directly to local government; it has been bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra who have determined the outcome of programs such as the former government’s discredited Regional Partnerships program.
We on this side of the House have reformed this process so that local communities have their priorities heard by the federal government through their elected local representatives in local government. That has been an extremely important reform which has been welcomed by local governments right across the nation.
The shadow minister made some comments, once again being critical of the regional and local community infrastructure program. I remind the House that every single local government area in Australia has benefited from that program, with $800 million record funding. There was $250 million allocated under the first round to all councils and shires across the country. Applications from all 565 councils and the ACT have been approved, and 3,220 community infrastructure projects were approved to the value of $250 million, with contributions from local government achieving a much greater economic stimulus than just that figure, but as part of the strategic component of that program we have also allocated $550 million for 137 projects around the nation.
Those 137 projects have produced an economic stimulus of over $1½ billion. Each council was asked to submit their one priority to a value greater than $2 million, and projects right around the nation benefited: in cities, in regional communities, in every state of the Commonwealth and across all political affiliations—unlike the way the former government’s projects were instituted through the Regional Partnerships program.
The shadow minister was not there when I announced the project in Cook, in the Sutherland Shire, but in coming months when he walks outside his electorate office in Caringbah, he will see work taking place to upgrade the very suburban centre in which he has his electorate office. That is a part of the Sutherland Shire Council’s project under this fund. That will stimulate jobs in the Sutherland Shire, stimulate the Sutherland Shire economy and make the communities of Southerland, Caringbah and that area, a much better place for the community, and particularly for the small businesses in that area.
But of course projects have been approved right across the board. Those opposite voted against this program. It was part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, the economic stimulus we put forward. They voted against it, but right around the country they have been turning up at launches. When they turn up at launches—whether it be the Leader of the Opposition with the Waverley pavilion refurbishment or whether it be the member for Gilmore, the member for Mallee or the member for Mayo—they are acknowledging that these local projects are a good thing for their local communities, which they are, but they voted against them. And still the shadow minister has come in here and been critical of this program. Their opportunism is there for all to see.
The shadow minister also made a comment that this legislation which we have put forward was not asked for by local government, which of course would imply that somehow local government was not supportive of this reform. The ALGA press release of 12 May 2009 states the following:
Local government funding weathers tough Budget
Councils will also welcome early payment of the first installment of $479.7 million of $1.9 billion in Financial Assistance Grants to local government. As Local Government Minister Anthony Albanese said tonight: ‘No community in Australia is immune from the impacts of the global recession.’
They then went on to say:
In relation to community infrastructure, Australian communities are already beginning to reap the benefits of the $800 million Community Infrastructure Program, providing better facilities while stimulating local economies and creating jobs.
That is what the peak organisation of local government has had to say about this legislation and about our financial support for local government at this difficult economic time. It contrasts markedly with the performance of the former government, which chose to fund private enterprises such as, infamously, the Indigo Cheese factory, which had shut down. It chose to fund that rather than fund community infrastructure through local government. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Albanese:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is designed to strip $2½ billion out of the Education Investment Fund, a fund established with much fanfare last year. It is a bill designed to strip $2½ billion out of this education fund and direct those moneys to the funding of the new Clean Energy Initiative. The Education Investment Fund was explicitly created just 12 months ago for universities and for vocational education and training—two areas absolutely critical to our nation’s capacity to increase productivity so that we can rebound as quickly as possible in the future from this economic malaise and repay the massive home-grown government debt being incurred by this reckless and panicked government. As well, universities and vocational education and training are two areas we were told ad nauseam were absolutely fundamental to the government’s so-called education revolution.
The government would not see this bill as anything of great moment. In the face of a $200 billion debt created in 12 months by this government, the government would say this bill is neither here nor there. But as one of the first bills introduced after the budget was brought down last night it is an ironic and powerful piece of symbolism. It captures the very essence of the budget. It is a snapshot, if you like, of the government’s wider problems. This bill in a sense symbolises the loss of control of the nation’s finances by this Labor government, the sense that this budget lacks coherence and gravitas, lacks any sense of the real problem that they are charged with tackling. The bill demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The bill highlights one of the many ways our children will quickly start to pay the price of this massive debt with the lower priority given to education. The bill confirms Labor’s lack of any long-term coherent plan for infrastructure. There is no sense of priority from one year to the next. The bill says that Labor’s commitments cannot be trusted, even after being put into l-a-w law. The bill betrays a great measure of confusion and panic about this government. You get a sense of a government looking for a $2 coin under the lounge cushion, a government raiding the kid’s piggy bank. You get this sense of panic and confusion. This government has lost control of the nation’s finances.
This bill flies in the face of all the government has said about infrastructure funds over the last 12 months. We had the Prime Minister on 25 August saying:
… one of the main vehicles for turning productivity around in the Budget was the announcement of a Building Australia Fund and an Education Investment Fund.
Of course, these have been massively underspent compared with the handouts that have been provided over the last few months. So much for priority. And now they are raiding these very funds. On 21 May last year the Treasurer said:
The fund will … ensure our education and skills needs are met in the long term.
Of course, that was 12 months ago. The fund is now $4.5 billion smaller than provided for in the Treasurer’s last budget. So much for those commitments.
The Minister for Education on 13 May last year, in announcing this Education Investment Fund, said:
The Rudd Labor government will transform Australia’s higher education and vocational education and training … institutions over the next decade with a new $11 billion Education Investment Fund.
Of course, it never got to $11 billion—$2 billion was taken out of it in the early stages. And now another $2½ billion is being stripped out of this fund. The minister went on to say:
The Education Investment Fund is a major component of the Rudd Government’s Education Revolution.
It was a cornerstone of the education revolution. So much for these pious sentiments, these strong commitments. They have lived off this sort of rhetoric for 12 months, and then quietly, in a deep night, they run this bill into the House, 20 or 30 minutes after the budget has been released. The Minister for Education went on to say last year:
This means that substantial investment can be made in our educational institutions in the coming years, transforming the capacity of these sectors to educate and train Australians.
The bill totally undermines the minister’s comment. It also undermines future comments by this minister and by the government and their commitment to the educational revolution. Having made a monumental mess of the introduction of computers in schools, they are now stripping funds—generated by the previous government, I might add—to use for other purposes. The funds are being used to cover their excessive, wanton and reckless spending; the tens of billions of dollars of handouts. We are now seeing the price being paid by our kids, by future generations, because of the lack of commitment and spending for university and vocational education. The minister also said on 13 May last year:
Decisions about annual disbursements from the Education Investment Fund will occur through the annual appropriation process, which would ensure transparency and allow parliamentary scrutiny.
Some very high sounding sentiments—the sorts of sentiments we have heard ad nauseam from all those on the other side, from all the ministers, on and on, about how they will ensure transparency and allow parliamentary scrutiny. These commitments are meaningless. How can you trust this? At 8.30 last night, this bill was introduced, half an hour after the budget was brought down.
The bill runs counter to everything said for 12 months by this government about the priorities they are giving to education, about how they will manage the finances of this country, about the commitments that people can assume are going to be followed through and about how they can plan future investments and other commitments because of the existence of these funds, which are now being stripped away for other purposes. This was all said for 12 months by this government and now, 15 hours after the budget, this bill is being rammed through this parliament. It makes a mockery of the commitments made by this government. This is Labor-style transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
The Minister for Education said on 13 May last year:
The Future Fund Board of Guardians will be responsible for managing the fund.
Well, the guardians have had the rug pulled from underneath them. Nearly half the money has gone from the fund without any commitment of those funds for education and vocational education. What is more, we are told in the budget papers, in the most sanctimonious terms, that the $2½ billion of funds being transferred to the Clean Energy Initiative will only be used:
… subject to endorsement by the Education Investment Fund Advisory Board once suitable projects are identified.
It is not apparent to me, and I suspect to the advisory board members themselves, what particular expertise these education advisory board members have with regard to carbon capture and storage, solar energy generation and any other clean energy project that may be identified in the future. As it stands, only $400 million of the $2.5 billion being stripped out of the education fund is committed to particular projects. The remaining $2.1 billion is yet to be allocated. I can sense, at the very least, major confusion having members of the education board—people presumably highly skilled and experienced in education matters—now being required to endorse any transfer of funds ‘once suitable projects are identified’. What a nonsense. It does betray the confusion running through this government on all sorts of matters at every level. It is either confusion or a major snow job in the making.
All of this demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The $13.8 billion committed in last night’s budget to be spent in total from the three infrastructure funds—$3.2 billion from the Health and Hospitals Fund, $3 billion from the Education Investment Fund and $7.6 billion from the Building Australia Fund—is less than two-thirds of the $22 billion spent in recent months on Labor’s cash splash, less than two-thirds of the $22 billion spent on handouts.
The handouts have forced Labor to raid these funds for other initiatives. How short-sighted to run out there with the handouts—the cheques are still going out—and then be forced, in a matter of not even months later, to raid funds that were put in place 12 months ago which have been, in a rhetorical sense, committed to ever since. They are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It makes a mockery of all that the minister has said about the education revolution program. The handouts have forced Labor to raid these funds for other initiatives.
It demonstrates again the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree—what it has done to long-term planning, what it has done to sensible management of finances and government. Labor cannot even manage moneys given to them. Every dollar in those funds—every dollar of that $13.8 billion—was generated and gifted by the Howard government to this government. They cannot even manage moneys given to them, much less generate moneys themselves.
No fund or funding commitment anywhere across this government can now be trusted. Moneys could end up anywhere. Commitments, even commitments that have been legislated for, as we have seen with the education fund, are meaningless. Given that much of the foreshadowed investment takes place over the next seven, eight, 10 years, a lot of those commitments last night are many years away. With this money promised, committed, for long-term projects, what confidence can the community have that these projects will not be dropped or modified or dealt with in all sorts of ways in the years ahead in the wake of incompetent financial management?
This bill also highlights how our children will start to pay the price, as they will for decades, for this massive debt. This is just one example—unanticipated, but one of many. Not only will the $9,000 debt hanging over every man, woman and child need to be paid off in the decades ahead but diminished investments and services will also eat into the opportunities and quality of life of our children and their children, as signalled by this raid on the education funds.
This bill also confirms Labor’s lack of any long-term, coherent plan for infrastructure. Labor told us endlessly before the last election that they had a coherent, well-developed plan for Australia’s major infrastructure. We heard it time and again, as it was one of their four planks on which they sought to win government. It was one of their major commitments—along with the education revolution, which is in tatters after last night’s announcements. Here we are, 18 months later, seeing the first decisions about any major infrastructure—18 months after they said they had a plan. They said that they had worked out a plan, a comprehensive, well-developed plan for Australia’s major infrastructure. We have lost 18 months during which major infrastructure projects could have been committed to and major infrastructure spending could have been well on the way.
Last night’s budget represents the first decisions about any major infrastructure project since this government took office, and most of the projects announced last night as being under consideration were advanced by the former government. The only money being spent is money generated and gifted by the former government. And the total spending on major infrastructure announced last night is dwarfed by the total moneys sent out in cheques as handouts.
Where do the government’s priorities lie? What is their focus? How can you have any confidence that this government understands the significance of spending every dollar as wisely as possible, during the worst financial crisis in 80 years, if we are to see maximum impact on productivity to help us to come out of this crisis—whenever the end occurs—and enable us to rebound quickly, ahead of the rest of the world? Now the funds that were to go towards advancing the productivity and the human capital of our young people are being raided, despite the comments of the Minister for Education after last year’s budget:
One measure in last week’s budget—establishing the $11 billion Education Investment Fund—is an indication of the long term perspective we are adopting.
Labor has no coherent plan for infrastructure and no long-term perspective that anyone can have any confidence in. The approach of the government, as characterised by this bill, is no way to run our country.
While the coalition will not stand in the way of this bill, we do express great consternation about what it represents. It represents the government’s lack of any plan for recovery. It represents the government’s lack of priority and its flip-flopping under pressure. The content of this bill demonstrates the impact of Labor’s reckless spending spree. The bill represents the confusion and panic that appear to be gripping this government. The government’s loss of control of the nation’s finances is symbolised by this bill.
I rise to support the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 before the House today. Before I proceed to discuss the reasons why I support the bill, I would like to address some of the issues raised by the previous speaker, the member for Goldstein, particularly the way he addressed this bill and couched it in terms of what he claimed was the government’s lack of coherence and planning in addressing the global economic crisis. I would say to the previous speaker—except that he has now left the room, so I will say it on the record—that, in fact, quite the opposite is true.
Let me deal firstly with his criticism of what he described as wasted cash payments—that is, the cash bonus payments made at the end of last year and in April this year. There is one reality about hard times, and that is that the confidence of the people in the community, on the ground in streets and suburbs, is one of the most critically important aspects of sustainably getting through difficult economic times. If people are walking around their suburbs seeing shops boarded up and shutting down, if they are walking around seeing houses on the housing market sitting there with the ‘for sale’ sign out the front month after month after month, unable to be moved, then the message at the community level in the towns and suburbs in which we all live will be that times are terribly hard and that they should contract their own engagement in the economy and their own spending in particular. It is critically important that governments intervene early in those sorts of difficult times to retain confidence amongst the population about our capacity to work through these difficult times. I have no doubt that the circumstances we face would have been far worse going into this budget if people in our communities had seen a large number of retail and hospitality workers out of work. Often employed as casual workers, they needed to get a level of income up to sustain them over the Christmas and Easter periods, the most critically important times for them, and their employment was supported by that cash bonus system.
It may not be the employment area given the most attention but in my area, in the seat of Cunningham, retail is the biggest employer. We talk a lot, and quite rightly so, about the challenges facing our steelworkers and our coalminers, but the largest employer in my region is retail. Those retail workers are by and large some of the most vulnerable workers in our communities. They are women and young people in particular. They have as much right as any other worker in our economy to expect the government to support and underpin their employment during difficult times. That is exactly what that injection of money did in our economy—it supported those workers and those sectors of our industries in every one of our electorates in an important way, and that was reflected in our quite amazing achievement of growth in the retail sector compared to the rest of the world. So I really challenge the previous speaker’s argument that that was wasted and I think it is a complete abrogation of responsibility to the retail and hospitality sectors, industries and small businesses, and the workers that are engaged in those sectors.
The previous speaker did also say that we have lost 18 months in which we could have been progressing major infrastructure. I would simply say that I think that we have lost the last 14 years, during 12 of which they were in government. That is why it has taken us 18 months to progress on this stuff—because there was nothing done on infrastructure for so long. So it is a challenge this government has taken up, and taken up successfully.
This brings us to the bill which is before us today. The purpose of the bill is to repeal the credit of $2.5 billion from the 2007-08 budget surplus in the Education Investment Fund that was to have occurred on 30 June 2009, in order to make that finance available for the Clean Energy Initiative. This is an important commitment by this government and it does require, obviously, a redirection of funds. I think that the important thing to understand is that it does not, as the previous speaker claimed, indicate any lack of commitment to education and innovation by this government. There is still more than $6.5 billion in the Education Investment Fund for education and research infrastructure, of which $4.1 billion was committed in the budget last night, and also in the nation-building package that was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2008. The balance of $2.4 billion, plus investment earnings estimated to be around $630 million over the forward estimates, will be available for future education and research projects.
I want to put on the record today my great pleasure in the important commitment in the budget last night to the University of Wollongong of $43.8 million for an Australian Institute of Innovative Materials at their Innovation Campus. This particular investment will have so many flow-through benefits to my own local area, where we are struggling with the impacts of the global economic crisis, because it does a number of things. Firstly, it strengthens the position we have been developing as an area of innovation in manufacturing technology. We have a great manufacturing base. We have tremendous manufacturing skills. We have a world-class university, and we are matching all those together in order to develop a region people will look to for innovations in manufacturing across the sector.
I am a firm believer in the future of the manufacturing sector in our community. I was part of the economics committee that looked at a report for the former Treasurer before the election called Beyond the mining boomand how little we understood how prescient the choice of that particular investigation was. One of the clear things that came out for manufacturing beyond the mining boom is that Australia is well-positioned in problem-solving manufacturing. We will not compete on mass production manufacturing but in terms of specific projects, problem-solving projects, high-end technology based manufacturing, we are well positioned to be world leaders with our absolutely tremendous tradesmen—trained, I will plug, through the world-class TAFE system we have in this country and also extended through the solid engineering programs at our universities. This extension of that in our region will start to take that research at the university and turn it into generic prototypes which actually have the potential to develop new export markets and new manufacturing processes for our industry. This is a really important initiative. This budget delivered the most in one hit to our region that has ever been delivered in a budget. We do not often see solid amounts of investment into the Illawarra region—certainly not in recent times—but this was a real commitment to our region and it was very welcome.
It should be noted that the government has also provided for a $12.4 billion long-term investment under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. It is very welcome in my area and across my electorate and Jennie George’s electorate, with $50 million for our local primary schools. As a former teacher I am a profound believer that the environment you provide for young people in their schools sends a very strong message to them and their parents about how you value that education, and the facilities that they are working in are a major part of that. Full commendations to the Prime Minister for recognising that it is time to move the physical structures of our schools into the 21st century—it is a tremendous program.
Also important is the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. Again, that provides $2.5 billion over the 10 years to enable all secondary schools to apply for funding for trade training centres. The Prime Minister was telling the Wollongong forum he attended on Monday with Jennie George and me about how he and Wayne Swan went back to the old trade centre at Nambour high and were quite horrified to discover it had not changed a single bit since they had been in it. I think he did say that Wayne Swan had passed that particular program and he had not. But it is very true: if we want young people to engage in the modern manufacturing development and trades sector then we have to provide them with modern facilities in the schools to do that. That is a tremendously important program.
The reallocation of funds to the Clean Energy Initiative that is encompassed by this bill is really a significant direction for this country to go in. The government will be using this money to stimulate economic activity in a sector that will support new green-collar jobs. I want to commend that. In my own area, the South Coast Labour Council, under the leadership of Arthur Rorris, has been developing in conjunction with and with the support of the state government a green-collar future for the Illawarra positioning paper. I am sure Mr Rorris will be keen to have the federal government look at that as well. It is about, for example, creating industries in the manufacture of wind farms in the Illawarra region—matching our steel, our trade skills and our ideal positioning with port access with the capacity to be part of the growth of the wind energy sector.
There are some really good initiatives, and this is exactly what the Clean Energy Initiative is about. It will support clean technology in industries and assist Australia’s transition to a lower emissions path, a very important part of delivering on our commitment for 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. This objective supports the Renewable Energy Fund and the Energy Innovation Fund by efforts to encourage deployment of renewable technologies, including through the Solar Homes and Communities Plan, which I know is very welcome in our area and is part of the proposal of the Labour Council for developing some pilot important programs in our area.
An important thing to acknowledge is that this component also includes $2 billion towards industrial scale carbon capture and storage flagship programs. My own area is a major coalmining area. While the vast bulk of our coal is utilised in the steel-manufacturing sector and not the energy production sector, we do understand how important this sector is to local economies and the need to find new, cleaner ways for coal-fired power to be part of the solution into the future. That is what the development of these flagship programs delivers.
I commend the bill to the House. I think it is a really important initiative. It does not indicate a lack of commitment to education at all; I would be the first to say so if I thought it did, given my background. It is an absolutely important initiative and I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to also support the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009. I want to raise some points of concern for consideration, not so much by government but by the community, with regard to a lost opportunity over the last 12 months which is now seeing a significant amount of money—$2.5 billion—set aside for the Education Investment Fund being redirected. I think it raises very real issues for Australia that the government should consider if they are serious and genuine with regard to the education revolution. The language I hear from this place, from peak organisations involved in the education sector and from many international voices in the education field is proving to be on many occasions at odds with and significantly different from the language that I hear in my home electorate from teachers, students and those who are, on a day-to-day basis, delivering on the front line of education. I am not giving an opinion one way or the other regarding which language is right, but there seems to be a significant disconnect between what is happening on the ground and how the government would like to see education delivered in Australia today. I therefore look at this shift of $2.5 billion as a lost opportunity in the education field.
Whether it is, once again, due to the lack of quality of submissions that have been put forward by the various education sectors throughout Australia in trying to tap into the mindset of government on the education revolution or whether there are other reasons is unbeknownst to me. But I do think it raises the point that here was an opportunity for good money to be spent doing good work in an area of much-needed government reform, the education field. We are now seeing that money being redirected away from an area in need of great support.
Much is being done in the education field. In fact, from the various voices on the ground in the Lyne electorate, it would seem there is a deal of difficulty keeping pace with the amount of money that is being offered by government and the opportunities that are presenting themselves. It is certainly the desire of government to have the education revolution; however, as we are seeing with this bill, opportunities are being missed by communities such as mine on the mid-North Coast.
So I hope this is not a dropping of the ball on the concept of an education revolution. I hope that what goes with this $2.5 billion redirection in the education field is instead some greater assistance to those on the ground to produce quality submissions, some greater assistance to the states and some pushing of the states to really consider the options now available in the education field as to how it is delivered. Hopefully, we will live in an era where the focus becomes more and more on student needs and student wants and on flexibility in delivering education in all its forms to students. Whilst I will be one accepting this shift, I am certainly disappointed that the shift is away from an area which is much needed within my region, so much so that in my first eight months of being the federal MP we have set up two mid-North Coast education and skills forums, one in Hastings and one in Manning Valley, to try to really up the ante on the importance of education and skills development within our region.
As I say repeatedly, our area has a comparatively low education level—and we do need to do a lot of work to improve that—and I do think it has direct correlations with our other comparative disadvantage figures. We have comparatively some of the lowest income levels throughout Australia. We have comparatively one of the highest unemployment rates throughout Australia—it is over the 10 per cent mark at the moment. We have comparatively some of the highest poverty levels in Australia—we are in the top 10 electorates on the poverty scale. These are all directly linked. The role that education can play is to offer that long-term structural meal ticket out of the poverty, unemployment and low-income traps. So I hope this is not a dropping of the ball by government on the value and importance of education to this country’s future.
As for the money that is going into the Clean Energy Initiative, I also hope that this is a genuine attempt by government to shape a future for this country that is as much as possible a clean and green energy one and to start a shift from a brown economy to a green one. I would be deeply distressed and concerned if it was about vested interests getting their claws into environmental policy, in particular the vested interests in the coal industry getting a green win through this redirection of dollars. I have raised this issue in the Main Committee in regard to $100 million in a recent appropriation bill being put into the carbon institute. I raised the question of the process of a significant amount of taxpayers’ money going into what is at this stage still an unproven science. I was interjected upon by someone saying we need to prove it and that is why we are spending the money. I think an approach to public policy by government where significant taxpayers’ dollars, 100 million of them, go into what is still an unproven science creates an extraordinarily poor precedent. I could come into government with a tray of cow manure and say: ‘I can turn this into gold. It is an unproven science at this stage but give me the money and I’ll prove it up.’ That is the type of logic behind what we are seeing and therefore I hope that this is not, once again, a failing, through poor public processes, in handling taxpayers’ dollars.
I hope that this concept of carbon capture and storage is not about vested interests but about the long-term future of this country. There are areas that deserve funding support for future activity. I mention Copenhagen in that context as I think there is some great potential as to that. If one thing comes out of that meeting at the end of the year it will be that a thing such as a tree in the ground prior to 1991 does have a value and that these arbitrary lines that have been drawn by developed nations—by which, for example, a tree only has value if it is planted post 1991, which I think that came out of the Bali agreements—are flawed logic and do nothing to protect biodiversity, and therefore carbon storage, on a global scale. I note that there are various projects like the REDD projects around and that, for example, Macquarie Bank is investing in one in Cambodia. It would be great to see some of this activity happening in Australia. If this investment by government facilitates greater attention for the role of the public tree—its worth in being in the ground as well as its worth in being out of the ground, and its role not only in carbon capture but also in protection and promotion of biodiversity—then we are getting good economic and environmental outcomes all at the same time.
It is the mandate of government, as part of the budget process, to see this redirection of funds. It is not for me to oppose that. I do think it flags some issues on both the education and the energy front. On the education front, I really hope, regardless of the global economic times or whatever else, that the language that we have heard and the commitment that we have seen in the first 18 months of this government continue. There is at times a need to drag the states and various providers by the ear to the table of genuine reform in the education sector. But it is important and good work—in many ways, the most important work that government can do for the future of this nation. So I hope this redirection away from the education field is not a dropping of the ball.
I also sincerely hope that this redirection of money is focused on sequestration or pasture improvements, or what I have talked about regarding the public tree and the role that it plays in carbon capture and storage, rather than, once again, some vested interests getting a green-brown win out of government. In no way am I saying that the coal industry does not have a role to play or that the coal industry is not of value in Australia. But, if we are serious about shifting the direction of our economy to meet the needs of the future, vested interests must be kept at bay in this process.
I rise to support the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009. I think it is important that the context for this legislation and indeed the context for the budget that the Treasurer delivered last night be considered. We are experiencing the deepest global recession since the Great Depression and there are a few basic facts to be considered. The world economy will contract by 1.5 per cent. Other advanced economies are in deep recession. Australia is in recession. The economy will contract by 0.5 per cent in 2009-10. Unemployment is going to rise and the terms of trade are to fall significantly.
The reason I start with those basic facts is that it is not possible or appropriate to approach legislation like this without considering the economic context that gives rise to the legislation and to the framing of the budget. This budget is about choices and priorities. Far from this bill exemplifying something wrong, as the member for Goldstein attempted to say, about the approach that the government has taken to the framing of this budget, this bill exemplifies the very stark contrast between the opposition and the government in relation to dealing with the economic crisis, difficulties and challenges that the government and the country are confronting.
The Treasurer has delivered a budget that is designed to support jobs now and deliver the investments to increase Australia’s productive capacity for future prosperity. I listened with care to the speech that was given on this bill by the Liberal infrastructure spokesman, the member for Goldstein, today. What was striking about it was that not once did the member for Goldstein talk about jobs. Indeed, the member for Goldstein spent the 15 minutes that he spoke for talking about debt and attempting to create the impression of confusion, lack of coherence or recklessness—those were the words that he repeated over and over in his speech. We had to wait until the very end of the member for Goldstein’s speech to hear the economic context this budget consideration is about, not about debt or creating some spectre of confusion, but rather a response to a crisis. We had to wait until the last minute of the member for Goldstein’s speech to hear him use the word ‘crisis’, when he spoke of ‘enabling us to rebound out of this crisis’. The starting point for considering legislation such as this is the economic context—it is the fact that there is a global economic crisis. That is why I start my speech by referring to that economic crisis, because it is that which gives rise to the decisions that are reflected in this budget.
It seems that those opposite are having a great deal of difficulty in facing up to the economic challenges confronting the nation. Only last week we heard from the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, who, extraordinarily, said: ‘It is inconceivable that we could have such a deterioration of employment in such a short time.’ It is not inconceivable—because it is in fact happening. The response of those opposite would appear to be one of disbelief in the economic events that are unfolding across the world, which are having a far worse effect on other developed economies than has yet been experienced in Australia. We hope that, as a result of the decisions that are reflected in this budget, that will continue to be the case. But for those opposite the deterioration of employment, and apparently many other economic events, is inconceivable.
We are yet to hear even the slightest level of coherence in any response by those opposite to this budget or to the economic decisions that have been taken by this government in recent months. Indeed, one would have to say that the response of those opposite to the present economic crisis is eerily reminiscent of the response of conservative governments in the 1920s and 1930s, including—
Hear, hear—absolutely correct. History repeating itself.
It is always nice to have agreement from the member for Kennedy. It is eerily reminiscent of the response of conservative governments in the 1920s and 1930s—conservative governments, including in this country, which wanted to cut taxes, reduce government spending and allow wages to fall to, as they would have put it, ‘clear the labour government’. It appears that the conservatives on the other side of this House want to leave it to the market to sort out this crisis. They want to leave it to the market to do its worst to working families. That is not the response of this government; the response of this government is a coherent one which recognises a role for government and for economic stimulus and, in particular, recognises that economic stimulus can and should be delivered through infrastructure spending.
This government understands the need to invest in infrastructure to improve our productive capacity. Again, it was striking, if not a little puzzling, to hear the member for Goldstein referring to ‘the lost 18 months when major infrastructure spending could have been committed to’. That is what the member for Goldstein said, apparently forgetting that after almost 12 years in government the record of the former government was one of near complete failure to invest in the infrastructure of this country at a time, indeed, of boom economic conditions.
It needs to be recognised by those opposite—and indeed many of the commentators are recognising this—that Australia’s fiscal response to this economic crisis has been heavily tilted in favour of investment spending. That has been confirmed by the OECD economic outlook interim report, released in March 2009, which said that the Australian fiscal response had been tilted in favour of investment spending to a much greater degree than in any other OECD economy. Under this budget, the government will deliver further infrastructure spending to protect jobs now and to build our economy for the future. It is worth mentioning a few examples of that. In relation to rail, $4.6 billion will be spent on more efficient metropolitan rail networks, which will deliver significant economic and social benefits through less road congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and faster travel times for commuters. It is worth mentioning the $3.4 billion which will be spent for the Network 1 road freight corridor linking Melbourne and Cairns and the $389 million for port infrastructure to improve access to global markets for our export industries. These projects and others like them at a national level will reduce economic inefficiencies caused by the failure of the former government to invest adequately in the infrastructure platforms that Australia needs to build our future prosperity.
I will now go to the local level, because there is no doubt of the worth in my electorate of the economic stimulus package and the infrastructure programs that have been announced and are being embarked on. There is no doubt in my electorate about this government’s commitment to education. I will start with the first announcements that were made about larger buildings in schools under the Building the Education Revolution program. Schools in my electorate have received almost $22 million in funding under round 1. It is worth bearing in mind that those opposite in this House—the Liberal Party and the National Party—are opposed to this program. They are opposed to the construction of new buildings in every single primary school across Australia. They are opposed to the construction of new buildings in primary schools in my electorate, but the students, parents and teachers—the entire community—of my electorate have no doubt about the worth of that infrastructure spending or about the commitment of this government to education.
I should mention also the local infrastructure spending that is being delivered in my electorate through local councils. On Monday last week we announced that the City of Greater Dandenong has been given $7.27 million for a complete reconstruction of the Noble Park Swim Centre. No-one in my community is in any doubt about the worth of that kind of infrastructure spending. This is a pool which was built some 50 years ago, and very little has been done to it since that time. It is very much an important centre for community activity. It is much loved and is well used and it will be rebuilt in its entirety as a result of infrastructure funding that has been made available by this Labor government.
Another of the councils in my electorate, the City of Kingston, has been given $2.97 million for the substantial improvement of an equally valuable existing facility: the Kingston Heath Soccer Complex. Through that improvement and rebuilding work, the usefulness of that facility to the community will increase.
There are other programs that are worth mentioning that demonstrate the commitment of this government to providing infrastructure funding. This infrastructure funding not only provides an immediate economic stimulus, which is an approach to the management of the economy that is accepted by governments of developed countries across the world, but also provides valuable infrastructure that will serve our country in the future.
In last night’s budget, it was announced that funding will be made available for the Altona-Laverton precinct, which is on the western side of Melbourne, and, connected to it in a functional sense, the Dandenong intermodal terminal, which is in my electorate in south-east Melbourne. That is a very important project. It demonstrates a commitment to planning, to foresight, to thinking for the long term about the urban infrastructure and the transport infrastructure of Melbourne. It looks at the long term in relation to possible projects such as the expansion and development of the port of Hastings, a project which recognises the growth constraints and limitations that are faced by the port of Melbourne. Part of that long-term thinking involves developing a Dandenong intermodal terminal, which is a project that is already being worked on by the state Department of Transport, partnering with the Commonwealth government and the private sector on the development of what will be a Melbourne freight terminal network. It is going to involve the enhancement of rail connectivity to the Somerton and Laverton-Altona intermodal terminals, the port of Melbourne and a new Melbourne freight terminal in the Dandenong area. This is not in any—
What is exported through those areas?
I am asked by the member for Kennedy what is exported through these areas. The port of Melbourne is recognised to be Australia’s largest port in terms of freight. It has reached its limits—
Importing, but not exporting.
Exporting as well as importing. The Port of Hastings, of course, is very important for exporting as well. The manufacturing products that are exported from the very large manufacturing centres in my electorate, both in Dandenong South and Braeside—to answer the member for Kennedy’s question—use the port facilities in Melbourne. In the next decades when the Port of Hastings is expanded they will no doubt be able to use the facilities of the Port of Hastings as well. This is long-range planning. The government is showing its commitment to forming relationships with private enterprise and with state governments to ensure infrastructure is well planned and provided for.
There are other aspects of this budget which demonstrate the government’s commitment to providing economic stimulus and at the same time useful infrastructure for Australia. I could speak of the Clean Energy Initiative, which shows how the bill that is presently before the House, like the budget as a whole, is about priorities. The Labor government understands the need for Australia to shift to a low-carbon pollution economy, to help build an economy with green jobs for the future. We see in the Clean Energy Initiative a commitment of $2 billion for carbon capture and storage and clean coal. Carbon capture and storage demonstration projects will support the development of industrial scale use of carbon capture and storage technology in Australia. There should be no doubt about the commitment of this government to using infrastructure funding, economic stimulus funding, for this kind of purpose.
The budget also contains renewable energy projects, which includes $1.5 billion for up to four large-scale solar electricity generation projects and $465 million to establish Renewables Australia, which is an independent body which is to be set up to support leading-edge renewable technology resources. Those two initiatives will help to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply will come from renewable energy by 2020. Concentration on building those renewable sources is a key part of a response to climate change. Those are initiatives that build on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, legislation for which is now being considered; the $500 million Renewable Energy Fund to develop, commercialise and deploy renewable energy in Australia; $150 million for solar and clean energy resources; and more than $500 million for the Solar Cities, National Solar Schools and Green Precincts initiatives.
It would seem from the response of those opposite—as indeed it would seem from their response to the budget as a whole—that they are unable to consider the full economic context in which this bill and the budget measures as a whole have been framed. Those opposite, it seems, cannot lift their eyes beyond the government benches, where they would like to be. They cannot look beyond this House to the wider world—indeed, to beyond our shores—where there is a global economic crisis occurring that is affecting the Australian economy and will continue to affect the Australian economy. The government is engaging in prompt and decisive action on the effects of the global economic crisis on Australia. This bill is part of that response. I commend the bill to the House.
I was very pleased to be able to listen to the speech of the previous speaker. He is an intelligent observer and an intelligent member of parliament, and I think he is very conscientious as well. But he has said that the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 will mean less time wasted in cars, that car-idling time will be saved, that there will be more of a free flow of information via the broadband, that there will be swimming pools, that there will be more space in our classrooms, that there will be better traffic flows in outer Melbourne and that there will be more port facilities for exported manufactured goods. I am rather curious to know what manufactured goods we export and what we would have in the past.
Clearly we cannot compete against cheap labour in a lot of the Asian countries. They still have very cheap labour. They have economies of scale that we can only dream of. They have captive home markets, through tariffs, of hundreds of millions of people. We have no captive home markets. We have no tariffs. But, even if we did, we only have 20 million people. So we have no economies of scale. They have government-provided capital. If they want to build a factory, the government provides them with the money to build it. We have got none of those things. We cannot possibly compete in manufacturing. To say that you want to expand a port for manufactured items is quite ridiculous.
To give you specifics on my contention, I can talk about the motor vehicle industry. Seventy-two per cent of the motor vehicles purchased in Australia were Australian made in 1984, before that ratbag Mr Keating introduced his free markets. It was not a ratbag idea but it was a ratbag idea when nobody else in the world was doing it. It was an incredibly disastrous move when nobody else in the world was doing it. But he could not be told, he would not listen to reason and he would not look at reality. So now we have only 19 per cent—I have not got the latest figures but two years ago only 19 per cent of the cars purchased in Australia were Australian made. Over the next 10 years, on present trends, it will only be five per cent. So I do not know why you are expanding the port down there. The Liberals told me when they were building the railway line through the centre of Australia that it was going to cut the cost of imports dramatically. I said, ‘Oh, it’s a subsidy for imports,’ and no-one at the table laughed. It was quite extraordinary to me. I thought it was quite a good joke. But nobody laughed. They took it quite seriously. Was the previous speaker erudite? Yes. Intelligent? Yes. Conscientious? Yes.
I turn to the issue of green jobs. You must understand that if you want solar power—and I am not saying it is not a desirable social or environmental aspiration—you will be less competitive and all of your industries will be running on an extra handicap. Not only do we not have the cheap labour, not only do we not have the economies of scale and not only do we not have government investment but now we are asking them to run on a handicap. Let me be very specific. I was the Minister for Mines and Energy in Queensland and I secured the national prize for science in 1985 or 1986. As the minister, I personally won the national prize for science for the solar energy that we put into the first standalone system in the world on Coconut Island. So I speak with some considerable authority in these areas. I had a $30 million decision to make, which in terms of today’s money would be probably the best part of $100 million, in electrifying the Torres Strait islands. In that situation it is cheaper, on an isolated island in the Torres Strait, to put in solar power. But $140 to $200 a megawatt is the cost of solar or wind power. The cost to grid system power is $40. If you want to render every single industry in this country non-competitive, then go down that pathway. We have people who stand up here and say, ‘Oh, we will have 20 per cent renewables; isn’t that wonderful and marvellous?’ Yes, it is, but you just put the job of every single person in this country at risk. This is because you have made their industry—whether it is manufacturing, mining or agriculture—less competitive. You have put another handicap on the runners here in our country. Just how much burden do you think they can carry before they fall over? Look at the car industry and look at the agricultural industries of Australia and you will see that the last government, and the government before it, placed such a burden upon our industries that they are now falling over.
It is no use the opposition coming in here and saying what remarkably wonderful economic performers they were. Yes, they balanced the government budget, and they deserve credit for that, but did they balance the country’s budget? No, it was the most unbalanced budget in Australian history. The current account deficit was running at levels that simply could not be comprehended by anyone that had followed Australian economic history for any period of time.
The previous speaker, the member for Isaacs, also commented upon that fact. It troubles me deeply that the opposition is constantly attacking the government for spending money and deficit budgeting. I do not know whether these people are economically illiterate, but let me just compare three countries: Canada, New Zealand and Australia—dummies. The colonial pock marks were flashing in neon lights in 1932. Hjalmar Schacht took the Germans on an expansionary policy, John Maynard Keynes took Great Britain on an expansionary policy and Shikata, the Japanese economist, took Japan on an expansionary monetary policy. America, belatedly, went on an expansionary policy. The only three countries on earth that did not—the three dummy countries—were Canada, New Zealand and Australia. You can go down to the library and get any of the books out on the Depression and look at the graphs for those three countries.
The last speaker said that they are advocating exactly the same policies that they advocated in 1932. That is correct. It is really scary. They have learned absolutely nothing. They plunged Australia into the worst possible depression on earth. There is not another country in the world where anyone is advocating deflationary or non-spending policies. If the opposition were concentrating their attack upon the government and this nation-building amendment, as a government you have really got a hide to call this ‘nation building’. Building bikeways and putting insulation vats into your roof is not nation building. It is anything but nation building.
I have just done a series of interviews with the media—I do not know how much media we get out of these things—and I have said that if you want to see whether this is a nation-building budget look no further than the allocation of money for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. That is a nation-building department, a producer department. It has been reduced from $3,000 million down to $2,000 million. On the other hand, an anti-nation-building department is the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, whose job it is to stop us from building anything in this nation. I can give you a thousand examples from my own backyard without drawing breath. The department that stops things from happening—and, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be an expert in this area—has had its budget increased from $4,500 million to $6,000 million. So we have a budget and an amendment in the House touted as nation building which increases the money for the anti-nation-building portfolios and decreases it for the nation-building portfolios. This is Nineteen Eighty-Four—the brave new world is with us. If ever there was a case of doublespeak, it has to be calling this ‘nation building’.
It behoves me to point out to the House what nation building is, because clearly the opposition have no understanding of it whatsoever. In 13 years they never did one single dollar of nation building. The government have been there now for half their term, 18 months, and they have clearly demonstrated in this budget and in this amendment before the House that they simply do not understand what nation building is. I will tell you what it is. Nation building is Ted Theodore, the most important man in Australian history, using government money to build all of the sugar mills in Australia. They were almost all built with government money. That is nation building. There are 40,000 Australians employed in those sugar mills today as a result of the great wisdom and perspicacity of that one man and his enlightened governments, the early Labor governments of the last century.
Ben Chifley—probably the greatest Prime Minister we have had in this country, excluding Jack McEwen, because he was there for only a brief period—built the Holden motor car factory with government money. It was not GMH money; it was government money. That was nation building. That factory is still there today employing 5,000 or 6,000 Australians. It is still making most of the cars produced in Australia.
The building of the Snowy Mountains hydro, which is producing cheap, clean energy for Australia—and will do so forever—was built by Ben Chifley and government money. Governments do not build power stations in Australia any more. If you ask commerce to build a power station, it will build a power station where it has customers. There were no customers for the Snowy. It was built in the hope that customers would come. Massive areas came under irrigation. The great agricultural juggernaut of Australia took off with the diversion of those waters providing secure water supply to all the farmers along the Murray River. The vast bulk of Australia’s agricultural production comes from that area and security of production was provided by water from the Snowy. It was all government money, but in the last 22 years we have not built a dam in Australia—not one single dam. Not one single factory of any significance has been built with government money in this country.
When I was a young man, just elected to parliament, the government of Queensland was in the process of building a giant power station that did not have a single customer. Not one single megawatt of that 1,400 megawatts of electricity had a customer. Queensland built a giant railway line to a little siding called Blackwater. There was not one single mine out there to service that railway line. That would be unthinkable today. People would expect private enterprise to build it. In that day and age, governments built them because they had confidence in our country. That was nation building. As a result of that giant power station and that giant railway line, Australia today has a coal industry and an aluminium industry.
And a steel industry.
That is a very good contribution from the honourable member, who knows this well. The steel industry is there because the federal government of the day, under John Button—who was sacked really for what he did here, I might add—put some $500 million behind John Prescott and his initiatives in conjunction with the steel industry of Australia and made us the most competitive steel industry in the world. They took us from 70 tonne per man per year not to the world’s best of 240 but to 700 tonne per man per year. That is how efficient that industry was under the enlightened government. That is nation building but there is nothing in this budget. The member for Isaacs went through it all. There is solar and wind power—that is very nice, it will help the environment. I am not condemning it; I am just saying do not call it nation building. It is a lie to call that nation building. Do not say that green jobs are nation building. That is nation destruction. That will take jobs away. If you demand that we do it this way when the electricity costs are going to be $200 instead of $40 a megawatt, you will be closing industries all over Australia—if you proceed down that path, which the government seems determined to do.
And sure, it is nice to have bigger classrooms for our kids—although, when we are having fewer kids, I would wonder about the wisdom of going in that direction. It is nice to have swimming pools, it is nice to cut our traffic flow times in the cities—those are all nice things, but do not call them nation building. They are not nation building.
Let me tell you what nation building is. Nation building is just providing approval for us to build a dam where all the water is in Australia. Three-quarters of our water is in the north of the continent which, except for a tiny belt of sugar cane on the coast, produces virtually no agricultural production. We are trying to do all the agricultural production down south where there is no water. This is extraordinary. Just give us an approval for 120,000 hectares of irrigation and let us be nice to the greenies and the environment because it will be producing ethanol. As Mr Gore said in his book An inconvenient truth, his first solution is ethanol. He said it reduces CO2 by 29 per cent. Sugar cane does not reduce CO2 by 29 per cent; it reduces it by 194 per cent because we do not plough. We do not put the steel through the ground or we do it once every six years. Unlike growing corn where you have to put the steel through the ground four or five times a year, with sugar cane we put it through once every five or six years. So the benefit for the environment is ginormous here—ginormous!
Just as good, the bagasse—what is left after you take the sugar out and turn it into ethanol—is then burnt to produce power. We can produce 25 per cent of North Queensland’s power and about four per cent of Australia’s power, which would be clean renewable energy. Bagasse is like ethanol—you burn it, CO2 goes up, but the next year every hectare of sugar cane pulls 73 tonne of CO2 back down out of the atmosphere and into the ground. So instead of it going up and staying there, it is now going around in a circle and that is what we mean when we talk about renewables.
Just give us the approval because the project will pay for itself. It would be nice to give us some of the superannuation money and to give us 10 per cent ethanol in our petrol, instead of what the last government did which was to give us a tax on ethanol, and Australia is the only country in the world to tax ethanol. We can do this one ourselves. Just give us the approval.
Probably everyone in this chamber would be familiar with Joe Gutnick. He is a very prominent man in industry and commerce in Australia. He wants to build a phosphate mine with money from India. India has a huge population to feed. They must fertilise their fields every year. They do not particularly like the Americans; they do not buy fertiliser from the Americans. They most certainly will not buy it—for religious and conflict reasons—from the Moslem or Arabic countries. They buy most of it from Russia at the moment but they are going to buy it from Australia. They are going to buy it from their own mine, which Joe Gutnick is setting up here in Australia. That is where they will get their superphosphate from.
Even if dumb government does not force them to do some upgrading in Australia—even if that does not happen—we will still probably get $3,000 million a year out of this project. If it is done the way that I would like to see it done, with a third of that being forced to be processed here in Australia, we will get $5,000 million a year. But that mine cannot go ahead without increasing rail capacity through an upgrading of the line from Mount Isa back to Townsville, and it cannot be done without north-west Queensland—the biggest mineral province on earth, producing $15,000 million a year—getting electricity capacity.
What we say is: ‘Give us that transmission line and we will give you an extra $5,000 million a year in income for the Australian economy. Give us that rail capacity’—and both these things will cost no more than $200 million or $300 million—’and we will give you $5,000 million a year in income for the Australian economy. That will give you back in taxation revenue $1,500 million a year, at the very least.’ That is the sort of logic used by the great men of Australian history—the men whose pictures we have up on our walls, like Theodore, Ben Chifley, Jack McEwen and Bjelke-Petersen. Those were great men who created the wealth that we enjoy here in Australia today. (Time expired)
It is always a difficult challenge to follow the member for Kennedy. There is much in what he said that I share concern about, and I am pleased that the member for Kennedy, like the member for Throsby, has in mind other major important national infrastructure projects that we hope one day will see the light of day. But at this point of time we are debating the commitments that the government made in terms of giving priority to the major national projects that have been recommended by an independent statutory authority.
I think the member for Isaacs was right about this debate on this bill: we have to consider the economic context in which these commitments are being made. And shame on the opposition for their huge emphasis on the issue of debt rather than understanding that the nation needs major productive investment in infrastructure to address precisely the impact of the recession on our nation. We are not immune from it. And, very importantly for regions like mine that are very reliant on the trade exposed sectors—particularly in coal and steel—those impacts are being very severely felt. This government’s main objective, as has been stated repeatedly, is to do whatever we can to protect the jobs of today while building the productive capacity of the nation’s economy into the future—a task which was beyond the wit of the Howard government for the 12 years that it was in office.
Very importantly, the government has made a substantial investment as part of the long and proud history of Labor governments investing in important nation-building projects. This bill gives effect to the commitment that was announced by the Treasurer last night. I certainly beg to differ with the member for Kennedy; of course you have to describe it as nation building, because the $22 billion has been allocated to build the transport, communications, energy, education and health infrastructure that this nation desperately needs to ensure a healthy and vibrant economy into the future.
It was because the former Howard government was asleep at the wheel—and did nothing in a fundamentally important way to tackle the constraints on economic growth that were so obvious in all the bottlenecks around the nation—that we moved very quickly, through the infrastructure minister, to think about planning, financing and building vital economic infrastructure for our nation. I think it was one of the greatest achievements in the early days of our government to introduce the legislation to create the independent statutory authority, Infrastructure Australia. That legislation was presented to this parliament in our first 100 days. And I think it is a great achievement that in a very short period of historic time—12 months or so—Infrastructure Australia has undertaken the first ever economic audit of the nation’s key economic infrastructure.
Last night we saw the end result of an assessment process that looked at more than 1,000 possible projects. The fact that 1,000 projects were submitted to Infrastructure Australia for consideration surely highlights the huge deficit in investment in infrastructure that we had under the former government. I am delighted that through our Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 we will give effect to very important infrastructure projects. There will be $4.6 billion invested in improving metropolitan rail networks in six major cities. I sat with the now Leader of the Opposition on the environment standing committee of the House of Representatives, and we produced a very important report called Sustainable Cities. We did not have the courtesy of a response from the Howard government to the recommendations in that report but I think everyone on that committee understood the importance of investment in public rail networks. And, finally, $4.6 billion will see six major cities being able to address the very important issue of rail networks. A further $3.4 billion will be invested in Australia’s busiest freight route—the links between Melbourne and Cairns—and key roads feeding into that national highway also get a substantial boost in the announced priorities of yesterday evening.
Three hundred and eighty-nine million dollars is allocated to lifting the export capacity in two of our ports—one in Western Australia and one in the Northern Territory. I was particularly interested because I think this is a critical element of nation building, and I was interested to the extent that my colleague the member for Cunningham has taken the lead in getting community support and an analysis of what we believe will be a very important rail freight link for the Illawarra region, known as the Maldon-Dombarton rail freight link. Of course, in the 12 years of the Howard government there was no mention of what we might do to expand the export capacity of the port at Port Kembla, nor any consideration of the important road and rail linkages that would need to be provided to ensure a bright future for that region and a meaningful economic investment. It was only this government, in the lead-up to the election, that committed itself to a prefeasibility study, which has been worked on. Like the member for Kennedy, we cannot have every project funded immediately, but my understanding is that Infrastructure Australia will continue to consider projects of national significance, and it is certainly our intention to do what we can to provide the arguments in support of projects that we believe will be of lasting benefit to the Illawarra region.
The member for Isaacs indicated in his contribution that we have to acknowledge that this is the third tranche of the government’s economic stimulus strategy, and my region has benefited enormously from the investments we have made to date. In the first round of the community infrastructure funds, the three local councils received $3.3 million for a range of infrastructure projects. In my electorate there were nine projects funded. On the boundaries of the Wollongong City Council and in the electorate of Throsby, there are important upgrades for Dapto plaza and for sporting facilities, with commitments to upgrade lighting at Reed Park and Darcy Wentworth Park. The Shellharbour local government area will receive almost $900 000, again for a very important community project, the Myimbarr Community Park. Seven projects in the Kiama local government area will be funded.
Last week we were very lucky to have the Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery come to announce even more funding—another $5.2 million for our region. Shellharbour City Council is receiving $2.3 million for a much overdue upgrade of the streetscape and the business centre at Albion Park, and the Wollongong City Council will get $2.9 million for the Blue Mile project. Although it is a little bit out of my area, let me say that even though the member for Gilmore, along with her colleagues, voted against our economic stimulus package I was pleased that she came to the announcement of $4 million for Shoalhaven City Council for a youth centre in Ulladulla dedicated to the memory of two young men from that area who tragically perished in the Bali bombings.
So in the order of $8.5 million has been provided and invested in local community infrastructure that will not only improve the amenity for the people that we represent but, very importantly, provide a stimulus for sustaining and wherever possible creating employment opportunities. On top of that, Illawarra has been designated as one of seven priority regions because of our high rates of unemployment, and already both the member for Cunningham and I have been meeting with a range of groups to progress further funding to address the unemployment issue. Some of those projects will no doubt be infrastructure projects that will be available under the announced jobs fund. So that is going to be very, very welcome.
On top of that, within this bill, there is the Education Investment Fund. I want to particularly mention the enormous contribution that the commitment to Building the Education Revolution is having in my electorate, as the member for Isaacs pointed out for his electorate too. Last night we were delighted to hear that the University of Wollongong was to receive $43.8 million for a state-of-the-art building for our renowned Institute for Innovative Materials in Wollongong. That comes on top of an earlier commitment of $38 million to build for this nation the first-ever tertiary institute known as the SMART Infrastructure Facility, which I think is going to be of enormous benefit, attracting academics under the one roof to focus on methodologies and the science of infrastructure development and funding. So one university alone in our region will receive $82 million in the space of a few months. I know from the vice-chancellor that last night’s announcement will immediately lead to about 200 jobs in the construction phase and probably 100 to 150 sustainable jobs, apart from attracting the brightest minds to our region with the prospect of commercialisation of the wonderful innovations and technologies that are being developed at the university.
For my local TAFE, the Shellharbour TAFE—good on you, folks—there is $6½ million. You are a great institute and we are going to develop a top rate children’s services facility at that campus. That is going to be of great benefit to school leavers in the Shellharbour area, where we suffer high rates of youth unemployment, because, as people would be aware, if you are undertaking a diploma course in children’s services the government will waive the state training fee. I could not be more happy about that.
This comes on top of almost $50 million that we have announced in the last couple of weeks for 23 schools—10 in my electorate, 13 in Cunningham; 23 schools—in those two electorates. That was for round 1, for 20 per cent of primary schools under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. I would imagine that somewhere in the order of $250 million all up will flow through rounds 2 and 3. So people need to realise that this investment in our university, in the Shellharbour TAFE last night and in our primary schools will, conservatively, inject $340 million into education infrastructure in the region of Illawarra that we represent. That is a huge investment. It is going to have a huge stimulus for local jobs, for local tradespeople, for local small businesses, for local suppliers, as well as leaving our schools in a state where they are better equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I want to place on record my acknowledgement of the enormous importance of that kind of stimulus through education that we are seeing in our region. It is interesting, the papers only think about infrastructure in terms of roads and railways. And yet if I had said last night $340 million for a local road, it would have been front-page news. While $340 million into education infrastructure probably does not register to the same extent, we should understand that investment in infrastructure under this government goes way beyond just the traditional notions of road and rail.
Finally, I want to also indicate that I am very pleased that, in the context of this bill, we are going to substantially increase our investment in the clean energy and renewable sector. As members would be aware, I represent a region that is heavily reliant on coal and steel, but do not underestimate the intelligence of people in those industries about the need for this nation to move to a carbon constrained future. Because of our manufacturing expertise in the Illawarra, we are going to be very well-placed as we move in that direction—that is, providing the know-how through our university and our technical skills and hopefully grow new orders for our steelworks, which will go to the heart of moving the economy into a more carbon constrained future and, with that, seizing the enormous opportunities that will come from the growth of the renewable energy sector. You cannot fail to recognise the enormous potential that is going to be created by the world moving in that direction, and we want to maximise the capacity for sustainable green jobs in our economy.
The Renewables Australia body will be at arm’s length from government and will be particularly focused on matters relating to the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energies. Let me just say, our university is doing wonderful things in solar technology, so they will be pleased to hear this announcement. It will give them some impetus to continue on in that work. We will invest in four new commercial scale solar flagship projects; the contribution that solar can make, among a raft of renewable technologies, is incredibly important. Very importantly for a region like Illawarra and other regions heavily reliant on coal, the commitment to the technological breakthrough in carbon capture and storage is very important. It is important to our nation’s economic wellbeing, it is important to our export trade and it is important for sustaining regional communities and regional employment. So I am very confident that we can protect the jobs of today, that we can begin to transform our industries so that they meet the challenges of a more carbon constrained future and that we can generate new green jobs into the future. The commitment to a 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020 is just the kind of impetus that sector needs.
In conclusion, full marks to the Treasurer, to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, to the Minister for Education and to the Deputy Prime Minister. Well done in showing the community that despite the worst downturn we have seen in 75 years, this government will not be deterred from investing in the infrastructure vital to Australia’s long-term economic prosperity. The former government was asleep at the wheel; this government is determined to ensure that the productive investment that underpins our prosperity and underpins jobs has become centre stage of this budget and our commitment into the future. I hope that, despite the negative commentary we heard this morning from the member for Goldstein, the coalition is sensible enough to understand that this package is all about supporting jobs at a time when that support is needed most, as well as boosting productivity in the longer term. I am enormously proud that our second budget builds on Labor’s proud tradition and proud history of nation building. I commend the bill to the House.
The opposition will not oppose this bill, but it will certainly open people’s eyes to what the bill is actually about. Those listening to the broadcast or reading Hansard could be forgiven for wondering just what the bill is supposed to be achieving. For the purposes of assisting the House, I remind people that this is not about many of the things that many people have talked about; this is actually a raid on the Education Investment Fund, taking money out of that fund and putting it into the clean energy initiative special account. That is essentially what this bill is about. The rest of the discussion and book-ending of that very simple proposition—using flowery rhetoric and bold ambition and post-it note politics that we have come to recognise from the Labor Party—have not disguised the fact that that is what the bill is about.
The bill is about taking that money, which is money that, just a year ago, we were told in this parliament was going to achieve all of the things that now it obviously does not need to achieve because there is some other way of going about it. It is quite a remarkable transformation in the rhetoric of the Labor Party, and it underlines the fact that this is a government with a plan for its own political interests but no plan for the country, no strategy for our nation, its economic recovery and its future prosperity, only a strategy to save its grubby political soul. That is all we see, and this is another example of it.
Let me illustrate that point. This bill takes funds out of the education infrastructure fund. The $2.5 billion that was credited to that fund under the 2007-08 budget surplus—a surplus built on Howard government economic management, a surplus that has given scope for the Rudd government to do many things that they would never have been able to do had they been at the helm of our economy—and was to have been transferred by 30 June this year is now going not to the education investment fund but to a new fund. The original and announcement that were made 12 months ago and then backed up by successive pronouncements by the Rudd government ministers were designed to recognise, and I quote from the Treasurer, ‘A strongly held conviction of the Rudd government that education is the engine room of a more productive, more modern economy.’ There is example after example of Rudd government ministers and the Prime Minister himself going on about just how crucial, just how fundamental, just how conviction-driven they were about the education investment fund being the engine room for a more productive, more modern economy.
What we are seeing in this bill is money coming out of the fund that was supposed to be the engine room for a more productive, more modern economy, the main vehicle for turning around the economic fortunes of the country, or so the Rudd government said less than a year ago. That money has now been pinched and it is going into something else. Why would that be? Could it be that, maybe, the rhetoric was a tad overblown, that the plan was not clear? The powerful words, ‘The education investment fund would be the horsepower in the engine room for a more productive, more modern economy,’ are what we were told. The Treasurer said that in May last year, successive ministers went on about it throughout the last quarter of 2008, and you even saw some of those themes recurring over and over again in the political line of the Labor Party.
Obviously that is not the case anymore because the money is going, it is getting pinched and not going to that purpose. It is no longer the engine room of a more productive, more modern economy. That is not what the education investment fund is about, as the money going to it actually presents a different picture. There is now another purpose. You have heard Labor members in this place talk about a whole range of other things that that money would be spent on to achieve that purpose.
What are we to take from that? Are we to take it that there is not great coherence in the Rudd government economic strategy? I think we can. How can something be so profoundly true, accurate and insightful—and shouted from the rooftops of this parliament and from any stump that Rudd government ministers could get on—a year ago and yet not be now? I think it highlights the fact that the Rudd government do not have a coherent economic strategy. Their tactics are to keep announcing new things so that there is never any analysis, never any reflection, never any assessment of just whether the words actually mean anything and whether the actions follow up this soaring rhetoric. This is further evidence that Labor can talk a good game but cannot manage the economy.
If we needed any more stark evidence of that, last night’s budget gives Australia a very, very open-eyed look at just what kind of government we have at the moment. Last night’s budget takes Australia from being alert and anxious about the Rudd government’s economic competence and their ability to manage our nation’s finances to being genuinely and justifiably alarmed—so frightened that the Treasurer tried on an old television ‘time to look away’ warning so that viewers who may have found some of the images disturbing or some of what is really going on in the budget profoundly distressing had time, a chance, an opportunity to look the other way. Treasurer Swan’s ‘look away’ try-on was to not even mention the actual financial position and operating outcome for the nation’s budget in a budget speech—isn’t that the point? Don’t you present budgets to inform stakeholders of the financial position and performance at the end of the year, of what the bottom line outcome is? Apparently, in every other effort or enterprise on the face of the planet you do that, but not in the Rudd Labor government—you talk about everything else around the financial position and operating outcome except the consequences of the Rudd government’s tax and spend binge.
For those people who listened to the budget speech last night from Treasurer Swan and were wondering what the net outcome was, let me provide some insights. The budget reveals the high price, as our shadow Treasurer said, that all Australians will pay for the reckless spending by the Rudd Labor government over the past 18 months—those fundamental economic indicators of performance, the statement of our financial position, the consequences of our actions as a nation, overseen by the Rudd government. We will see one million unemployed by 2010-11, a record $58 billion deficit and a record net debt of at least $188 billion by 2012-13. They are the key metrics about economic management and budget performance, but you would not have heard them last night as Treasurer Swan did his ‘look away’ routine.
Part of that ‘look away’ routine is what this bill aims to do here, with the government shifting money around after having earned and pursued the political benefits of the Education Innovation Fund, after having made all the rhetorical statements and put the post-it notes up saying: ‘Isn’t the Rudd government clever? We are going to invest in education infrastructure because’—as they said over and over again—’that’s the engine room of a more productive, more modern economy.’ They made that claim, they created that impression with the public and then they went and shifted the money.
This is not like your pea-and-cup routine where the trickster tries to make it seem like there is no pea under any cup. This is the Rudd government’s pea-and-cup routine where the trickster, the Treasurer, makes it seem like there is a pea under every cup when really there is not. This is what we are seeing through this budget and this is what we are seeing through this bill, shifting money out of something supposedly aimed at achieving a ‘more productive, more modern economy’—and that is a quote from the Treasurer—and into something else that now is obviously more fashionable, more funky, more spunky. That is what we are seeing from this government.
There are funds going into the newly created special account for the Clean Energy Initiative, although it is not clear at this stage how that will work out. There is so little information available and the information that is available, as the shadow minister pointed out, suggests a rather interesting governance arrangement, where education experts will have some oversight role on the Clean Energy Initiative. I trust that that was an error in the budget papers and that it will be remedied at some point.
The opposition is not opposing this bill but opening everybody’s eyes to what is going on, to the need to recognise that we are in a difficult situation, largely created by the Rudd government, that will be with us for some time to come. I tried to alert people to this in early February. Remember that debate we had all night, when we were looking at spending $42 billion and we had 48 hours to discuss it—an amount of money that was greater than the entire budget of the state of Victoria? I was fortunate to speak a little after 1 am in the morning. I tried to caution people about the risks of sleepwalking into a poorly designed, irresponsible and unsustainable package dreamt up by a panicked government, where the only certain outcome of those actions was waking up to the nightmare of decades of excessive debt and deficit. Sadly, this is what we are facing. At a time when we should be working to ensure our nation is making wise choices, the right choices, in the face of the current global economic challenges, we are getting this post-it-note politics from the ALP, where they talk about initiatives and plans and get press statements out there but do not have the sound public policy to see the implementation completed and the outcomes that they talk about delivered for the country.
What we are seeing is the Howard government legacy of surpluses and savings being grabbed in both hands by the Labor Party. Despite their opposition to every budget restoration and fiscal strengthening action that was pursued by the coalition, the Rudd Labor government are grabbing the fruits of sound economic management, delivered by the Howard government, with both hands and swallowing them whole as part of Labor’s reckless spending spree. What we are seeing is the Howard government gift of surplus and savings transformed into the same old story: a Labor legacy of debt and deficit. That is what we are seeing here.
To a great extent, it was highlighted in some very insightful writings today by Lenore Taylor. She was quite perceptive in identifying that the so-called centrepiece of the Rudd budget—a big-ticket spend on infrastructure—is actually funding squirrelled away from the budget surplus created by the Howard government policy settings and repackaged. As she described it, it has had a makeover—it is like last year’s dress with new buttons and bows on it. She described how some of this nation-building infrastructure spending is not the amount that has been talked about by Labor members of parliament and Rudd government ministers, because some of it goes well beyond the four years of forward estimates. I highlighted in my earlier remarks how the assertion, the conviction, that the education innovation fund would be the engine room of a more productive and modern economy did not last 12 months because that fund is being raided.
You wonder how deep these convictions are when we are talking about budget measures that are way outside the forward estimates of the budget. Some of them will not be brought to bear for some elections to come. You wonder how many of these things will actually be delivered when a key hallmark of the Rudd government’s in its first budget was that it did not implement what was in the budget. The government will not actually be held accountable because it does not do those things; it quickly moves on to announce something new. As the media falls over itself to stay current and relevant and report the news of the day, there is no analysis of the announcements of yesterday or, if you aggregate all these media stunts and post-it-note-politicking ideas, an assessment of whether they actually amount to anything. We are still not sure.
Lenore Taylor identified where that money had come from: more than half of it was a direct result of Howard government actions, many of which were opposed by Labor in opposition, and the rest of it came from a budget surplus on Howard government budget settings. Those Howard government budget settings are interesting. My colleague and neighbour, the member for Isaacs, sought to assure the parliament that the Rudd government is pursuing a coherent economic strategy, despite the complete lack of evidence to back that up. He is a very learned lawyer and I would never profess to have his sharp legal mind, but a simple assertion does not make it a proven point.
So coherent is that strategy that we have been hearing about how the investment in infrastructure to increase capacity is what this budget is about and yet, when we look into it, we see a different story. So coherent is the Rudd government’s economic strategy that we were told we needed to tackle the inflation genie and that it was running amok, and you saw the Prime Minister and the Treasurer shirtfront the Reserve Bank and tell them how they had to put up interest rates to mug our economy—so risky was the inflation genie escaping the bottle. Mug the economy they did, and now we are wearing the consequences of that reckless politically inspired action.
The Deputy PM sought to pat herself on the back in international fora about the strength of our economy and our banking system and how reforms put in place were delivering that. Those reforms were implemented by the Howard government, only to be confronted by a juvenile and shrill attack on neoliberalism as if this were an unregulated jungle, when everyone I talk to points out that there is quite a degree of regulation in Australia and the United States—those terrible neoliberal economies that have been overseen by governments of all political persuasions! So coherent is the strategy that the Treasurer recognised the strength of the financial position he had inherited from the Howard government and how that gave him a very strong foundation—in one of his more measured moments, he was ready to acknowledge that point—and now, apparently, all the woes that he faces are a consequence of those same policy settings that he endorsed just a few months earlier. We talked about the education innovation fund. I have talked about the lack of coherence and how conviction-driven the government was on it being the engine room of a more productive and more modern economy, yet we are now seeing that very fund raided to apply money in other areas.
The member for Throsby made, I suppose, a gutsy effort to defend the Rudd government’s infrastructure credentials. She talked about transport, and rattled off a range of projects. I actually thought that she was talking about the next bill that will be debated, which was introduced just this morning, the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009. Amongst a range of things that bill actually seeks to re-badge projects done under the previous government in order to give them a new tag so that the current government can claim them. You can understand that to an extent because AusLink has been downgraded. Those road and rail investments under the coalition would have been $31 billion over five years, but under Labor it will be $26 billion over six years. So you can see why there is a need for re-badging to try to maintain this fiction that, in transport, Labor is somehow doing something quite remarkable when in fact it is actually performing at a far lesser standard than the previous government.
We heard about communications and Labor’s credentials there. They put up a Mugabe-esque tender process that, understandably, ended in shambles and hardship. Where the telecommunications industries and organisations of the world cannot do it we will have Ruddcom. There is no proposition about how to finance that, and in fact the only direct financial contribution is less than the amount that was put aside by the Howard government to make sure that the digital divide did not punish rural and regional areas. That communications fund was raided as well. For a bold plan where the economic case would be—you would have room left on an envelope even if you wrote it in crayon. So detailed and rigorous is the analytical process that, going out and selling that to people to invest in, if a private sector person did it they would probably be locked up. That is what we have got as a communications vision.
I want to turn now to energy infrastructure. I am very interested and keen to learn more about what will happen with the Clean Energy Initiative. It sounds as though it has the right flavour, but, again, the execution will be everything. What really must have amazed people is how the discussion then shifted to Infrastructure Australia, to how this independent statutory authority pored over these 1,000, I think, proposals to spend money on infrastructure and how central and crucial their role is, yet in the communications infrastructure spend they are frozen out. They are not even allowed to participate. On energy infrastructure we have no oversight indicated in the material available from Infrastructure Australia, and even though it is ‘energy’ infrastructure we have some suggestion that people from the education sector will have an oversight. Then we have in the budget announcements, which are said to be ticked off, endorsed and advocated by Infrastructure Australia, no mention of the ones that Infrastructure Australia recommended; they did not appear. There is no clarity about that. There is no transparency. So much for a coherent strategy! All we know from this government is that this nation is on a pathway to debt and deficit that will cruel us and our prospects into the future for not only this generation but some generations to come. We need to be focused on getting a proper strategy in place. (Time expired)
I rise to follow the shadow minister. The issues he related to over the period of his contribution were expansive, and I congratulate him for covering so many areas that we would all like to cover. The Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 is required to give effect to the infrastructure spending in the government’s budget announced last evening. It is intended to redirect the $2.5 billion that was set aside for the EIF to the Clean Energy Initiative, announced in the budget. I am told, and we are led to believe, that will encourage further research and innovation in clean energy generation and low-emission technologies.
I wonder exactly just how relevant and reflective that will be in delivering job creation projects across Australia. When I say, ‘delivering job creation projects across Australia’, I primarily would like to speak about the opportunities lost in this budget to deliver job creation across rural and regional Australia. Whilst other speakers have covered a whole host of issues, and I have listened very carefully to them, I too would like to cover issues I see as being important and which may have been overlooked. If they were overlooked, as per the infrastructure needs of regional areas, then we can pretty much guarantee that those regional areas will be overlooked even when these funds are directed away from one fund and into another clean energy fund. I know there are many projects out there involving clean energy initiatives, and I am hopeful that they will be looked at on merit rather than in relation to the electoral value they might have in a particular member’s seat at the time.
I have had concerns generally about infrastructure requirements in regional Australia since the announcement of the $22 billion so-called Building Infrastructure Fund. The previous government had the same fund, and in fact had more money in their fund than the current government has in its fund. When the Rudd government took this fund forward and looked at the projects, they developed a bureaucracy to determine how the investments put up for funding would create jobs and provide sustainability and economic growth—all of those good things that you require in order to kick-start the country and to assist in getting us through some of the challenges we have.
I looked at the Infrastructure Australia list of projects on the website. I wanted to see where projects in my electorate sat and whether or not there was a clear understanding of the jobs that would have been created in the region if any the projects had received support. Wagga Wagga is the largest inland city in New South Wales and it is a major hub in my electorate. Many of the services are in that one area, and there is a hub-and-spoke effect out to the regional communities that it supports and assists. A lot of employment opportunities emanate out of those areas and they support infrastructure right across the electorate.
I have some very proactive councils. There is an intercouncil agreement between Albury City Council, Griffith City Council and Wagga Wagga City Council. They have come together not to compete with each other but to be formidable regional promoters and to position themselves clearly as a region that is relevant to the nation’s future. When I looked at the Wagga Wagga project and the Griffith City Council project—and they came out of the three regional cities combination—I saw the Bomen rail and road intermodal hub. It would be an excellent project. It was costed out. The application went to Infrastructure Australia. Wagga Wagga City Council costed out their involvement in that project. It would be a $30 million project. Wagga Wagga City Council were looking at putting in almost $4 million. That rail-road intermodal hub would most have created significant numbers of jobs and ensured that we got product to port in the most effective way possible. Then you could have started to build distribution centres right in rural and regional Australia.
There was also the Ross Road project in Griffith. The last government said it would provide $10 million for the Ross Road development project. Yes, it was an election promise and, no, we were not elected. But, of course, I will still pursue that project because it would be valuable and deserves funding. I looked at what that project would do in the heart of the MIA, where there is the most extensive horticulture production area. There are major industries—De Bortoli and Cassella wineries—that have significant exports. There is SunRice, which up until the drought years was the largest exporter from the port of Melbourne. You have to have essential infrastructure to create jobs, solve production issues and make us efficient and effective at what we do. These projects went to Infrastructure Australia and missed out, as many other thousands of projects across Australia did. I recognise that. But I am concerned about the electorate that I represent, and I know the disappointment that many people would have felt at this budget. Knowing that it was a tough budget, we all understood that not everybody could get funded.
I was most disappointed about this. I looked at two rail projects. One would have got B-doubles out of the main street. There are 150 B-double vehicle movements per day in the CBD. That was a project proposed for Griffith. It stands to reason that in such a high productive area we needed to solve this massive safety problem and efficiency problem. There would be efficiencies gained with the Bomen rail-road intermodal hub. It would be situated directly on the Sydney to Melbourne rail line. There is already an industrial park. It is focused on environmentally sustainable industry. It has biofuels. It has best-practice industrial development. It has Vinidex, which is a magnificent, environmentally friendly company that turns waste into active and productive reusable products. It is a tremendous, large-scale industrial park that is primarily focused on environmentally friendly outcomes. It desperately needs that rail corridor and intermodal status.
I looked at what was funded in the budget and at the regional rail express. I congratulate those on the Werribee to Sunshine, Victoria, rail line project. Obviously it was something that they wanted. But when I looked at what the project involved—that is, extension of platforms, other capital works to enable eight-car trains to operate on the Geelong and Bacchus Marsh lines, a new station, duplication of existing tracks et cetera—I wondered what the correlation in jobs, outcome, production et cetera on such a massive spend in that area would be. As I said, I am not complaining about that, because everyone deserves their own funding, but most of this funding has gone to urban and metropolitan projects. I found that really disappointing in the rail infrastructure program.
Then I looked at the Wagga Wagga Airport expansion. We have a significant airport that is looking at expanding. We would like to include a business centre at the Wagga Wagga Airport and build a centre of national aviation significance out there. That would all be to capture jobs. It would back onto private investment. It would back onto the investment by Regional Express Airlines whose heart is in the country, whose home is in Wagga Wagga and who has ports elsewhere across Australia. They have invested a huge amount of their own dollars to have a pilot training centre at the airport. When you have people coming in with private investment looking to build the centre, to build aviation credibility, to solve the shortage of pilots across Australia et cetera and you see that private money stacked up time and time again, you would think that the government would want to develop and assist those communities in rural and regional Australia to be relevant in future Australian growth and prosperity.
I was sitting here in the House last night looking at the Brisbane inner city rail feasibility study and the works in Perth in Western Australia and I wondered: when do rural and regional people ever get recognised? When does our relevance ever come to the fore? I am concerned about the way in which the money is being allocated. I was concerned to read an article by Adele Ferguson in the Australian today. She alludes to the fact that, after going through thousands of projects, Infrastructure Australia, which is headed by Rod Eddington, had identified a list of 100 projects. That article in the Australian today states:
To that end, IA identified a list of 100 projects in December with a view to creating a short list of priority projects in time for the budget. The deal was that the Government would take IA’s advice seriously, rather than do what politicians usually do—spend the money on projects that run through certain electorates—
and everyone is guilty of that. It continues:
The global financial crisis was always going to put the squeeze on the Government’s nation-building plan. That’s why it is surprising that the Government has ignored some of IA’s priority projects to do its own thing.
She goes on to say that the $488 million Bruce Highway project in Queensland and the $339 million port project in Western Australia are two projects that failed IA’s short list. They did appear on IA’s other list, but they certainly did not make the short list. Exactly what is taking place when these projects are being determined? These properly costed proposals from rural and regional areas that demonstrate the job creation capacity, the future nation-building capacity, how it will serve the nation and how it will position regional Australia to be relevant in the nation’s future just got passed over. This is terribly concerning.
I am confused by having this bill come up today that clearly focuses on just moving one fund to another to focus on this clean energy initiative. I do wonder—and I am very sceptical—how much of the funding in this bill will filter out to rural and regional Australia, will actually deliver benefits to those people who are also entitled to share in the nation-building programs. I am concerned and really disappointed to say that I can hardly see in this budget any sharing with rural and regional areas, not just in my electorate but in many other electorates as well. That will not stop us as members from trying to get our share of recognition. We will always keep coming back for more. We are always going to ask for more—I am certainly always going to ask for more. I can tell that many members on the other side of the House will also be back to ask for funding for the good projects in their electorates that could have been funded this time but did not get funded. I am sure they will come back for more for rural and regional areas as well.
Long hail and let us rail for rural and regional Australia. We are relevant in the scheme of things. We need to have the support of every agency, department and decision maker possible. We should not have to constantly overcome hurdles; we should have projects that can assist us to be relevant in this nation’s future building.
I congratulate the member for Riverina on her contribution, a lot of which I identify with and I am sure many other country members would as well. I know exactly the point that she was making about the political decision-making process and how from time to time it does not take an objective path, it takes a political path. I am well aware of that on a personal level, as the previous government often used a political agenda within my seat. I congratulate the member for Riverina on the way in which she represents her people.
Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin, I am pleased to see that you are in the chair because, if I could move outside the bounds of the Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 for a few seconds, I would like to congratulate you on the role that you recently played in relation to obtaining funding for a very worthy group called Youth Insearch. If we are talking about nation building, youth are particularly important in relation to any nation that is developed long term. As you are well aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Youth Insearch program works with troubled youth. As a magistrate friend of mine said one day: ‘These aren’t the captains of the schools that we are dealing with. These are the young people that I’ll be locking up next time.’ This particular program, out of all the programs that I have had any association with in my time in politics, is one that is incredibly effective. So I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your role in this. I know many members of parliament were arguing the cause of Youth Insearch and I would particular like to thank the Prime Minister for his role in this as well. Our young people are critically important in any nation that we attempt to build.
The particular piece of legislation we are debating is about nation building. I was not here in the chamber to support him but I listened with interest to the member for Kennedy when he made his contribution, and a very good contribution I thought it was too. He went to the definition of what nation building is essentially about. Whilst it is very rare that I would disagree with the member for Kennedy—partly because of safety reasons!—there are a couple of things on which I would take issue with my Independent colleague. I am not so much arguing against what he was saying—I thought the points he was making were very valid; I am just not sure about the conclusion he arrived at in relation to the shifting of these funds from one bucket to another, from the education area into the clean energy area. I am not quite sure that the two things he was talking about, the need to nation build and his definition of nation building, actually rule out the potential for the transfer of this money to become a very important part of the future of this nation—and I am referring to clean energy.
The member for Kennedy made the valid point that government invested in the major sugar mills in Queensland many years ago, and I think he said that something like 40,000 people were employed because of that government investment. In his mind, that was nation building. He made the point—and a very valid one—that the Snowy Mountains Scheme was built as part of a nation-building scheme even though there were no major users of electricity in that particular area. He also made the point: ‘Build it and they will come.’ The energy they were producing was clean energy and still is clean energy and will go on forever if the maintenance is correctly done and if government does not sell it out to private enterprise, as the former government attempted to do. I would hope that this government would not go down that road, particularly when the issue was about maintenance of turbines rather than about any commercial advantage that could be obtained further down the track.
In relation to the sugar mills, the member for Kennedy mentioned, as I said, that the government built those sugar mills and now we have a viable sugar industry. Part of the reason we have a viable sugar industry in Australia now is because of clean energy. The Brazilians, the Argentineans and others in different parts of the world have moved into biofuels. So some of the competitor nations that were producing sugar at a much cheaper cost than we could produce it, and putting enormous pressure on the very important industry that the member for Kennedy spoke about, have shifted into the energy business from the sugar business, because there was a surplus in the world. That has removed some of the supply pressure on the global market and, as a consequence, our sugar industry is much more viable than it was even a few short years ago. I know there are some indirect allegations in relation to that, but there is no doubt in my mind that the development of the biofuels industry, a clean industry, has had a positive impact on the viability of other industries within this country.
The point I would make to the member for Kennedy, and to others, is that the development of clean energy will almost by definition have to be located in country areas. This could be a way of creating that nation building by creating new businesses in country areas. They may or may not be based on agriculture—in some cases they would be; in other cases they would not be—but most of them would have to be in country locations, so in some senses we may well be able to value add to some of the clean energy business alternatives that are out there. Obviously, solar energy is one for which governments in this country have done very little. Even though this is a start, I think we have to encourage the start and hope that this government is serious about promoting research and development on solar energy. Previous governments have not been; on this government, the jury is out. Wind and geothermal are mentioned in the budget, and this particular amendment bill refers to the transfer of money into those areas.
Second-generation biofuels are also mentioned in the budget documents. For those who do not know, that is the production of biofuels from cellulose, not from grain based biofuels, which some people in this House agree with and others do not. The second-generation research is into the enzymes that are used to break down the material in the fermentation process so that you end up with a clean, renewable fuel from plant waste. I would encourage the government to look very closely at the technology that is out there, particularly given our dependence on carbon based fuels.
Here again we have a mixed message, something the government is developing a format for, in a sense. For example, we originally had a message encouraging people to shift to solar energy in their homes, and then it became means tested. There have been a number of issues like that. I notice in the budget documents that, on the one hand—and that is what this bill is about—the government is encouraging research into second-generation biofuels because they are clean, they are renewable and they could create some future in terms of nation building, and not only the building of factories et cetera. Then, on the other hand, the budget papers mention that the taxation arrangements for fuels, particularly biofuels, will run out in 2011. So people doing this sort of research—and maybe Minister Albanese could comment on this in his reply—will be wondering: which is the message that we should be picking up? Should we be picking up on where this money is going to be invested, with the encouragement of research and the promotion of biofuels? In 2011, are biofuels going to be taxed the same as carbon based or fossil fuels? That is the question that really needs to be answered. Or is this a bit like the solar energy promise that only became a promise with the addition of means testing: ‘We’re encouraging it, but we don’t want much too much of it if it starts to cost us too much money’?
I think the government has to start to address these signals, because these mixed messages are out there, and if there are mixed messages in terms of environmental issues people do not move. We have seen it before. People got solar energy established and then, to their detriment, when they wanted to put excess power back into the grid, they were paid less than what they had to pay for the original power, so the incentive is not there. I am very much for promoting some of these alternative energies that the bill talks about, but the government has got to straighten out its message and work out what it is in fact encouraging. There are a number of clean energy initiatives that this bill will allow to be funded—and, as I said, I will be supporting this bill.
A number of speakers have spoken about what they believe nation building is about. With the minister in the House, I would like to congratulate him on a recent announcement within our greater region—and one last night, in terms of the $1.5 billion announcement of the F3 connection through to the New England Highway. That is not directly in my electorate, but the New England Highway crosses seven electorates, and that connection will be a benefit to all of them as well as a benefit to the nation. Cutting about half an hour off a trip from Armidale to Sydney will obviously have some impact on transport as well. So, in a very real sense, that is what nation building is about, in my view. Then there is the $1.2 billion package that the same minister, Minister Albanese, announced some time back. I think about $580 million went into that Hunter northern corridor: in terms of rail freight, the Ardglen tunnel got $280 million, I think, and there was another $280 million for associated loops and bypasses et cetera to concentrate the export effort on the Newcastle Port, and obviously a third coal loader and a whole range of other things happening there as well. That is something that was long overdue.
I know there are many members in this building who support the inland rail concept, as I do. You need to look at where the freight in the eastern part of Australia is. The Ernst & Young inquiry into the inland rail arrangements that took place a few years ago, under the former government, identified the potential market for freight. In Victoria, New South Wales and southern Queensland there have been 220 million tonnes of freight. It also identified that 110 million tonnes, or 50 per cent of the total freight load, was between Newcastle and Moree. That is why I believe that this development of the Ardglen tunnel—the Liverpool range, as they call it—is a very important addition in terms of nation building in my state and indeed on the eastern seaboard.
There are some collision points, in my view, when we are talking about a clean environment for the future, clean energy and clean food—and all of those debates are currently happening in this building. We have got the carbon debate, the emissions trading debate, the food security debate and the global emissions debate. We have got the economic debate and the carbon capture debate, which is trying to maintain an interest in fossil fuels while being able to sequester the carbon. We have got the methane and nitrous oxide debate, which impacts on agriculture. And we have got various announcements in terms of the research money going into those areas. But a particular collision point that is occurring in my electorate at the moment—and I mentioned it to the minister for resources yesterday by way of a question at question time—is the proposal to develop a coalmine on the Liverpool Plains, which is underpinned by magnificent and massive water resources as well as being part of some of the best land in the world, an alluvial floodplain.
The issues here blur the debate particularly if you start, as the government is, putting a carbon footprint over food or food production, and that may or may not become part of the emissions trading arrangements as time goes on. I would urge the infrastructure minister to really look at this particular issue on the Liverpool Plains. There again, we cannot keep running these mixed arguments and end up at the same destination. If we are serious about clean food and clean water we should not be allowing quite dangerous mining practices in an area where there is potential to do massive damage to the hydraulic nature of those groundwater systems and their interrelated connectivity issues with the river water system when—in the budget and in this very funding arrangement—we see time and time again reference to saving the Murray-Darling system.
The issue here is really about the different portfolios. I was pleased with the answer that the Minister for Resources gave to me yesterday. He actually crossed the boundary of defending his own portfolio area and moved—and I do not want to verbal him—to virtually saying that this was an issue that he and I and the Minister for the Environment should sit down and talk about, and I think that could well be productive.
The point I am making is that if we are serious about all of these issues we have got to start sending a clear signal so that the constituency can pick it up. I am encouraged by the words in the budget documents in terms of where this money that we are absconding with today is going to go. There are a lot of good words on solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels et cetera, and clean coal technology which just seem to be added into things these days. Whether it is feasible for the long term or not, let us have a look at it. But don’t encourage some and discourage others. Don’t let the interplay of big business and short-term politics interfere with the long-term agenda that these words in the budget documents actually put in place.
I think that there is no better example of that than this collision point between clean food and clean energy on the Liverpool Plains. If we are serious about going to second-generation biofuels, and the government in its own documents says it is, some of those areas not only have the capacity to produce clean, environmentally friendly food but also the capacity to produce clean environmentally friendly fuel. But if you endanger those things through the practice of mining on these very sensitive lands you remove both options and you have a situation which could develop into a short-term economic gain for the nation, and eventually a long-term loss for the nation and, potentially, a long-term loss for the globe.
I would urge the minister to take some of those comments on board. I personally thank him for his attendance in Tamworth last week. The people of Tamworth enjoyed his company and they particularly enjoyed his announcement of $5 million for a new indoor sports centre, which will provide a very important platform for the most important ingredient of our nation, our young people.
in reply—I thank those members who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who were constructive in their comments. Certainly I wish to refer specifically to the comments of the member for New England, who pointed out that infrastructure is about nation-building infrastructure but it can also be about community based infrastructure.
The people whom he represents in New England will benefit from both as a result of the Rudd government’s budget last night, which confirmed the $800 million for the Community Infrastructure Program including $5 million for the Tamworth Indoor Sports Centre that I announced with him in Tamworth on Saturday afternoon. I thank him for his warm reception in the fine regional city of Tamworth and I particularly want to acknowledge the fact that the young people from the basketball club were out there in big numbers.
When we talk about infrastructure we are talking about taking action today supporting jobs in order to create infrastructure for tomorrow, whether it be a community infrastructure facility such as that in Tamworth or whether it be the $1.5 billion that we allocated last night into the Hunter Expressway, which will be added to by $200 million from the Rees Labor government in New South Wales to total a $1.7 billion commitment over four years to build the Hunter Expressway. This is an expressway which has been identified as a priority project by Infrastructure Australia. It will add to the productive capacity of the nation and will benefit freight, and passengers in motor vehicles who live along the route of the New England Freeway. It is a project that will add to this government’s vision—and was one of the centrepieces of our budget last night—of the N1 from Melbourne right up to Cairns, with feeders such as the New England Highway, the Hunter Expressway and the Ipswich Motorway, making sure that whether it is moving people or freight we do so in a way which is as efficient as possible and, importantly, as safe as possible in order to maximise the capacity of the economy to grow. That is the government’s vision of nation-building infrastructure.
The budget we announced last night included a $22 billion investment in nation-building infrastructure. This investment will provide that economic stimulus in the short term which is needed but also the long-term benefits for the economy as it recovers into the future. The Nation-building Funds Amendment Bill 2009 is required to give effect to the infrastructure spending announced in last night’s budget. As well as investment in transport infrastructure, ports, road and rail, hospitals and higher education, the government will also invest $4.5 billion in a new Clean Energy Initiative, which will encourage further research and innovation in clean energy technologies that will play an important role in Australia’s transition to a low-pollution economy. The Clean Energy Initiative will help accelerate the development and deployment of carbon capture and storage, and it will assist solar energy and other forms of renewable energy.
To provide funding for these priorities, the bill repeals the crediting of $2.5 billion from the 2007-08 budget surplus to the Education Investment Fund that was to occur by 30 June 2009. This amount will be made available for the new Clean Energy Initiative. There will still be more than $6.5 billion in the Education Investment Fund for education and research infrastructure, of which $4.1 billion has been committed in last night’s budget and in the nation-building package announced by the Prime Minister on 12 December 2008. The balance of $2.4 billion plus investment earnings, estimated to be around $630 million over the forward estimates, will be available for future education and research projects.
Last night’s budget was a budget of which those on this side of the House are extremely proud. We are proud because it builds on the history which our great party has of nation building. It is a stark contrast with the failure of those opposite to invest in nation-building infrastructure over 12 long years. The fact is that we are investing more money over six years than those opposite invested over 12 long years. We are investing more in rail in 12 months than they invested in 12 years. Just think about that statistic—more in 12 months than they invested in 12 long years. It is only this side of the House that have ever been committed to nation-building infrastructure. Last night’s budget builds on our record and this bill is a part of ensuring that the proposals put forward in last night’s budget can be turned into action. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request.
It may suit the convenience of the House to pause for a moment.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House what last night the Treasurer could not bring himself to say, that the government is budgeting for a $57.6 billion deficit next year at 4.9 per cent of GDP, the largest deficit in over 60 years?
The Leader of the Opposition is correct: the budget deficit will be 4.9 per cent of GDP.
Opposition members—What’s the figure?
It is the figure that I said on radio this morning, 57.6. Can I say to those opposite the government welcomes a debate on debt and deficit, a debate which those opposite have joined with such vigour and clarity this morning; there has been such a sterling performance on the part of those opposite in having a uniform position on debt and deficit. You see, the position of the Liberals on this question is actually directly relevant to the question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition, because what they do in the Senate directly affects the shape of the deficit. We know from the last budget what happened with the blocking of various measures, both on the expenditure side and on the revenue side. We do not know from any of the statements which have been made so far what will happen in the Senate on this occasion and therefore the extent to which that affects what the government has by way of the final content of its proposed borrowing and deficit. Therefore the position of those opposite is not just of academic interest; it is of direct interest to the bottom line which will be delivered to the public revenue of the Commonwealth of Australia.
But there we were this morning—can you just picture it?—with those opposite signalling loud and clear: ‘We’re about to have a fusillade on debt and deficit today.’ You are over there in Fort Turnbull in the bunker and you are working out what is going to happen on this day, the first day after the budget. You are going to have a complete blitzkrieg on debt and deficit. So the whistle blows at 0700 and out you go and over the top and you have the field commander out there, the Leader of the Opposition, and the regimental sergeant-major, the member for North Sydney. Out they have gone ready to whack as one and at 0800 the shrapnel starts to fly. What happens then? The regimental sergeant-major is on Channel 7 and is asked a very direct question and that question is along these lines, so this is what Joe was asked: ‘How much debt would you support and how big a deficit would you support?’ The answer is as follows: ‘I’ll give you a figure as a starting point, at least $25 billion smaller.’ So thank you, Joe! Joe has given us a definitive number, 25 billion. Well, thank you very much.
Order! The Prime Minister will refer to members by their titles.
They may be equivocating now but it is $25 billion.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can you ask the Prime Minister to properly address the member’s question.
I already have. I reminded the Prime Minister that he has to refer to members by their titles.
So the member for North Sydney is out there delivering with crystal-clear clarity for the first time the position of the opposition on their debt and deficit strategy; that is, the government’s minus $25 billion. That is at 0800. At 0816 the regimental field commander himself takes position with the artillery barrage to come and the artillery barrage commences with his time on Sky Television, so Sky actually does an interview with the regimental field commander over there and he is asked the following question about debt and deficit. The Leader of the Opposition says:
If we were in government today revenues would be higher.
That is an interesting proposition: you get your magic wand out and you say, ‘We’re going to create more tax.’ It is just by waving the magic wand. Let us leave that one to one side for the moment.
Revenues would be higher as a product of a direct administrative—
‘decree’, I presume.
spending would be lower, therefore debt would be much lower and the deficit would be much lower. Now the reality is—
and here the journalist, David Speers, asks:
But you can’t say what figure?
Then the Leader of the Opposition says:
Well, no. You can’t because you, because you, I mean you, you could sit down, you could work out a model. But as we see with all of these financial models, you know, each assumption becomes fairly subjective.
So that was at 0816. At 0800 this morning the whistle has gone, the shrapnel is flying and the shadow Treasurer says government debt and deficit minus $25 billion. Sixteen minutes it took for the Leader of the Opposition to say, ‘I haven’t got a clue. I refuse to name a number.’ Well, there we have the regimental field commander and the regimental sergeant-major out there in full flight against the government, saying—
The member for Fadden on a point of order.
Mr Speaker—
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The member for Fadden has not got the call.
Government members interjecting—
Those on my right will come to order. I call the member for Fadden.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I remind the Prime Minister, if he is going to use military analogies—
There is no point of order.
that we do not—
The honourable member for Fadden will resume his seat.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. The member for Paterson has indicated that I might be having a bad hair day, and I hope I am not. The Prime Minister has the call.
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So there we have the RSM, the member for North Sydney, out there confirming it, using his gross debt figure this morning—$300 billion minus $25 billion, so $275 billion—with absolute clarity and, 16 minutes later, the Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘Oh, no, I couldn’t possibly confirm a number.’ But the supreme irony is this: they chose the terrain of battle. This is what they wanted to fight us on today and, 16 minutes into the fray, you have got over there Captain Confusion and Colonel Chaos, who could not agree on a single number in terms of their assault on the government.
In this entire debate on net debt and on deficit and on borrowing, there are some very basic questions for the Leader of the Opposition to answer when it comes to his budget reply tomorrow night. Question No. 1: will the Leader of the Opposition confirm what the member for North Sydney has said and therefore borrow in order to meet the $210 billion plus collapse in tax revenue? Question No. 2: to what extent would he in addition fund discretionary stimulus and on what projects? Question No. 3: which of the government’s spending proposals and investment proposals do they support or reject? Question No. 4: which of the $22 billion worth of savings measures do they accept or reject? Unless these questions are answered, what we have from those opposite is just white noise. It means nothing. It is pure political spin—that is all they are engaged in.
Less than 24 hours after the budget, we have seen the single greatest disintegration of an opposition attack on an element of fiscal policy that we have seen in this place for decades. They should be ashamed of themselves. This used to be the once great Liberal Party. It has collapsed in a heap.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because we are most suspicious of anything that the Prime Minister quotes, we would ask him to table the transcripts from which he was reading.
Was the Prime Minister quoting from a document? Is the document confidential?
Yes, Mr Speaker.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those on my left!
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the key components of last night’s budget, how it fits into the government’s broader economic strategy, and reaction from economists and industry?
I certainly thank the member for Page for her question. The central task of this budget is nation building for recovery—an unprecedented $22 billion of investment in infrastructure, an investment in infrastructure that those opposite could never commit to in their whole 12 long years in office. These investments will bring jobs and they will bring productivity for the long term. They are important investments for the long term, not just in hard infrastructure but also in the best human capital: investment in education. These represent the building blocks for the future.
The budget includes $8.5 billion of investment in economic infrastructure. This will mean that when the recovery takes hold our ports will not be straining and our rail networks and roads will not be clogged, and it means we will be much better positioned to take full advantage of the global recovery when it comes. Critically, these investments support jobs now and they will employ thousands of Australians. Nothing could be more important in the current environment than putting in place policies in the short term, the medium term and the long term to support jobs, because these unprecedented investments in nation-building infrastructure are the third phase of our economic stimulus package. The first phase was payments to support jobs; the second phase was the shovel-ready projects that are now taking off right around the country. Thirty five thousand projects have been launched right around the country and including in Page. This is important investment in schools and social housing that those opposite seem to think does not matter—does not count as infrastructure—but it is a lasting legacy for our communities and it is for support of jobs that those projects are taking place right around the country.
Now, of course, we have the commitment to big infrastructure. We have a commitment to a fair go for pensioners. We have the investments in our health and hospital system. We have a historic paid parental leave scheme, something that those opposite could not bring themselves to come to in 12 years of office. And, of course, we have a 50 per cent small business tax break for eligible investments.
This is a budget that charts the way back to surplus. It puts in place the necessary savings that are required. Those opposite are talking about deficit all the time, but they cannot nominate one saving they will make. The weight is on them now. There has been a record $210 billion write-down of the revenue over the forward estimates. They say they support pensions. If they support the pensions and the good things that come with the budget, they will have to support the savings that come with it. The weight is on the opposition to nominate where they would make savings—the weight is on them. But, for our part, we will chart a course back to surplus. We will make the long-term savings that they could not make in all their long term in government.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why, if the International Monetary Fund’s recent world economic outlook shows the Australian economy growing at only 1.1 per cent in 2010, his budget projects growth in Australia only a year later to be 4.5 per cent, more than four times the IMF’s projection?
I thank the honourable member for his question because it goes to the forecasting methodologies used by the Treasury, which have been the subject of some debate in the last period of time. The first change which is evident in the way the Treasury has presented its forecasts and its projections for the years ahead is to add one extra year—that is important to note. It is to bring it into consistency with international practice. For example, in the United States there are three estimates years and seven projection years. In New Zealand there are five estimates years and 10 projection years. In Sweden there are four estimates years and three projection years. In Australia there are three estimates years and two projection years. That is a change that we have made because it is useful in terms of long-term economic planning and long-term economic forecasting to bring these practices in Australia into conformity with emerging practice abroad. That is the first point.
The second point I would make to the Leader of the Opposition goes to the question of the underpinning of the growth forecast in the two out-years of the forward estimates. First, it should be noted by those opposite that the three years of below-trend growth occur in 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11—that is, these are all below trend growth. The two years above trend are the two years at the outer end of the spectrum—that is, 2011-12 and 2012-13, where, as the Leader of the Opposition has just indicated, real GDP is assumed to grow at 4.5 per cent. However, here is the point I would draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition: growth is forecast to remain below trend for three years—that is, longer than during the downturns of the 1980s and the 1990s. In the 1980s you had below-trend growth for a year following that recession; in the 1990s, it was below-trend growth for two years. Here is an assumption on our part that it will in fact be a slow return to above-trend growth.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The Prime Minister has not even mentioned the IMF. The question relates to the mismatch between his forecasts and the IMF’s.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I have been listening closely to the Prime Minister and he is responding to the question.
So on the whole question of where this fits—that is, Treasury’s projections for the two out-years of what is now the forward estimates—it is in fact more conservative than the projections by the then Treasury concerning recovery from the two earlier recessions, one in the 1980s and one in the 1990s.
There is also an important point to note and it does go to the question that the Leader of the Opposition raised specifically in reference to the IMF and to others who make projections and to the attitude of other commentators on these growth projections. I would draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to comments this morning by the Chief Economist of Commsec, Craig James, by the senior economist of Icap Australia, by UBS and by Westpac in its Australian federal budget report, all of which have described the federal Treasury’s forecast in the budget papers as being on the pessimistic or bearish side. That is what they have had to say.
Obviously there is going to be debate among forecasters on the question of methodology, but the government believes in the independent advice of the Treasury and I would say to those opposite that they should respect the independence and integrity of the Commonwealth Treasury. The importance of these forecasts goes to how we actually project ahead with growth.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked about the IMF’s projections. He relies on the IMF when it suits him but he has not mentioned it yet in his answer.
The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.
As I said, there are a range of views about the future shape of growth. I have just referred to four market economists who actually believe that those contained within the Treasury forecast are on the bearish side.
But, again, the reason that this is relevant is that it goes to the whole question of how we structure our public finance of the future and how we structure debt and deficits into the future and, therefore, the relevance and role of the Liberals in the Senate. I referred before to what was an exercise in policy confusion on the part of those opposite on the question of debt and deficit. That was volume 1. But as they say in the steak knives advertisement, ‘There’s more,’ because later on this morning, at 8.23 am—remember, the charge is on in the question of debt and deficits—we have the Leader of the Opposition on AM on the question of how he would have done this budget differently.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about the IMF’s projections. He has not answered the question. If he does not know the answer he should sit down.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. I have indicated to members that the Prime Minister is responding to the question. The Prime Minister has the call.
At 8.23 this morning, on AM, what we had from the Leader of the Opposition was as follows:
Well, there is no doubt. Look, I don’t think there is, it is very hard to imagine a circumstance in which the Budget this year would not be in deficit but it may have been in deficit by a very small amount or it may have been in surplus by a small amount with different policies—
Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will bring his answer to a close.
I know those opposite welcome this because, again, we then had the ‘RSM’ come in at 10.20 this morning and say, ‘Well, a lot of that $200 billion is wiped out projected surpluses and of course the budget would go into deficit.’ The Leader of the Opposition said—
You requested him to bring his—
Government members interjecting—
There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
It shows the absolute chaos and confusion of those opposite, with the Leader of the Opposition saying that he could produce a budget surplus and the shadow Treasurer saying that there was no hope in hell of producing a budget surplus, and they stand here believing that they have a credible alternative critique to make of this government. They stand as an absolute rabble—utterly leaderless until the member from Higgins moves from his present seat down to that seat.
I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today Kathy Sullivan and Allan Morris, who are former members of the House. In the case of Kathy, she is a former member of the other place and I thank her for doing us the honour of coming to this chamber. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome.
Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Why is it necessary to accept temporary budget deficits and, further, why would a contractionary approach to this year’s budget have a negative impact on the Australian economy?
I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. The government’s budget strategy is focused on sustaining jobs and economic activity in the shorter term, investing in nation-building infrastructure and skills for the recovery and for longer-term productivity and jobs, and starting the work of repairing the structure of the budget after the damage that has been done by the huge drop in revenue, courtesy of the global recession.
All you have to do is look at the data in the budget to see that the reality of deficits is overwhelmingly driven by that huge drop in revenue. In fact, the total drop in revenue across the four years of forward estimates is slightly higher than the total amount of deficits over that period. So what we are seeing is a huge hit to the budget as a result of that drop in revenue, and it is the government’s position that the most appropriate economic strategy in this circumstance is for us to allow deficits to unfold and to borrow to cover those deficits for a period of time. The budget does of course contain a number of very substantial savings measures which are designed to commence the process of returning the budget to a surplus over time. There are very significant changes with respect to health requirements, family tax benefits, pension entitlements and matters of this kind, and that will start the hard work of returning the budget to surplus.
The government has already been criticised by the opposition for the allowance of the budget being in deficit for some period of time. Therefore it is worth while scrutinising what the alternative might be, the contractionary alternative. It is, admittedly, difficult to discern precisely what the opposition’s position is. Today’s examples that the Prime Minister cited are yet another instalment of that. We have seen over the past 12 months many new commitments on the part of the opposition for new spending, we have seen many new promises that they have made to increase the spending hit on the budget, we have seen them blocking the government’s savings initiatives in the Senate and we have seen not one single new savings initiative. Yet, at the same time, they claim that they would have lower deficits and less debt. So in other words the proposition from the opposition is that they would spend more, tax less and have lower debt and lower deficits. Only an investment banker could offer you that kind of deal: more spending, less tax, lower deficits and lower debt.
In spite of the confusion, we are today finally getting some indication of the true opposition position. I note, as the Prime Minister indicated, that the member for North Sydney stated today that they would run a deficit $25 billion lower than the government’s projected deficit. The Leader of the Opposition said on Sky News, ‘If we were in government today, revenues would be higher, spending would be lower, therefore debt would be much lower and the deficit would be much lower.’ In other words, there would be higher taxes and less spending, although he did not quite say that, but that is what it means.
I got a further insight into this this morning debating the shadow minister for finance, competition policy and deregulation, Senator Coonan, at an accountants breakfast. I am sure everybody in this House knows who the shadow minister for finance is. Senator Coonan opened her contribution by quoting approvingly a quote on the evils of debt from none other than Herbert Hoover at the 1936 Republican convention in Nebraska. Herbert Hoover, of course, was the President of the United States from 1928 to 1932 who relentlessly, rigorously, did absolutely nothing in the face of the Great Depression in order to avoid debt and deficit. He did absolutely nothing, while the unemployment mounted, the businesses failed, the misery—
I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 104 and the matter of relevance to the question. I did not hear a word in the question about the American parliament or congress, and I did not hear a word there that asked the finance minister to try and resort to jokes on this very important day. He should be ashamed of himself—
The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. I will listen carefully to where the minister for finance is taking us with his material.
I was asked about the alternative contractionary approach to the budget, and of course the high priest of this approach was Herbert Hoover. He put his theories into practice and produced the Great Depression in the United States. It is worth noting that at this particular Republican convention in 1936 even the Republican Party realised that Herbert Hoover was a dud and decided not to renominate him for the presidency. But the Liberal Party is still sticking with his views 70-odd years later. Although, to cut Senator Coonan some slack, I am not quite sure that she knows who she is talking about, because later in the speech she referred to the quote again and called him J Edgar Hoover. Perhaps now the Liberal Party is getting its economics policies from the FBI!
I rise on a point of order. I refer you again to standing order 104 and the nature of the question asked. But the denigration of this place on the day after the budget is a ruddy joke—
The member for O’Connor will resume his seat.
Unfortunately for the member for O’Connor and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition and the entire opposition, there is a very serious side to this. That is, they are adopting a position that implies massive job losses, massive business failures and huge economic contraction. If you took $25 billion out of the budget now, guess what that would do: it would devastate economic activity in this country. It would trash jobs. It would trash employment. It would trash economic activity. Thousands of businesses would be bankrupt. They are adopting the economic policies of Herbert Hoover that directly led to the Great Depression. That is the serious side that I would urge the member for O’Connor to look very closely at, and I would urge the Leader of the Opposition, who clearly is totally confused about their position, to get with the government’s position, which is that deficits are unavoidable in order to sustain jobs and economic activity in the Australian economy.
My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given that in the last 30 years there have only been five years in which GDP has grown at 4½ per cent or more, how can the Prime Minister expect Australians to believe that two years from now we will enjoy six consecutive years of growth at 4½ per cent? Will the Prime Minister table the economic advice from the Treasury upon which, he asserts, his incredible forecast is based?
I thank the honourable member for his question. Once again, what we have seen in the debate in the last 24 hours or so is a direct assault on the integrity of the Treasury. This is exactly what they did last year. When they are not attacking the Reserve Bank governor—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a direct attack on the intelligence of the House. He must answer the question—
Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has been on his feet for 18 seconds.
The government takes seriously independent advice it has obtained from the Treasury—the same Treasury which advised the member for Higgins, has advised previous Treasurers and, through their Treasurers, the Prime Minister of the time as well. That is the first point. The second is: whenever those opposite dislike what is produced by way of projections or data, they attack the originator. Last week, you did so in relation to the ABS data—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: they are the Treasurer’s budget papers. I ask the Prime Minister to respond to the question from the Leader of the Opposition about tabling the methodology used by Treasury.
The government relies on the independent advice of the Treasury as it has done in the past, as it will do in the future and as governments of all persuasions have until this most recent opposition has decided to release a series of attacks directed at independent agencies—the Treasury, the Reserve Bank and, most stunningly last week, the Statistician over the unemployment data when the member for Wentworth mysteriously went missing in western Sydney, as he described yesterday. Well, the member for North Sydney said yesterday—
I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Why are they turning off the broadcast?
Why are the broadcasting lights off?
From time to time, there are things that happen in this place that amaze even me. There is little that I thought could amaze me about the behaviour of members. The Manager of Opposition Business, in a quite correct manner, has approached me to ask me to find out what is happening. I do not need people carrying on in the way that they have been about the technicalities of the broadcast. My understanding, and I am having this checked, is that question time is being broadcast in the Senate. The House is then on replay and, on the replay, points of order are not part of the re-broadcast. What I—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The conspiracists sometimes really upset me, too. There is no change in any policy. I am endeavouring to find out why, on this occasion, the light is flashing on and off, because I agree that that has not happened before. But I ask people to just relax a little bit.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is highly provocative of the Prime Minister to continue to make derogatory remarks about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was at the Salvation Army in Parramatta for the Red Shield Appeal. He made a personal explanation about it yesterday, and yet the Prime Minister continues to make these provocative and derogatory comments—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat.
Whenever the data does not suit those opposite, they attack the agencies which produce it. That is a constant thematic. It has been the approach they have adopted with the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Reserve Bank more broadly, and, on the part of the member for North Sydney, in relation to the attack on the independence of the Australian Statistician last week on the unemployment data. On the matter which has just been raised by the member for Curtin, the member for North Sydney indicated last week, when the unemployment data came out, that the Leader of the Opposition would be fronting afterwards for a press conference. He did not.
On this matter concerning the Treasury: they provide advice; the government receives that advice; and, accordingly, the government acts and incorporates that advice within the government’s budget papers. I would say also to those opposite that, when Senate estimates approaches, there will be ample opportunity to quiz the relevant officials as those opposite have done in the past and, I am sure, will do in the future.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline the government’s strategy to return to surplus and the hard decisions necessary to achieve that goal?
I thank the member for Franklin for her very important question. Since last year’s budget, government revenues have been written down by $210 billion. That is the biggest write-down in government revenues in living memory. It equates to something like the entire Commonwealth health spend over the forward estimates—just a huge, huge contraction in government revenues. And, of course, that contraction in government revenues is responsible for something like two-thirds of the write-down in the budget position. That is the enormity of what has occurred through the global recession. In 2010-11 alone, revenues have been written down by $55 billion. That is why we have said that there are no easy answers in this situation and it is why we take our responsibility very seriously to engage in borrowing for a temporary deficit, because, if we did not do that, taxes would have to rise or services would have to be massively cut.
We took this issue very seriously and we put in place in the budget serious long-term structural changes to expenditure, rebalancing sustainable support for private health insurance and ensuring that families on increasingly higher incomes do not receive family payment benefits—a whole list of things which we went through last night, a list where everybody has to do a bit to make up for this huge cut in revenue which has come to national income. So we do take our responsibilities very seriously.
As the finance minister was saying before, what is the alternative to not running a temporary deficit? Massive cuts to services or massive increases in taxation. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation was talking about events that occurred in the 1930s. Herbert Hoover responded by doing precisely that—absolutely nothing. And, of course, the sit and wait and see attitude of Herbert Hoover is the attitude of those opposite. In fact, if you want to equate the Leader of the Opposition to somebody in those days, he is the Otto Niemeyer of Australian politics because that was the recommendation—that governments should not stimulate the economy, that governments should raise taxes and that governments should cut back on services.
Sir Otto. He was knighted!
Sir Otto over there had this to say about what his position would be. The Leader of the Opposition was asked on AM this morning:
But just quickly, you would have engaged in some stimulus spending and there would have been a deficit?
He replied, ‘It may have been in deficit by a small amount or it may have been in surplus by a small amount with different policies.’ If he was going to have it in surplus, he is proposing spending cuts in one year alone of $50-odd billion. What a massive hit that would be to the economy, what a massive hit that would be to employment, what a massive hit that would be to businesses in the Australian economy. The sensible thing to do in this environment is to run a temporary deficit. If those opposite were in power, they would have to borrow to meet revenue write-downs. But what we get from Sir Otto over there is this deficit and debt con job, pretending somehow that they would not have to borrow to meet these circumstances. Well they would and it is about time that those opposite nominate where they would make their savings in these circumstances.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the statement he made in his speech to the National Press Club today:
It will be years before Australians are as well off as they were two years ago.
Will the Treasurer advise the House how many years it will be?
What we have is more voodoo economics from the shadow Treasurer. He wants to pretend there has not been an unwinding of the mining boom. He wants to pretend that there has not been a terms of trade collapse. He wants to pretend that we are not in the midst of a global recession.
On a point of order, Mr Speaker: because we followed your advice, we have made this question entirely specific. It is a quote from the Treasurer and it asks him: how many years? It has nothing to do with anything else that he is talking about. I would ask you to direct him to be relevant to the question, as you asked us to tighten up our questions in the past.
As members know, occupants of the chair have, in the past, indicated that there is no provision, regrettably, for the chair to be able to indicate the manner in which questions should be asked. Whilst I appreciate the member for Sturt indicating the care with which the question was framed, my obligation is to adjudge whether the Treasurer is being relevant in any manner to the question. I will listen carefully to the Treasurer’s answer.
Last night we put in place a plan, a nation-building budget for recovery, a budget to support the economy in the face of this global recession and to support jobs and Australian businesses in the most serious global economic event to occur in 75 years. That is the thrust of the budget delivered last night and it is something that this country desperately needs in the circumstances in which we find ourselves internationally. There is a lot of support for what the government has had to say about the need for temporary borrowings. The forecasts are there in the budget for everybody to read. It is going to take some time for growth to come back to trend but growth will come back to trend because recessions do end. When they end, there is a lot of spare capacity and that is when economies begin to grow quickly. This is what Standard and Poor’s have had to say about last night’s budget, given all the claims we have had from those opposite about deficit and debt.
I rise on a point of order as to relevance, Mr Speaker. I asked the Treasurer how many years it will be until we get back to the position we were in.
Order! The Treasurer has the call.
This is what Standard and Poor’s have had to say about the budget:
We believe the deficits and associated borrowings do not alter the sound profile of the country’s public finances. This is underpinned by the strength of the government’s balance sheet …
And our return to surplus, our return to paying off debt and our investment in the nation will bring back growth as soon as we possibly can.
My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of the recent announcements to invest in jobs for today and drive productivity in the future?
I thank the member for Forde for his question. I know that he is concerned, in his constituency, about supporting jobs today and about ensuring that this nation wins the global competition for the jobs of the future. Jobs today and jobs of the future are at the heart of the budget announcements made by the Treasurer last night. This is a budget that delivers support for jobs today whilst building the infrastructure and policies we will need so that Australians can have the skills that they will need to win the global competition for the jobs of the future.
At the heart of this budget, of course, is continuing stimulus through capital investment—a $22 billion capital investment program to support jobs today. And much of this investment is directed towards renewing places of learning around the country, because we know how important those places of learning will be to Australians getting the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow. Our capital investment goes to schools, trade training, technical and further education and, as announced last night, a major capital investment into universities and research infrastructure.
As the member for Forde said in his question, this budget not only delivers on that kind of support for jobs today but, through stimulus, capital investment and the infrastructure we need for tomorrow, it provides direct support for jobseekers. It particularly provides direct support so that they can gain the skills they need for the work opportunities to come. This budget presents an interlinked set of policies—through our jobs compact with retrenched Australians, with young Australians and with local communities. That is an investment of $1.5 billion. There are interlinked programs to support apprentices and related programs in the order of $5 billion and a $2 billion investment in productivity places. Those are record, huge investments in skills and opportunities for Australians.
Some of the highlights of these packages—they are displayed comprehensively in the budget papers—include assistance to unemployed Australians to train, through our training supplement of $41.60 per fortnight; the training and learning bonus; the education entry payment and funding for training in productivity places. The government will provide people on Newstart Allowance and parenting payment who are undertaking a 12-month course, with the equivalent of an additional $43 per week in financial assistance. The government in these packages is also assisting apprentices and their employers to complete their training through the Securing Australian Apprenticeships and Traineeships initiative.
But the budget does more. It provides cash payments of $3,800 to apprentices and trainees by redoing existing incentives and making them more efficient. An additional 14,000 apprentices will receive this support. Payments to mid-career apprentices will be extended to 25-to-29 year olds, entitling them to an extra $7,800 in the first year of training and $5,200 in the year after that.
This budget, beyond supporting jobs today and delivering assistance to jobseekers through our jobs and training compact, through our productivity places and through our support for apprentices and related matters, also invests in the jobs of the future. There will be nothing more important to Australia gaining its fair share of the jobs of the future than the performance of our higher education system as it leads us into the knowledge economy. That is why the government in this budget delivers a comprehensive response to the Bradley and Cutler reviews, with a $5.7 billion package to transform our higher education system into a system that responds to the needs of students—with places following student demand—and transforms our system. It does that by ensuring that there is money in the system and incentives so that universities partner with schools to create new opportunities for Australians from low-SES backgrounds to go to university. This is a measure to ensure that the sons and daughters of Australians, no matter what household they are born into, have an opportunity to go to Australia’s universities—not by reducing standards, but by having our universities and our schools work together to create an educational pathway for those children to deliver on the promise of this nation that every child deserves the best possible start in life.
In this budget we have restructured student assistance, student income support, so that it better supports Australian students and particularly targets that assistance to where it is most needed. We have put in this budget a landmark increase in indexation for universities, performance funding that will make a difference to quality and a new national system of quality regulation, and we have delivered major new capital investments. This is a transformation of our university system so that it can lead this nation in the knowledge economy of tomorrow for the jobs of tomorrow whilst we deliver on providing support for Australian jobs today.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer him to Budget Paper No. 1, 3-23, the medium term analysis of the budget. This is the so-called plan for the government to repay debt. I ask the Treasurer: given that the projections go out to 2020, in what year will the Australian people finally pay off Rudd government debt?
Mr Speaker, what I can say is what is in Budget Paper No. 1. We do get it down, I think, to about three per cent net debt over that time. We will continue to pay it down from that period, because that is the responsible thing to do.
Opposition members interjecting—
This juvenile behaviour is just extraordinary. It is absolutely juvenile. The estimates are all there; the member has just quoted from them. What I can say is that we are engaging in temporary borrowing to meet the requirements of this economy because of the very sharp contraction that has taken place.
Those opposite want to pretend that somehow, if they were in government, they would not be borrowing and they would not be paying down debt, but they will be, and that is the particular game that they are playing today. This government’s medium-term fiscal strategy is to pay down debt as quickly as we can. That is what the budget papers say and, as the member opposite knows, it gets down to the minuscule level of three per cent in the year that he mentioned. That is what happens—the minuscule amount compared to what is going on internationally, where comparable advanced economies in countries around the world have levels of net debt at about 80 per cent. So they should stop playing their silly political game and admit that debt is necessary to support jobs and that a medium-term fiscal strategy requires some long-term structural savings. So there is a moment of truth approaching for the shadow Treasurer, because he is going to have to show how he would pay down debt, and so will the Leader of the Opposition tomorrow night.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Leader of the House. Would the minister advise the House of budget initiatives to stimulate the economy, create jobs and boost productivity through nation-building infrastructure? How can interested members of the public gain information about the budget initiatives?
I thank the member for Wills for his question. This year’s budget provides an additional $8.5 billion for nation-building transport infrastructure, bringing our total investment in nation-building infrastructure to $35 billion. This includes the most significant ever investment by the federal government in rail for our major cities—nine out of 15 new projects announced last night. There is support for rail in Perth, in Adelaide, in Melbourne, in Brisbane, on the Gold Coast and in Sydney—right across the nation. There is an engagement in urban rail that will provide cleaner, greener, faster public transport services to those who live in our major cities. It is good policy in dealing with urban congestion but also good policy as part of the fight to tackle dangerous climate change.
But we have also delivered for regional Australia. Of the $35 billion, some $21.2 billion, or 60 per cent, will directly benefit those living in regional communities through projects such as the Hunter Expressway in New South Wales. We will be fixing the Cooroy to Curra, section B—ignored by those opposite, even when the transport minister was the local member. There have been 13 fatalities on this section of the road since July 2002. It took a Labor government to fix it, and fix it we will. We will be dealing with ports, dealing with nation-building infrastructure, supporting jobs today but building the infrastructure that the country needs tomorrow. The centrepiece, the largest single infrastructure project, is of course our $43 billion commitment to fibre-to-the-premises broadband. We believe that this is absolutely critical. It is through information technology being available that we are communicating the message of last night’s budget to our constituents and to the population in general.
I would encourage people to log on to the website, www.economicstimulusplan.gov.au, to see the direct impact that our plan is having right around the nation. But they do not have to just log on to our website, because many members of this House are using information technology to send a message about jobs. There is one member opposite who is sending a big message about a particular job through the internet. People can log on to the new website that has just gone live in conjunction with the budget, www.petercostello.com.au. It went live today, in conjunction with the budget. We have heard about the confusion of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer when it comes to budget initiatives. Well, it is not just our side that agrees it is inadequate. Pete clearly thinks they are not—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order. The minister was asked a question about infrastructure in the budget. He was not asked a question about every member of parliament’s website, as we all have websites. It is completely irrelevant to the question. It is not Vaudeville day; it is the day after the budget and it is an important day. The minister should be called back to answer the question about the budget.
Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister for infrastructure will relate his answer to the question.
I am, absolutely, because I was asked a question as the Leader of the House by the member for Wills about the way in which members are communicating about the budget with members of the public, and I am doing just that. I can understand why those opposite are sensitive, given the sophistication of this budget site with videos, indeed with information about Higgins. He could not turn up to the community infrastructure program launch I did in Higgins last week, but now he has a new-found interest in his electorate.
Of course, the member for Higgins could have been a bit more imaginative when he decided the title, because people might not be able to find this website. Perhaps he could have named it noticker.com.au. Perhaps he could have called it ‘Plan C.org’. Perhaps he could call it imavailable.com.au.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order. It is three o’clock the day after the budget and they have already given up defending this budget. This kind of trivia is not working—
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. It is not a point of order. The minister has the call and he will bring his answer to a conclusion.
Thanks, Mr Speaker. The fact is that those opposite are characterised in their attitude towards this budget by opportunism. They vote against programs, then they go to the launch. They vote against nation-building broadband, but they are quite happy to use the internet to try to launch a challenge against the Leader of the Opposition.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The minister will conclude his answer.
Those opposite are characterised by opportunism, which is why they cannot put forward a coherent attack on this nation-building budget.
I refer the Treasurer to his own Budget Paper No. 1, 3-23, and I refer to the fact that in 2017 his budget papers are predicting above trend growth in Australia, which would be the longest above trend growth period in living memory. My question is: Treasurer, what will be the debt of the nation in 2017?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. As I said before, we have a very clear strategy that will begin returning the budget to surplus and pay down debt as the economy recovers, and the budget delivers on that strategy. We put in place the structural saves that are absolutely essential over the long term, we have offset new spending by the final year of the forward estimates and we have held real growth in spending to under two per cent in the years the economy is projected to grow above trend, in 2011-12 and 2012-13. And, of course, this strategy is expected to see the budget return to surplus in 2015-16 and reduce the levels of debt to 3.7 per cent of GDP by 2019-20.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How will the government’s secure and sustainable pension reforms support pensioners and prepare Australia for the challenges of the future?
I thank the member for Port Adelaide for his question and for his long-time campaigning for the pensioners in his electorate. There are around 30,000 pensioners who will benefit from the decisions the Treasurer announced last night. Yesterday was a historic day for Australia’s pensioners. More than three million age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, wife pensioners and veterans service pensioners will get a pension rise.
From 20 September this year, single pensioners on the full rate of the pension will receive a $32.49 increase per week. Pensioner couples will receive a $10.14 increase per week. The increase will bring the single rate of the pension to two-thirds of the rate of couples combined. There will be an increase in the base rate for single pensioners and a new pension supplement for all pensioners to simplify the complex maze of payments. All existing pensioners will receive an increase in their total pension payments.
These are the most significant reforms to our pension system for 100 years. These reforms will help to cushion pensioners from the impact of the global economic recession, but they will also deliver a stronger, fairer and now a sustainable pension system into the future. Of course, the reforms have been welcomed widely, both by pensioners and by pensioner groups. I will just quote from a few of them. Michael O’Neill, from National Seniors, says:
We think (the pension rise) is a very good outcome. It delivers relief for the most vulnerable—single age pensioners …
From the Council on the Ageing, Ian Yates says:
After years of unfair treatment for single age pensioners, they have been recognised and large steps have been taken to rectify it. The new pension system is simpler, which is most welcome.
And Val French, from Older People Speak Out, says:
Recognition and understanding as last, and cheers in lifting the age eventually to 67. Those of us on a pension have greeted the budget with relief.
She goes on to say that she congratulates the government on its decision to move towards increasing the pension age to 67. That decision on the pension age has also been welcomed by business. If I can just quote Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, she says:
I think it is a very sensible decision and it really addresses those intergenerational problems that are coming down the track.
As I said, these are major reforms and they have involved very tough decisions to make sure that the pension is sustainable for the long term.
I am pleased to tell the House that we have state governments also getting behind these reforms. Just this morning the South Australian Treasurer—I am sure the member for Port Adelaide will be pleased to hear this—has confirmed that the South Australian government has agreed to the Prime Minister’s request that the pension rise flow through to pensioners in public housing so that the pension rise is not gobbled up by rent increases. These reforms are essential. They are long overdue, decisive action to prepare Australia for the future.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that the government has announced $124 billion of new additional spending since the last election. Isn’t it the case that, by spending at a rate equivalent to 29 per cent of GDP this year, the Rudd government is now the biggest spending government since World War II?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question. One of the reasons why we have been so serious about savings in this budget is precisely because we understand that we have to move, first of all, to economic stimulus to support the economy, to support jobs and, as the global economy recovers, to step down on our spending and return the economy to surplus—which is why we have put in place these long-term structural savings. That is why, in this budget, we have delivered something like $22.6 billion in savings over the forward estimates, with no new spending in the final year of the forward estimates.
We absolutely understand that, on a temporary basis, we have to spend to stimulate the economy; then we have to bring the budget back to surplus as the global growth returns. That is very important, and it has involved hard choices—hard choices the government has not been afraid to make in this budget. Of course, net spending in this budget is $13 billion over the forward estimates—so I do not know what calculations the shadow Treasurer is using—and the great bulk of that is in the first two years, when it is most needed in terms of economic stimulus. Real spending growth has been held to under two per cent in the years the economy is projected to grow above trend. That is what we have done.
So do not come in here and continue to fiddle the figures, as you have been doing. Why don’t you come in here and be honest about what you would do in these circumstances? Be honest about it and stop playing these silly political games, because we are very serious about supporting our economy, about supporting jobs in this economy and about nation building for the recovery. It is just a pity that we do not have an opposition that has a clue about it.
My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of supporting jobs today by building the infrastructure Australia needs for tomorrow through the government’s budget?
I thank the honourable member for Bonner for her question. It is plain to all members of the House and, I think, to all people across the nation listening to this debate today that we have faced an enormous challenge in the preparation of this budget, delivered in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Therefore, the challenge which the government has been seized with is: how do we construct the building blocks, the foundation stones, upon which economic recovery can be constructed? That is why we have embarked upon nation building for recovery. I would encourage all members of the House to get behind this national effort, this national campaign, to build the economy with positive ideas, positive engagement, and take the positive lead of many out there in the business community, out there making hard decisions to support growth and employment in the most difficult of circumstances.
Our overall principle is this: to support jobs, small business and apprenticeships today by building the infrastructure our nation needs for tomorrow. That is why we are investing $22 billion through this budget in roads, rail and ports in practically every state in the Commonwealth. That is why we are investing in a national broadband network right across the nation in order to connect our regional centres and our smallest towns with a proper, modern information superhighway for the 21st century. That is why we are investing $3.6 billion in clean energy projects, including a $1.5 billion investment in what will become, we are advised, the nation’s and the world’s single largest solar power plant. On top of that, we are investing $3.7 billion in education and research, and supporting also superscience projects right cross the university infrastructure of our nation—in nanotechnology, in biotechnology, in the marine sciences and in climate change science, as well as in space science and astronomy.
On top of that, we are investing $3.2 billion in health and hospitals, including investment in some of our nation’s most important hospitals, those in particular need. Furthermore, we are investing in critical areas of research, including $1.2 billion for an integrated cancer care network across the country, led by great institutions in Sydney—what will become Lifehouse at the RPA, in honour of a person respected by both sides of politics in this place, Dr Chris O’Brien—and a project such as that at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne and right across the nation as well so we have got proper, integrated cancer care for this disease which remains the nation’s single largest killer.
We are investing in all this infrastructure to create what we need to turbocharge productivity growth in the future for the recovery but also, critically, to support jobs on the way through and to make a difference in terms of the impact of this recession.
Then, we are out there supporting small business. The temporary investment allowance, a 50 per cent deduction for small business through until the end of this year, is a positive step by the government to assist small businesses facing real problems now out there in the economy. I was surprised and disappointed this morning when I was advised that the member for North Sydney had attacked this initiative which had been put forward by the government. Furthermore, there is the extension of the first home owners boost by a further three months, until 30 September, then staged down by one step before returning to where it was as of 1 January. We know from the housing data the impact that that has had on the residential construction sector in the country and all those jobs that depend on it.
We have done this, this investment in infrastructure in the future, as well as provided jobs and support for small business in the here and now, in a fiscal strategy, a fiscal plan for the future, which is sustainable into the forward estimates and beyond. Our plan, very simply, is to halve the temporary deficit in three years and return the budget to surplus in six. It is a very clear-cut plan. That is what we have articulated in the budget papers. I again challenge the Leader of the Opposition to produce similar clarity in his budget reply tomorrow night. If he fails to do so, it will be simply white noise.
In this budget, we are delivering on this plan also through $22.6 billion in savings this year, coming on the back of $33 billion of savings which were delivered in the 2008-09 budget. If you put those figures together, the two budgets that we have presented as a government, that is $55 billion worth of savings. Contrast that with the last two years that those opposite were in office. They delivered a total max of $7.5 billion in savings across their last two budgets when the member for Higgins was sitting there awash with cash flowing in from the mining boom—the mining boom which all of them over there hoped would last forever, deriding those of us on the other side of the House when we dared ask when the mining boom would come to a close. We are therefore framing a strategy of fiscal sustainability based on hard savings—$22 billion this year and $33 billion last year, something like eight times the total amount of savings which those opposite delivered in their last two budgets.
I also draw the attention of those opposite to how, therefore, our temporary borrowing for temporary deficit strategy rests with international comparisons. Those opposite squirm when they hear the comparisons that our temporary budget deficit will be less than half that of the major advanced economies in the year ahead. They squirm about the fact that for the question of our temporary budget deficit for a temporary debt that will flow to the economy, we will have a temporary debt for Australia which will be the lowest by a country mile compared with all other major advanced economies. Furthermore, when you look at when our temporary debt will reach its height at 13.8 per cent of GDP, that will represent about one-seventh of the debt of the major advanced economies across the world. I would simply draw the attention of those opposite, as they try to score political capital out of this point and this necessary intervention in the economy at this stage, to what Standard and Poor’s have said overnight. They said:
Tonight’s Commonwealth budget is consistent with Australia’s triple A long-term rating for the country. The triple A rating is the highest rating assigned by Standard and Poor’s.
They go on to say:
We—
That is, Standard and Poor’s—
believe the deficits and associated borrowings do not alter the sound profile of the country’s public finances.
This is underpinned by the strength of the government’s balance sheet, which provides flexibility to absorb debt levels and cyclical deficits of this nature.
That is what the ratings agency Standard and Poor’s has concluded about the budget we delivered last night. It also rests on the comparisons which exist between Australia’s net debt over time as being lower by a country mile than the net debt of the other major advanced economies and, as I said, one-seventh of that when we reach the peak of our net debt at 13.8 per cent of GDP. Bearing in mind what the member for North Sydney has confirmed today, which is that his debt for this country would be $25 billion less than that which we are providing and proposing by way of the government for our plans going forward, I would suggest that the member for North Sydney reflects long and hard on the observations from Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s and the other agencies as well.
When we are out there investing in construction for infrastructure for tomorrow to support jobs and small business and apprenticeships for today, let us also reflect on this point. When a future generation of kids looks back at the time when their state-of-the-art 21st century library was built in their primary school they will point back to the actions of this Labor government which used this recession in order to invest in that library.
Mr Costello interjecting
I notice that the member for Higgins regards such an investment as humorous. He regards as an object of ridicule the building of state-of-the-art science centres in secondary schools right across regional Australia, which are somewhat removed from the type of school he attended himself. Also with our investment in state-of-the-art science centres and language centres you will have a generation of kids looking back and saying, ‘These advances in our schools, these investments in modernising our schools, came off the back of a Labor government. It is prepared to get in there and have a go, investing in the infrastructure we need for the future while providing jobs, apprenticeships and support for apprentices here and now.’
This government has crafted a strategy for the future, which we believe is robust and strong. It is a nation-building plan for recovery, a nation-building plan for the future, as opposed to the cobbled-together ‘Hoover’ plan being advocated by those opposite, if ever they could possibly harness their act and get it together and coordinate a position, at least for a 30-minute stretch of time.
My question is to the Treasurer, and I refer him to his Budget Overview, appendix F: Major Savings in the 2009-10 Budget. I refer him to the Prime Minister’s last answer and his own answer, saying that they had made tough decisions. Why is it that if you are spinning tough decisions the total savings over five years represent one per cent of all your expenditure?
We cannot wait to see how much more he is going to cut. If he thinks we have not cut enough, he is now confirming that he is going to cut a lot more. Of course he has got to confirm tomorrow night what they are going to save in the budget to pay for the pension increase. That is a very big task that is building up for the shadow Treasurer. But as I said before, in the 2009-10 budget there are savings of $22.7 billion. In 2008-09 budget there were savings over four years of $33 billion. That is a very substantial effort.
But you say it is a tough budget!
Order! The member for North Sydney has asked his question.
In this budget what we put in place was an absolutely essential economic stimulus to support jobs, to support businesses, to support households and to support regions, because of what has been imposed on this country by the rest of the world. And what he is confirming again is that the official position of the Liberal Party is to do a lot less—not to borrow and therefore to savagely put up taxes or to savagely cut services. That is the position of the Liberal Party of Australia.
It is not a position even shared by the business community that are normally more supportive of those opposite. The common-sense proposition is that when you have such a sharp contraction of private demand the government has to move in to stimulate demand to support jobs, to support households and to support businesses. That is something that simply does not occur to them. What we have got is an opportunistic play here from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer—a whole heap of confusion and fuzziness—because they are not up to the job.
My question is to the Minister for Resources, Energy and Tourism. How will the government’s $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative accelerate Australia’s transition to a low-emissions energy pathway?
I thank the member for Bass for the question because she, like many in this House coming from Tasmania, understands the importance of energy transformation in Australia. I say that because, coming from northern Tasmania, she comes from a state which has historically made a major contribution to the renewable energy market in Australia—historically Hydro Tasmania and in more recent times the development of wind energy through the assistance of Roaring 40s. That is why the Clean Energy Initiative of the government is very important. It is about building the energy infrastructure of tomorrow. That is exceptionally important to Australia at the moment because it is about not only energy security but also putting in place the necessary investment to enable Australia to achieve its ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions.
On that note, it is an absolute priority for Australia to front up to the need to make a complete transformation of energy technology as we know it. That is not just about our traditional reliance on coal-fired power stations; it is also about bringing through new investment in areas such as renewable energy, aided and assisted by the implementation of a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020 and in association with finalising the debate—which goes to investment security in Australia, something that is expected by the private sector—with respect to putting a price on carbon. Hence the importance of resolving, this year, the debate concerning the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because it actually finalises an investment horizon which enables us to achieve energy security in the 21st century.
This energy security debate, in association with our Clean Energy Initiative, is very central to the debate with respect to jobs. We are talking about an investment of $4.5 billion but, through a new partnership with the private sector and state governments, we will be able to leverage over $10 billion in Australia. This initiative will make a further major contribution to the issue of job creation as we go through this global financial crisis.
It is about nation building for recovery. In the context of carbon capture and storage, we are talking about a $2.4 billion investment which is going to bring substantial investment by the private sector and state governments in resolving what is all important to Australia both from an energy security point of view and from an export point of view, as we are a major exporter of coal. Carbon capture and storage is a must for Australia. It is very important both from an energy security point of view and from the point of view of reducing our carbon emissions. Our carbon capture initiatives are a world first. We have already put in place offshore storage capacity—world-first legislation—and we are now in the process of considering commercial investment in that offshore storage capacity.
The new part of the investment strategy, as embodied in our Clean Energy Initiative, of this budget goes also to a world first in terms of solar technology. We have placed on the table, for consideration by state and territory governments in association with the private sector an investment of $1.6 billion to be invested in large-scale power generation in a solar flagships program. The target of 1,000 megawatts of solar power represents three times the size of the largest solar energy project in the world today. It means that potentially we in Australia will put in place in the foreseeable future four individual power generation projects, solar thermal, in association with the further development of solar photovoltaic opportunities in Australia—important from a base load point of view. In association with our focus on solar energy, we are looking at other renewable sources, such as geothermal, wave and biomass. Renewables Australia represents an overall investment of $465 million to support leading-edge technology research, development and demonstration projects.
In conclusion, the Australian community expects this investment horizon. The key to any economy is energy security, and in order to maintain energy security in Australia in the 21st century we have to appropriately focus on the transformation of energy technology to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. The nation building for recovery program of the government will enable us to build the energy infrastructure of tomorrow and in doing so not only ensure energy security but also lower emissions and, importantly, assist in job creation in a very difficult economic circumstance.
My question is to the Treasurer. Given the government has spent a record $220 million a day in new initiatives since it was elected 18 months ago, how can the Australian people believe that there will not be one new spending initiative between now and 2017? Treasurer, can you go cold turkey?
Order! The last bit of the question is out of order. The Treasurer will answer the first part of the question.
Honourable members interjecting—
Some mothers do have them, Mr Speaker! It is unbelievable. We are charting a course back to surplus.
That’s been used before, you goose!
Order! The member for Fadden will withdraw.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
We have put in place an expenditure cap once growth returns to trend of two per cent. It is going to be a very, very tough discipline for this government or any other government into the future—a very tough discipline. That is why we have put in place our long-term savings. That is why we took our savings responsibilities so seriously last year and why we have taken them so seriously this year—this year particularly because of events in the global economy and particularly because we had to make some room for the pension increase. We had to make some long-term structural saves, and we have done that. We have a responsible course of action but the weight is now on those opposite: where are they going to make the savings? They say they are not going to run a deficit, they say they are going to support the pension increase, so where are the savings? They are simply not credible.
My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. How is the government investing in jobs, skills and productivity in the budget? What has the government done to invest in tertiary education infrastructure in the budget?
I thank the member for Cunningham for her question. I know that she and members of the House who are interested in jobs today and jobs of the future will be very interested to see this part of the budget documents, Transforming Australia’s higher education system, which delivers the government’s response to the Bradley and Cutler reviews and which charts a future vision for Australian higher education and also records our infrastructure spend for higher education for universities and vocational education and training to support jobs today. This is the next chapter of our education revolution, to ensure that our universities can be a world-class system receiving the resources that they need to offer the quality that Australian students want, to increase the number of Australians with qualifications at the undergraduate level or beyond, to increase the participation of Australians from lower income backgrounds in Australian higher education, and to chart a new vision for research and for innovation. It is this blueprint for reform which has been hailed by the Group of Eight universities as ‘visionary’. It is this blueprint for reform that delivers $5.7 billion to our higher education and innovation systems over the next four years.
Detailed in this document is our major infrastructure investment to support jobs today in the institutions which will matter so much for the jobs of tomorrow. In this budget we announced almost $3 billion for infrastructure in universities, vocational education and training, and research from the Education Investment Fund. This investment included an announcement of $934 million for 31 projects from the Education Investment Fund for round 2. Twelve of the successful projects are in vocational education and training, 11 are for higher education teaching and learning facilities and eight are for research. Taking into account funding that is also being provided by the project proponents, the total value of these projects is $1.8 billion.
I am not surprised that the member for Cunningham asked me this question because she would have seen in this document a major new investment in the University of Wollongong: $43.8 million for the Australian Institute for Innovation Materials. I am sure that there are members on this side of the House, including the member for Ballarat and the member for Bendigo, who would have looked at this list last night with some sense of excitement about the possibilities that it meant for their local universities.
The budget also provides a further $500 million for the Education Investment Fund round 3, and $200 million of this round will be to support the structural adjustment of Australian universities as they move towards a demand driven system for the future. The government has also announced a sustainability round worth $650 million, with $400 million to be dedicated to research infrastructure related to the Clean Energy Initiative, which my colleague the minister for resources has just been outlining to the House, and a $250 million investment for vocational education and training, higher education and research infrastructure related to climate change and sustainability activities. As part of the Australian government’s commitment to creating and supporting the jobs of the future, there is the planned allocation of $2.5 billion of funds into the Education Investment Fund, to be allocated to the groundbreaking Clean Energy Initiative, clean energy obviously being such an important part of the jobs of the future. I wait with interest, like other members of the House, to see whether tomorrow night we will find out that all of the money to support Australia’s universities and vocational education and training institutes will be cut by the opposition, as they are part of the things that the shadow Treasurer will cut, because we do know of course that the track record of the Liberal Party is not to support higher education. I will be waiting to see whether that is one of the things that they will be saying they will take a saving from.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s words in this place during the last recession:
We will continue to worry about the deficit because we want to promote long-term sustainable growth. That can be provided only if we have a disciplined fiscal strategy; if we raise our taxes and spend to accommodate the revenue available.
Given that the Treasurer is now the biggest spending Treasurer in modern Australian history and given that he is overseeing the biggest deficit in modern Australian history and he is the Treasurer delivering the biggest debt in modern Australian history, isn’t he embarrassed by his previous words?
Not at all because I have been committed to fiscal discipline the whole of my political life, because I understand it is fundamental for long-term growth and job creation in the economy.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The question has been asked. Those on my left!
The Prime Minister and I and the finance minister are committed to fiscal discipline, which is why we have put in place our budget rules, which I was talking about before—unlike those opposite, who, when it was raining gold bars during the mining boom, could not find enough money to put a basic pension increase in for single aged pensioners. Shame on them! They could not find enough money to invest in basic infrastructure. Shame on them! They had an absolutely appalling record of not finding savings. They spent like drunken sailors at the top of the boom and now the global recession has shone a very bright light on that.
Let us just look at the savings record of the government compared to that of the previous government. This government has found savings over two budgets of $55 billion, $22.6 billion in this budget and $33 billion in the last budget. This is the record of the previous Liberal government: last budget $3.2 billion in savings for 2007-08, in 2006-07 only $4.3 billion, and in 2005-06 $4.6 billion. They were there at the top of the mining boom and it was raining gold bars and they could not look after pensioners, they could not invest in infrastructure and now they have got the hide to come into this House and claim they know what fiscal discipline means. They have not got a clue, and the country is now living with the consequences of some of the practices of those opposite as well as the global recession. We will deal with the global recession in a responsible and mature way, and we have done that, and we will chart the course back to surplus in a fiscally responsible way.
My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the benefits in the budget for Australia’s 1.9 million small businesses and of what has been the reaction to the budget?
I thank the member for Parramatta for her contribution to small business development in this country, because she ran a small business for seven years and an association that represented small businesses. So I say thank you very much to the member for Parramatta.
This is a budget of nation building for recovery. The budget is supporting jobs today by building the infrastructure Australia needs for tomorrow. The Commonwealth Treasury advises that up to 210,000 Australians would be out of work if not for the stimulus packages that we have initiated and for this budget. We have made the tough savings to deliver the lowest level of net debt of all major advanced economies.
In respect of small business, the budget boosts incentives and support for small businesses by well over $500 million. I will go through some of the measures. The government will increase the small business tax break from 30 per cent to 50 per cent and extend it from 30 June this year until the end of the year. Small business owners around Australia in the forums that I have been doing for the last few months tell me that what they really need is some extra advice during the global economic recession, and we are responding to that with a small business support line at a cost of $10 million so that they get that timely advice and support that they need.
The budget also provides another $10 million to establish a small business online program—maybe the member for Higgins could take advantage of that with his new, you-beaut website—so that small businesses are really well positioned to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the National Broadband Network. There is a new research and development tax credit, which will double the incentive for small businesses to undertake research and development in this country. I remind members here that when the Howard-Costello government came to office in 1996, they cut that R&D tax concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. This restores the effective rate of support for small businesses to undertake research and development back up to an effective 150 per cent. That is very good news for small business. I could spend more time going through a whole range of other initiatives that are contained in this budget for small business.
Government members interjecting—
Despite the encouragement that I am getting from my colleagues, I am conscious of the hour—
I would ask the minister to ignore the encouragement. The minister will return to the question.
and I think, in deference to you, Mr Speaker, I should not spend another quarter of an hour going through that, which would be a mercy to the coalition. But I do make this point: the initiatives contained in the budget build on the $42 billion stimulus package—a nation-building economic stimulus package which we call a ‘tradies package’ because two-thirds of that stimulus is to build infrastructure in Australia, whether it is in our schools or on our roads or local council infrastructure. That is very important to support our tradies.
I am very disappointed, again, with the shadow Treasurer, who said that this is far too much money and that the coalition would not spend anywhere near that money on supporting tradies and supporting small businesses. Of course, we know that the Leader of the Opposition will put into his budget reply speech tomorrow night some references to small business—how they love small business and how they support small business—but we have the shadow Treasurer saying that, no, they would not put anywhere near the sort of money that we would put into the tradies package to support our small businesses. He has been a constant carping critic of our small business tax break, saying, ‘No-one will take that up.’ An Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey for the March quarter shows that 31 per cent of businesses have said that they will bring forward investment in plant and equipment to take advantage of that tax break. If they were doing that when the rate was 30 per cent, imagine what they are going to do when the rate is 50 per cent. This is a very strong initiative for small business.
It is not just me saying this; it is the Council of Small Business of Australia, who said that ‘small business is recognised as the backbone of Australia’s economy in budget 2009’. We have the Master Builders of Australia saying that they ‘welcome the increase in the small business investment tax allowance from the current level of 30 per cent to 50 per cent’.
Mr Ciobo interjecting
Well, why don’t you get on board? You have the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry saying that ‘the extension of the investment allowance to 50 per cent for small business until December 2009 is an excellent initiative’ and ‘a stimulus measure first proposed by ACCI and our members’.
We have the farmers again supporting Labor’s initiatives. The farmers are saying, ‘Farmers will also welcome the small business tax break increase on capital works investment’—the very tax break increase that the coalition criticises and says, ‘Farmers won’t take it up; no-one will take it up.’ Let’s ask the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries. In a release just out, hot off the press, they say:
The Federal Government’s Budget decision to increase and extend the investment tax break for small business provides a valuable incentive for new vehicle sales. The tax break will help stimulate the new vehicle market and support jobs in the industry
There you go—supporting our jobs; supporting our tradies.
But what is happening on the coalition side? It is an unfolding tragedy because, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the Leader of the Opposition has said, on cue—
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Members of this House had thought that the Prime Minister was somewhat boring, but the minister for small business really takes the cake. Please put the House out of its misery and sit him down.
The minister is being relevant to the question, but the minister will bring his answer to a close.
I was cut to the quick by that comment, Mr Speaker. I was asked about reactions and I have been explaining some of the reactions to the budget, but there are other reactions to the budget. The opposition leader has said that he would have a small deficit or a small surplus—that is $50 billion worth of increased taxes or $50 billion of cuts in expenditure. What did we have on the same day, within 18 minutes? We had the shadow Treasurer saying that it would be $25 billion smaller. So we have one saying $50 billion to be cut and another saying $25 billion. And, of course, my counterpart, the shadow minister for small business, independent contractors, tourism and the arts, got into the act, saying just the other day that for this year the deficit will be 50 per cent lower. We know that tomorrow night all expectations are there for the Leader of the Opposition—
Order! The minister will bring his answer to a close.
All expectations are there for the Leader of the Opposition to say where he is going to cut expenditure and increase taxes. They are a disorganised rabble. They support Hoovernomics; they just do not know whether it is J Edgar Hoover, Herbert Hoover or the inventor of the vacuum cleaner.
Mr Speaker, on that positive and enthusiastic note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Under standing order 102, I refer to your comments today regarding the full broadcast of question time on recording days by the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, the ABC. Are you aware that the station selected by the ABC to broadcast proceedings of this place is ABC NewsRadio, which provides approximately half of its daily program content from the British, American, German and Dutch public radio system and would therefore appear to have ample time to provide the Australian people with full coverage of the recording of question time, not a censored version? Today’s issue also raises the question as to why in fact ABC NewsRadio does not play a full recording of the proceedings of the non-direct broadcast chamber and the Main Committee upon the completion of proceedings of the relevant direct broadcast chamber, instead of overseas based broadcasts? As the Presiding Officer in this House, would you please consider this issue in the interest of publicising all proceedings of this place in full.
In answer to the member for O’Connor, I refer him to House of Representatives Practice. A joint committee on the broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings is appointed in each parliament pursuant to the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946. Everything that flows from the rebroadcast by radio is as a result of decisions of that committee. I will take on board some aspects of what the member has put to me about whether there are other times that could be used to rebroadcast beyond one hour, but the so-called ‘censorship’ that the member refers to is as a result of decisions of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings over several parliaments. In relation to the incident today, I think we can safely say there is a member of staff of the Department of Parliamentary Services who, whilst we should admire them for being creative and showing initiative, learnt a valuable lesson and will not be so creative without consultation with others. The lights should not have been switched on and off. That has not been the practice, as members have indicated to me. As the person who the buck really stops with, I apologise to the House for the confusion that it gave and especially to those members—along with me—whose blood pressure was elevated because of it.
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Yes, most grievously.
Please proceed.
During a debate in the Senate yesterday, New South Wales Senator Arbib very selectively edited out words from parts of two of the more than 40 radio interviews I gave in December and January. These were interviews to do with Labor’s changes to border security policy and the new wave of people smugglers. After leaving out my references to Labor’s abolition of temporary protections visas and the contraction of resources, Senator Arbib claimed that I was indicating that there was no difference between the government’s and the coalition’s border protection policies. This was a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and my statements in those interviews.
Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the
I have received a letter from the honourable member for North Sydney proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure to keep control of the nation’s public finances.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Last night I heard a member of the Labor Party describe this budget as a traditional Labor budget. I thought how true that is—big deficit, big debt and more people unemployed. This is the Labor way. It is like groundhog day in this place. The Labor Party comes in and Australia heads towards recession. The Labor Party comes in and we reach record levels of deficit and debt. The Labor Party comes in and spins fiscal responsibility, and yet they have become the biggest-spending government in modern Australian history. There is a lesson here: you always have to look at what Labor does and not at what they say. For months now, the Labor Party has been telling us that the decimation of the budget, the massive debt that is being accrued as a result of significant deficits, is all caused by the collapse in revenue. And yet, when you have a good look at the budget papers, you can identify this: finally the truth emerges during the lock-up that the Labor Party, through its unbelievable expenditure since the Rudd government was elected, has become the biggest-spending government since World War II. Of the $188 billion of net debt, two-thirds of that is directly linked to new spending initiatives by the Rudd government.
They are not just new spending initiatives but reckless spending initiatives. They are reckless spending initiatives that not only blow the proceeds of the last mining boom but seek to spend all the proceeds of the next mining boom. This is reckless fiscal management. It is an assault on the public finances of Australia that we have not seen in generations. They have done it wilfully and they have done it without any care for the future. On each day that they come into this place and lecture us—the Liberals and the Nationals—about fiscal responsibility I want everyone to remember that in 1996, when the coalition were last elected into government, we inherited a debt of $96 billion. We inherited a $10 billion black hole. We were left with nothing in the cabin. We had to make hard decisions to repair Labor’s mismanagement—they were damn hard decisions. I was elected in 1996. There was hardly a government service left in my electorate in North Sydney after that budget. It was a budget that had to be done by the former Treasurer up there, the member for Higgins, who had to make the hard decisions.
Let us remind Australians for the record that the Labor Party opposed us on every single decision, root and branch, that would get the budget back into surplus and that would pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt. The more I hear these sanctimonious fools lecturing us about responsible opposition the more I reflect on the fact that when they left us with $96 billion of debt, when they left us with a black hole of $10 billion, they voted against all the tough initiatives, such as the reform of higher education, a tough initiative; the PBS reform, a damn hard initiative; changes to the disability pension; and HECS increases. They voted against privatisation not once but on a number of occasions over the whole 11 years. They voted against the super surcharge levy, and then they voted to try and keep it some years later. They voted against the closing down of Working Nation, where they fiddled the figures about the real impact of the Keating budget.
And then it came to structural reform, the stuff that lays the foundations, the important stuff, the important initiatives that actually make a difference to the fabric of the nation—tax reform. How hard was that? I remember sitting in this House day after day, arguing with the then shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean, as they were tearing apart the hardest structural initiative in modern times. It was major tax reform, and they voted against it. Even though we won an election with a mandate they voted against it. Even though every election we sought a mandate and even though we won a mandate on privatisation they voted against it. Even today how ironic it was to see the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy coming to the dispatch box and saying: ‘We have fixed the R&D tax concessions. The coalition reduced it from 150 per cent to 125 per cent but—good news, Australia—it’s back at 150 per cent.’ Do you know why we reduced it? Because we ran out of money. Do you know why we ran out of money? Because of Labor.
Labor had spent it.
Labor had spent every dollar in the can and, what is more, they had hocked the future. We are in a situation today where the Labor Party is back in government. And what happens? Groundhog Day; it all happens again. They not only spend the money that was there, but they actually spend all of tomorrow’s money as well.
I think it is the first time in my recollection that a Treasurer actually stood up to deliver a budget speech and did not tell us what the budget was. I cannot recall—and in fact a number of members of this House and outsiders actually could not recall—a situation where the Treasurer did not have the courage to come into this place and give a fair dinkum assessment of the real impact of the budget. Do you know why? Because the Labor Party were desperate to spin this budget into total confusion. And in some way they got away with it. They talked tough before the budget came down. They leaked all these figures out to pretend that it could be terrible, far worse than anything that happened. Of course when they delivered it was better than expected and they said: ‘Isn’t it great we’ve got only 8½ per cent unemployment? Isn’t it fantastic? We’ve done so well. It could have been 10. It could have been 15 per cent. But you know what? We’re delivering 8½ per cent unemployment. We’re so good.’ That is what the Labor Party say. That is great, isn’t it. It was four per cent 18 months ago, and the Labor Party take pride in one million Australians being unemployed. They are saying the budget deficit could have been $70 billion next year: ‘And you know what? It’s fantastic. Aren’t we great? We’ve delivered $58 billion. Haven’t we done a wonderful job? Forget that it’s the largest budget deficit since World War II. Forget that. That’s irrelevant.’
This is the 13th episode of Fawlty Towers. I am having terrible flashbacks of Manuel and Basil Fawlty—all of them, the whole team. I am reminded of that song Ship of Fools because it is a ship of fools over there. The problem for us and the problem for all Australians is this: the ship of fools is running the country. The ship of fools is running up the biggest deficit in modern Australian history. The ship of fools is running up the biggest debt in Australian history: $9,000 for every man, every woman and every child in Australia. And you know what? It will be bigger. I am prepared to bet everything I have that the Labor Party deficit and debt will be far bigger than what we heard last night, because that is how they do it. The Labor Party has no restraint; the Labor Party has no control.
It is very interesting, isn’t it? They come in here and selectively quote from so-called authorities about how they have got a plan to get out of it. There will be the usual sycophantic so-called business representatives that will say that the Labor Party has a plan to get out of debt and deficit. But I tell you what: the ANZ described the budget as having ‘optimism’ around the economic forecasts, suggesting there is considerable scope for slippage. ‘Slippage’—this is a new one! And the National Australia Bank said:
Our real concern is that the budget does not lay out a credible medium-term policy to return the budget to a more sustainable footing …
Damn right—the NAB is absolutely right. In perhaps the most truthful analysis of the forecasting and the Labor Party’s so-called plan to get the budget back into surplus, JP Morgan says:
Swan Diving into the Red Sea
… … …
Crucially, the Treasurer’s “cross your fingers” strategy for returning the Budget to surplus relies principally (and optimistically) on a return to strong, above trend economic growth, rather than the “hard decisions” he promised.
Amen. Hard decisions represent one per cent of all expenditure over the five years that they are citing. One per cent—that is the ‘hard decision’. If you believe the Labor Party’s commentary, our position on that is going to decide the future of the nation’s finances, with one per cent—one per cent!—of total expenditure going to be saved. That is the big political issue today. That is why they are a ship of fools.
They do not understand that it is the structural issue that is the problem. When you give people a so-called plan, it had better have credibility. The Labor plan has no credibility. It is based on assumptions that the IMF and the RBA do not agree with—not that the IMF and the RBA are always right, but there is a level of credibility associated with them, as there is with JP Morgan, the National Australia Bank and everyone else who says that these figures are rubbery.
Do you know what? Underpinning this estimation—that they are going to get out the deficit, and that is not even the debt but the deficit—is an assumption that Australia is going to come out of this recession faster than anyone really thinks, but we are also going to have the longest period of above-trend growth than anyone can remember. It will be the mining boom on steroids that gets these guys out of a deficit and a debt. The problem is that every Australian is going to have to pay for this. And, lo and behold, out of all of this the key issue is—we believe it when the government says it, as does everyone else—that this government will not make one new spending decision between now and 2017. Do we believe that?
Opposition members interjecting—No!
Do we believe that?
Opposition members interjecting—No!
No-one believes it. Here is a Prime Minister that has committed over $200 million a day in new spending initiatives since he was elected, and they are asking us to believe that the deficit will be no worse because they will not have one new major spending initiative between now and 2017. They are a ship of fools. If they believe the Treasurer, who is the navigator on the ship of fools, and if they believe the Prime Minister, who is the captain of the ship of fools, then they deserve their place on that ship.
The challenge for us is to keep this government accountable. The challenge for us is to stand true—which we will do—to our core principles. You should aim to spend only that which you collect, you should aim to create jobs not just for today but for tomorrow, you should be fiscally responsible, and, most importantly of all, you should not leave the next generation of Australians with a level of debt that will be a ball and chain around their legs and will prevent them from seizing the opportunities that the coalition have worked so hard to deliver over 11 years of government.
This is another example—
Mr Hockey interjecting
Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney was heard in silence.
This is another example of the Liberal mythmaking machine in overdrive. As we have seen in the last 24 hours, it is another example from the member for North Sydney. According to the Leader of the Opposition, according to the member for North Sydney and according to the other spokespeople, if only the Australian people had had the good sense to keep them in office everything would be rosy. Everything would be fine—the deficit would be lower; the debt would be lower; unemployment would be lower. According to their narrative, everything would be fine if only the Liberal Party had retained their rightful place as the born-to-rule party of this nation.
But at the heart of their narrative there are two patently false claims—two claims so laughable that I would have thought the opposition would be embarrassed by the paucity of their argument and by the plain sophistry of their narrative. The first false proposition is this: the deficits would be lower in future years under the opposition’s plan, because they would not have made the direct payments to families that we made. That is proposition No. 1. They say, ‘We wouldn’t have had the cash splash, we wouldn’t have sent $900 to working families, so our deficits would be lower.’
Let us put aside the fact that those payments have been so important in keeping the Australian economy as robust as it is compared to the rest of the world. Let us look at the fiscal impact of that decision. We went down the road of payments to families because they were temporary and because they were targeted, because they would wash through the budget, because almost all the impact would be in the 2008-09 financial year and they would not be a drag in future years. And what did the opposition say at the time? They said: ‘We wouldn’t do that. We’d oppose that. We wouldn’t make the $900 payments to families.’ Instead, they said, ‘We’d have tax cuts—permanent tax cuts.’ The Deputy Leader of the Opposition called them ‘broad and sweeping tax cuts’. The Leader of the Opposition made a virtue out of the fact that they would be permanent. He even trotted out academics—John Taylor from Stanford University—to say that people need to know that the reduction in their tax is permanent so that they increase their spending. Of course, a permanent reduction in tax means a permanent drag on the budget bottom line—a different approach from this government, not temporary, not targeted, but a permanent drag on the bottom line. That means that, whereas our stimulus payments to families have no impact on the budget in the out years, theirs would have an ongoing impact. They come in here and claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. They say, ‘We stand for lower deficits; we stand for lower debt,’ when their policy would directly mean higher deficits and higher debt. They are hypocrisy personified.
Mr Robert interjecting
The member for Fadden is warned!
They are engaging in a blatant falsehood with the Australian people; they are taking the Australian people for mugs. The second false premise is closely related to the first—that is, that the increase in the debt and deficits over the forward estimates is not primarily due to the revenue write-down that the government has experienced. We have just heard the shadow Treasurer say again that the main impact on the deficit situation has been government spending. It has not been revenue write-downs, they say.
This reached its most ridiculous last week on 7 May on the Sky News AM Agenda program in a debate between our colleague the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and the shadow minister for small business, the member for Moncrieff. I confess I did not see it myself; I heard about it. I have a bit of a soft spot for the member for Moncrieff, but I could not believe it. I thought the story must have been embellished. So I checked the transcript, ready to leap to the defence of the member for Moncrieff, but unfortunately it was indefensible. He said this:
We put forward our proposal for the stimulus package this year, which would be about 50 per cent of Labor’s. Therefore, this year the deficit will be 50 per cent or less.
Let us just think about this. He said, ‘Our stimulus would be 50 per cent less, therefore our deficit would be 50 per cent less.’ There is a small problem with this equation, as the minister for small business correctly pointed out during the program, because it completely ignores tax write-downs. It completely ignores the wrecking ball that has gone through the Australian budget as a result of the global economic downturn, the fact that tax receipts have fallen so dramatically. The revenue loss in 2008-09 is $23 billion, but that did not happen according to the opposition. The member for Moncrieff says that it did not happen because he says that the only driver of the deficit is the stimulus program. If we have 50 per cent less stimulus then we would have 50 per cent less deficit. That is just not right, putting aside the fact that arguably they would not have had a 50 per cent smaller deficit because they believed in, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—who is present in the chamber—said, ‘broad and sweeping tax cuts’. Her economic narrative is that they would make the government money. Remember that? Broad and sweeping tax cuts would actually make the government money—just before she lost the shadow Treasurership of Australia without seeing one budget. I wonder why that happened, when they engage in voodoo economics. We cannot be too hard on the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and on the member for Moncrieff, because it comes right from the top. It comes from the Leader of the Opposition himself. Even today, the Leader of the Opposition said to Sky News this morning:
In 2012-13 there will be a net debt of $188 billion, an almost inconceivable figure. Since he was elected, Mr Rudd has spent $124 billion, so in fact about two-thirds of his debt is represented by his spending since he got elected. Yes, the economic downturn has hurt us—no question. It has affected tax revenues, but the biggest contribution to that debt has been discretionary spending by the Rudd government.
Let us have a look at the Leader of the Opposition’s maths. He says that net debt in 2012-13 will be $188 billion. Yes, he got that from the budget papers. He says that the new government expenditure is responsible for $124 billion. If that is correct, that means the revenue write-down would be $64 billion, but we heard the shadow Treasurer last night say he accepts that the revenue write-down is $210 billion. The Leader of the Opposition needs to explain his maths. He needs to justify his sums. He needs to say how he came to that figure. If he cannot, he is clearly engaging in sophistry of the most wilful and disgraceful type. The Leader of the Opposition said on Sky News this morning, ‘You can’t argue with the numbers.’ Well he is arguing with the numbers and he has come off second best, just as he might argue with the numbers and come off second best in the Liberal party room in a couple of months, I suspect.
We also had the official opposition response last night in the shadow Treasurer’s press release. I thought that this would be good—two pages, obviously a considered press release with a great deal of thought going into his position. We would welcome that. The first page of the shadow Treasurer’s press release condemns the government for the deficit. It says that the deficit is too high, that we should have been tougher, et cetera. If that is the line they are going to take, fair enough. The second page condemns our savings measures. It says we have saved too much. How dare we deal with the private health insurance rebate, how dare we deal with structural change to the budget deficit. But the best bit comes towards the end. This is my personal favourite. I almost fell off my chair when I read this and I feel obliged to share it with the House. We come to education and training and the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney said—brace yourselves, this is good:
… the Government is offering nothing new for Australian schools at all.
I am not sure where the shadow Treasurer has been but I seem to recall the government delivering the biggest rebuilding program of Australian schools in our history—which the opposition opposes. Now he comes in—this is a press release—and says that the government is offering nothing new for Australian schools at all. So having opposed the biggest rebuilding program, now the opposition is calling for us to do more. But it gets better! The shadow Treasurer then goes on to say:
Universities have been let down.
Universities have been let down by this government! That is from a member of the only government in the entire OECD to preside over a reduction in higher education funding. This government has delivered in this budget $5.7 billion over four years for higher education, and the shadow Treasurer says that universities have been let down! So presumably he would like to see more spending. So they call for a lower deficit, they oppose the spending cuts and they call for more spending! I am not quite sure how that works.
The shadow Treasurer says that universities have been let down. The chairman of the Group of Eight, Professor Alan Robson, said:
In a difficult budgetary environment, Ministers Carr and Gillard are to be commended for their long-term vision and commitment to Australian higher education.
And close to home the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Professor Reid, said:
This has been a landmark Federal Budget for university teaching and research funding—one that promises to transform Australia’s higher education landscape.
So the shadow Treasurer says that universities have been let down. The universities do not agree. He calls for more, yet the opposition also call for a lower deficit and a lower debt. Is it any wonder that all the evidence is that the Australian people have lost all confidence in the economic management abilities of those opposite?
If the opposition were in charge it is highly unlikely that we would have seen some of the endorsements of the budget that we saw last night. It is highly unlikely we would have seen Standard and Poor’s saying:
The budget articulates a plan for fiscal consolidation as economic conditions recover. The successful delivery of this strategy of returning the operating position to surpluses over the cycle and maintaining lower debt will be consistent with maintaining the AAA rating of Australia.
I wonder if that would have been the case if we had had the voodoo economics of those opposite, with their voodoo dolls, saying, ‘How do we do this? I know what we’ll do: we’ll lower the deficit, we’ll spend more and we’ll oppose savings measures.’ I wonder if we would have seen that sort of endorsement then.
Why did we see that sort of endorsement? We saw it because the government was dealing with the long-term pressures on the Australian budget, including the long-term pressures of demography—not only the global financial crisis but the ageing of the Australian population and the pressures that that will place on the Australian budget in years to come.
It has been said by many people that demography is destiny. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition. He said it in his first speech. I remember it well; it was the same day as my first speech. The Leader of the Opposition said:
The demographic storm is coming. How hard it blows and how well our children weather it will depend in large measure on the decisions we take today …
Well said. It was a good contribution. It was a good first speech. I was sitting on the opposition side, listening to it. The issue of demography is why decisions that we have taken—like dealing with the aged pension—are so important. People are living longer. The proportion of the population that is ageing is growing rapidly and unless we make decisions now about how to deal with the ‘demographic storm’—as the Leader of the Opposition calls it—we will be leaving it to our children and we will be doing them a disservice.
Policy decisions about dealing with the age pension and dealing with the private health insurance rebate are the sorts of decisions that the government has had to make. They are tough decisions—decisions which were not made lightly; decisions which were not made with alacrity. They were decisions that were made over a long period of time in a careful and considered way. They are tough decisions. The opposition says that they are not tough decisions but the opposition are not sure whether they are tough enough to support them. They say, ‘You haven’t made any tough decisions, but the decisions you have taken are too tough for us to support.’ That seems to be the other confused narrative that we get from the Leader of the Opposition.
Budget time is not a test just for governments. As much as it is a test for governments it is also a test for oppositions. And tomorrow night will be a test for this Leader of the Opposition. Last year it was a test for the member for Bradfield—a test that he failed, and he paid the price. Tomorrow night will be a test as to whether the Leader of the Opposition can live up to his title. Is he a leader or is he an opportunist? It will be a test as to whether he is willing to act or willing just to whinge. It will be a test as to whether he is interested in the nation’s interest or his own self-interest. It will be a test as to whether he is up to the job of the Leader of the Opposition. The Australian people do not look just to the government for leadership in times like this; they also look to the parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition has been strong on rhetoric about bipartisanship in the face of this crisis. He has been very good at the rhetoric. Tomorrow night he has the chance to come in here and lend some bipartisan support for this government’s efforts to keep the economy strong, to provide stimulus to the economy and to put us on a sound structural footing going forward. It is a test that we will wait and see whether he can pass.
This government carved out a sorry place in Australian political history last night, for in just 18 months this government has caused the biggest budget turnaround—from surplus to deficit—in living memory and it has run up the largest public net debt since World War II. That is the legacy of this government. With apologies to Winston Churchill: never in the field of Australian government finances has so much been squandered so quickly for so little benefit.
The Rudd government has outspent all that have gone before, with government spending now 29 per cent of GDP. It is the biggest spending government in over 50 years, with debt and deficit as far as the eye can see. For years the labour movement has been searching for a way to rewrite the disastrous and chaotic history of the Whitlam years. With the handing down of this budget last night the Rudd government has achieved what others have failed to do: it has made the Whitlam government now look fiscally responsible by comparison.
The Treasurer was so ashamed of the government’s mishandling of the country’s finances last night that he could not even say in the budget speech the phrase ‘a $58 billion deficit’. That is the first line he should have told the Australian people about last night. He could not bring himself to level with the Australian people and say ‘$188 billion of net debt’, and he did not dare get caught on camera saying that there will be one million Australians unemployed under the Rudd government. The last time there were a million people unemployed in this country was under the Keating government. So now we have Whitlam, Keating, Rudd. Yes, this was a true Labor budget all right. Debt, deficit, recession: that is a Labor budget.
The Treasurer knows that Labor have blown it. The Rudd Labor government inherited the best set of accounts of any incoming federal government in Australia’s history. There was no government debt. There was money in the bank. We had savings and surpluses. We were living within our means. The Rudd government must have thought that it had hit the jackpot. It started spending. In the true Labor tradition, it spent all the taxpayers’ money that had been saved away in government coffers. It spent all of that then started borrowing. It could not get enough borrowing onshore so it started borrowing offshore. But it kept on spending.
The Rudd government has announced the equivalent of $220 million a day in additional spending. That is $220 million in additional spending initiatives every day since it came to office—$124 billion in additional new spending announcements in 18 months. This is a government that knew revenues were decreasing but went on a spending spree like there was no tomorrow. Of the $188 billion in net debt, $124 billion is as a result of the profligate spending of the Rudd Labor government. They remind you of Arthur, the black sheep playboy son of the billionaire. He squandered his entire inheritance, unable to control the spending. When this government ran out of money, it started borrowing uncontrollably. Gross debt is likely to top $300 billion. You did not hear the Treasurer admit that to the Australian people in his budget speech last night.
This government has lost control of the nation’s finances. No wonder the Queensland Media Club is pleading for people to attend the Treasurer’s post-budget lunch next week; people just do not believe this budget. The government’s so-called deficit exit strategy is as believable as a fairytale. Having run up the largest debt in Australian history with additional spending of $220 million per day, the government now wants Australians to believe it is going to return the budget to surplus, but it makes the following assumptions: first, that no government will undertake any new spending until 2017. That is what it wants us to believe. Another assumption is that there will be an unprecedented run of growth at 4.5 per cent for at least two years, and then there is a projection of above-trend growth for another four consecutive years. Colleagues, they are asking the Australian people to believe that there will be six consecutive years of growth at 4½ per cent. There have only been two periods in the last 50 or 60 years when growth of 4½ per cent has been maintained, and that has only ever been for two years at a time. This is simply unbelievable. This assumption flies in the face of forecasts from the IMF, the Reserve Bank and most respected Australian economists.
The government have been selectively quoting, but it is interesting that they have not quoted from the rating agency Moody’s. What Moody’s said is:
We do recognise the trend in deficit and debt is unfavourable and represents a weakening of the government’s financial strength.
Moody’s went on to say—and I ask members of the government to listen to this:
If deficits were to extend beyond the period Swan has projected—
and of course they are, based on those wild assumptions—
we would have to begin thinking about the manageability of the whole situation.
That means the credit rating would be under question. So the government is saying, ‘There’s no problem with the credit rating,’ but that is based on these unbelievable assumptions of no new spending until 2017 and six consecutive years of growth, which we have never seen in the last 60 years.
Make no mistake: this budget is a political document. The growth forecast has been adopted by the government to create a fantasy that it has a plan to restore the nation’s finances. These assumptions are not credible and the government must release all of the Treasury advice and all of the options presented to the government. We know how the government chooses to portray Treasury advice. We know how the government shamelessly spins the advice it is given. Take the Prime Minister’s bald-faced assertion that Treasury advised the government last year that the first cash splash of $10 billion would create 75,000 new jobs. When they were forced to reveal the actual Treasury advice through freedom of information, we found out that Treasury in fact provided a general formula linking employment and economic growth, with numerous optimistic assumptions about how much of the cash splash would be spent and how much would be saved. It was heavily qualified, yet the Prime Minister came out and said that Treasury advised that the $10 billion cash splash would create 75,000 new jobs. He knew that that is not what Treasury said. He knew it would not happen, it has not happened and it was never going to happen. So this government must take responsibility for the political decisions it has taken in framing the budget.
The public deserves to know why the government has suddenly changed the way it predicts economic growth. Just as the government moved the goalposts last November in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook with regard to the assumptions on interest rates to suit the political purposes at that time, it must also say why it has moved the goalposts this time on growth to suit its political purposes. It must stop hiding behind Treasury forecasts or projections and tell the Australian people that they are political decisions that frame this budget, and it must take responsibility for them. It is not the government that is going to pay off this debt and deficit. It is the young people of Australia, the young taxpayers of the future, who will be paying off this government debt for years to come. This government has no money of its own; it only spends what it takes from the people in taxes or what it borrows. The next generation will be paying. (Time expired)
There are two issues that I think are evident, listening to the opposition speakers on this matter of public importance debate. One is that it is apparent that the coalition does not understand that there is a global economic recession. It is almost as if the Australian economy is considered in complete isolation from what is happening internationally. The second issue that is evident from the contributions made from the opposition is that it has no plan and no idea how to address these circumstances—not one constructive idea to contribute to these difficult economic times. The fact of the matter is that this country faces the worst economic recession internationally since the Great Depression, and I think it is useful to contribute to the debate some of the figures that evidence that case, because they do not appear to have been considered by the opposition.
In 2009 the budget has indicated negative growth in this country of 0.5 per cent, but for our major trading partners the recession will have the impact in 2009 of causing a two per cent contraction. In all the advanced economies the contraction is as great as 3.75 per cent. In the G7 economies, the economic recession internationally is causing a contraction to the tune of four per cent. In Japan the figure is a terribly alarming six per cent. That is the international environment in which the government had to frame last night’s budget announced by the Treasurer. We have experienced the worst fall in revenue since the early 1930s: $210 billion over the forward estimates. That contraction in revenue is the impact of the global economic recession on the framing of the budget, but none of the international economic circumstances seem to be considered in the analysis that the coalition has brought to bear—if you can elevate it to that terminology. The terms of trade have deteriorated significantly. Commodity prices have fallen extremely significantly, in many areas by as much as 50 and 60 per cent. Almost all of the major economies are in recession.
This government is determined to make the hard decisions to confront this challenge. It has made decisions to formulate the budget by building the nation; to invest now to support jobs and to support the future economic foundation of this country; to shield Australian working families to the best extent the government possibly can from the harsh impact of this recession; importantly, given the terrible impact that unemployment has in our society, to fight unemployment and build for the future; to stimulate economic activity; and to take the hard decisions to bring about savings over the forward estimates.
If you look at some of the key budget measures, they underpin the decisions that the government has taken or are clear evidence of them—and the coalition will need to consider its position on these measures as we head towards the parliamentary processes in this place and in the Senate for the passage of the appropriation bills necessary to implement them. Key measures are a $22 billion investment in building the nation’s infrastructure which includes $3.4 billion for roads, $4.6 billion investment in metro rail and $389 million for ports and freight infrastructure; a $4.5 billion commitment in the Clean Energy Initiative which includes $1 billion of existing funds; a $2.6 billion investment in projects focused on universities and research from the Education Investment Fund, with a consequence that in the university sector 50,000 additional places for students will be created by that investment; $3.2 billion in projects focused on hospitals and health infrastructure from the Health and Hospitals Fund; and partnering with the private sector to build the National Broadband Network.
In addition to those measures in infrastructure investment, the government has committed an additional $20 billion to rebuild our hospitals, extended the first home owners boost, provided an improved tax break for small businesses, increased the pension and built on the education revolution with a $5.7 billion investment over four years, as well as a host of other measures including the implementation of a paid parental leave scheme. These are enormously significant measures—decisions taken by the government in active consideration of the economic circumstances internationally and how they impact on our economy. What this is telling you is that this government is prepared to face the challenges and take the difficult decisions, not hide from them. And without this action, the contraction in our own economy undoubtedly would be far worse and unemployment would be higher.
Now, is the coalition up to that challenge? We have heard nothing from the coalition to suggest that there is any plan to deal with the global recession. It is all political opportunism. The Labor government must have been created the international recession! That is what you could conclude from their contributions. There is no plan to support working families in this difficult period. There is no plan to address rising unemployment. It is a classic political opportunist strategy: ‘Blame Labor for the lot.’ Ignore the fact that we have got a global economic recession; blame the Labor government. Oppose and complain about stimulatory investment and infrastructure spending, complain about the deficit and the borrowing to underpin nation building and economic stimulus, but turn up at media opportunities, of course. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has indicated on a number of occasions, ‘It’s okay to oppose all this, but you turn up at a media opportunity to announce local infrastructure projects.’
When under pressure about how they would meet a $210 billion collapse in revenue, the coalition pretend they would not borrow to fund the deficit. When under pressure about not borrowing, they try to avoid saying what services they would cut or what taxes they might put up. But you cannot have it both ways. If the coalition will not support nation building and economic stimulus to meet the global economic circumstances and their impact on our economy and if the Liberals will not support jobs and investment in the future of our country then they are admitting that, under them, unemployment would be higher and the economy would contract further and be deeper in recession. That is the simple fact of the matter. You do not need to know too much about economics to work that out. And, if the coalition do not like any of that analysis, the alternative conclusion could be that they too would be running a deficit and borrowing to fund it. The only other conclusion you could draw is that they would be making massive cuts.
We heard today that the shadow Treasurer has forecast that the coalition would have a deficit reduced to the amount of approximately $25 billion; I think that was the contribution made. Tomorrow night, in the budget reply, it will be incumbent upon the Leader of the Opposition to declare to this place and the Australian people how that would be achieved. The shadow Treasurer has determined what the budget deficit would be under a coalition government; how would they fund it? What taxes would go up? Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, has indicated that revenue would be higher under the coalition. What taxes would be going up? He has also indicated that expenditure would be lower. What savings would be made? What would be cut? What measures would they take? The fact of the matter is that I doubt we will hear anything too specific.
The government has made hard decisions to meet the worst economic circumstances since the Great Depression, and there is clear evidence that the government strategy is working and will continue to work. The Treasurer has articulated a strategy to exit the temporary deficit situation by 2015-16. The Treasury has published the detail of the assumptions which underpin that plan. The government has set out a strategy for stimulating the economy, building the nation, supporting jobs and investing in the economic foundations of this country, and the coalition should support it. (Time expired)
What we have seen in this matter of public importance debate and over the last 20 hours or so since the budget was brought down is the essential problem with this Rudd Labor government: their problem with the truth. We saw scripted performances and the stretching of the English language—everything possible to mislead or conceal the truth from the Australian people. When the Rudd government was first elected, we heard a lot about working families. Before that, before the election of the Prime Minister, we used to hear a lot about how the buck stopped with him—not a phrase you hear very often anymore. All of those opposite know that because they get the script from the Prime Minister’s office. They must get cookies or Caramello Koalas for every time they say the word ‘decisive’; we hear them all saying it. We used to have a Prime Minister who said the buck stopped with him. We also used to hear another phrase more often than we do today: ‘working families’. We do not hear that as often today, as working families become redundancy families.
Exactly a year ago today, the first Rudd budget was brought down, and it is interesting to have a look at the language of that budget speech compared with the language absent from last night’s budget speech. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out the astounding omission of the budget deficit figure from the budget speech last night. In over 30 minutes and around 3,000 words, the Treasurer did not mention the budget deficit figure. He thinks that, if he does not mention the figure, the Australian people will not know. It was interesting that last night he mentioned working families once in the speech. Last year, he mentioned working families 13 times—he even had ‘working families’ as a heading in last year’s speech—but last night just once.
We have seen the ridiculous language of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in recent days about ‘temporary deficits’. These are temporary deficits that will last for six years if nothing goes wrong and everything they say is right, when almost everything they have said since the last budget has been wrong. ‘Temporary’ for six years—let us think about that for a second. We should be glad that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan do not run a garage. When you put your car in for a service, you would get a temporary car, which you would normally expect to have for a day. Imagine turning up every afternoon for six years to get your car back, with the Prime Minister and his sidekick the Treasurer coming out with another excuse—the excuse factory.
This misleading language, this omission, this inability to say the most basic, truthful statement to the Australian public is catching up with this government halfway through this parliament. On the Neil Mitchell program this morning, the interview started like this:
Mitchell—Will you apologise to the Australian people for directly breaking the promises you made before the election?
Rudd—Neil, I accept full responsibility for that and for not being able to fulfil some of those policy commitments.
Mitchell—No, it’s not that—it’s the promises broken.
Rudd—No, policy commitments.
Mitchell—Promises broken, Prime Minister.
Rudd—Policy commitments that we haven’t fulfilled.
(Time expired)
Once again I rise to contribute to an MPI put forward by the opposition that is flabbergasting in its audacity and hypocrisy. Many times in this House and in the media they have accused the Labor government of reckless spending, yet they were the government that presided over the biggest cash splash in our history. It lasted for about 12 years. It was not a cash splash designed to stimulate our economy. It was not a cash splash designed to support our retail sector and employment. It was not a cash splash to deal with unique economic circumstances. It was a cash splash designed to prop up their marginal seats. It was a pork-barrelling cash splash. So to have them coming in here and talking about government spending leaves me speechless.
It is also amazing that they talk about government spending and that they were able to do this because they were such good controllers of finances. They managed to completely waste the incredible resources that we received from the most significant resources and mining boom that we have seen in this country and they sold off some of our most significant assets—the family silver. That is how they managed to keep a surplus and throw their cash around willy-nilly, and they did it to support marginal seats.
It is incredible to hear the former government, which had such reckless policies, come in here and not acknowledge the significance of the very carefully targeted spending program of this government. It is also incredible that for 30 minutes the opposition have been speaking about the Australian economy and not once have they mentioned the global recession. Not once have they even acknowledged that we are in the most significant global financial crisis since the Great Depression—and they pretend to believe that they are the alternative government in this country. It is an indictment on their role as parliamentarians and on their commitment to steering our economy and our community out of these very troubling and, indeed, very difficult times.
This government has kept control of the finances and it has done it in a very responsible way. It has done it by supporting jobs, by investing in infrastructure and by ensuring that we do have community assets through projects out there that get people working on assets that we will have in this nation for the long term. Not once did they do that. Not once when they had incredible revenues did they invest in infrastructure or support our local communities. In this budget we have acknowledged that we have to face difficult economic circumstances and that we have to take them head-on. We acknowledge that it means going into debt and the budget being in deficit.
But let us just get this one into perspective. Let us have a look at the situation around the world. Currently our net debt as a percentage of GDP is 4.6 per cent, and certainly no debt would be much better. But what is the situation in the United States? It is 61.7 per cent of GDP. In the UK it is 56.8 per cent of GDP, and in Japan, a nation that has such a long history of economic productivity and manufacturing, it is 103.6 per cent of GDP. So I know that the Australian people will be much cleverer at understanding the crisis and putting our economy in perspective when they look at those figures. Basically, to me there is a choice—and it is a bit like buying a house or choosing somewhere to live. You accept the coalition’s argument that you just simply pay dead rent because even if they were in government they would be in debt. What we are doing is taking the decision to responsibly invest in a mortgage, buy an asset and pay it off, because that will be there for the long term. (Time expired)
Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired. The discussion has concluded.
by leave—I move:
That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.
I indicate to all honourable members that this motion is supported by the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax.
Question agreed to.
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Ordered that the order of the day be considered immediately.
The question is that the motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the motion presented.
Ordered that the order of the day be considered immediately.
The question is that motion be agreed to. I ask all honourable members to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places.
Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Swan:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The former member for Brand and former Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley once remarked of the Australian Labor Party that they were not a small business party and they never pretended to be. And yet, we see a subtle change has moved across the benches of the government, because they are still not a small business party but the key difference is that they now pretend to be a small business party. When we look at the announcements that were made in last night’s budget, and in particular the bill that is before the House today, the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business and General Business Tax Break) Bill 2009, we see the Australian Labor Party doing their best to pretend that they have the interests of Australia’s 2.4 million small businesses at heart.
We on this side of the House have a rich depth of people who have been involved in small business—in running their own small businesses and in working in small business. That stands in stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party, which simply does not understand small business, because, quite frankly, the closest the majority of the Australian Labor Party have got to small business is when they set foot inside one to buy a cup of coffee. That is the experience of the Australian Labor Party, which unashamedly is the political wing of the trade union movement.
The announcement made in last night’s budget was in effect a snowballing of an announcement initially made in December last year. On 12 December last year we had the first incarnation of the bill that is currently before the House. It was to provide a 10 per cent investment allowance for business. This morphed on 3 February 2009 into its second iteration, which provided a 30 per cent investment allowance for all businesses. Then last night the third incarnation was presented to the parliament: a 50 per cent investment allowance for small businesses. If we follow this same trajectory forward we can probably expect that by Christmas time, as this measure still fails to work, there will be something like a 125 per cent investment allowance for small business.
The Labor Party has a problem: the Labor Party does not understand small business but they are desperate to be seen to be doing something for small business. We know that Labor Party policy is going to make it very hard for small business owners and operators to continue to operate. We know that, under the Australian Labor Party, occupational health and safety compliance costs are skyrocketing. We know that, under the Australian Labor Party’s industrial relations reforms, the costs of the labour force are going to skyrocket. We know that, as a result of the Australian Labor Party’s policy of so-called modern awards, the costs of employing staff are going to skyrocket. The restaurant and catering industry, perhaps one of the most densely concentrated groups of small businesses in this country, have outlined that, thanks to Labor’s policy changes, about 8,000 jobs will go in their industry. In the retail sector we see that, thanks to Labor’s policy changes, the retailers are expecting a 15 to 20 per cent increase in business operating costs. The Pharmacy Guild is predicting about a 30 per cent increase in business operating costs thanks to Labor’s changes. We know the Newsagents Federation has said that they are predicting somewhere between a 50 and 70 per cent increase in operating costs thanks to Labor’s changes.
That is what this government is doing to small business at the very worst possible time. It is the worst possible time because small businesses are under cash-flow stress—sales are down and, thanks to Labor, business operating costs are up. Small business owners are doing it tough. But do you know what many are doing? Fundamentally, they are good people. They are good Australians and in most instances those small business men and women who employ the 3.8 million Australians who work in the small business sector are putting themselves second to the interests of their employees. That is the small-business culture that I have the opportunity and privilege of gaining insight into every day in my role as Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts. Small business owners are putting themselves second in order to keep people employed, because they know that, as an owner of a small business, as an employer, they have a responsibility to their employees to keep them on, help them to pay their mortgage and help them as much as possible to keep food on the table.
I applaud that tenacity, I applaud that compassion and I applaud that understanding that small business owners have. That is why I get so irate when I hear the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, who is meant to be the advocate for small business in this place and outside it, make comments like the reason we need a fair dismissal code is because one day a small business owner might go into his business in a bad mood and fire good people. That is the remark that the minister for small business in this Labor Party government made about those men and women across the country who own and operate small businesses, those 2.4 million small businesses that employ about 3.4 million Australians. That is the kind of casual disregard and the kind of ignorant understanding that the Labor Party have towards small business in this country.
I have outlined some ways that the government’s policy should reflect real initiatives to help small business in this country, and the coalition have done that on a number of occasions. Prior to Christmas we announced changes and reforms, albeit temporary, to the PAYG instalments system that we believed would assist small business. In addition to that we recently announced a detailed six-point small business action plan that was launched by the Leader of the Opposition and me to reinforce to those small business men and small business women how vitally important they are to Australia’s pathway to renewal and to economic recovery. Not one of those initiatives has been picked up by this government. Actually, I will correct myself. There was one initiative that was picked up by this government and amended. That was to do with the changes to the PAYG instalments payments. But the only other initiative that the Labor Party have come up with in 18 months, aside from all those initiatives which are pushing up small business costs, has been the announcement—in December, again in February and again last night—in different iterations for a 50 per cent investment allowance for small business.
Do not get me wrong; there are some small businesses that will benefit from Labor’s announcement. It is not all bad news. I am not going to be typecast in anyway as being someone recklessly opposed to Labor’s initiatives, because this is not all bad news, as there are some small businesses that will benefit as a result of this announcement. But the problem is that so much more could have been done to assist Australia’s small businesses by this Labor government had they simply understood the needs of small business a little better. The fundamental issue that Labor just do not get is that, when times are tough, when sales are down and when costs are up, what just about every small business is facing is cash-flow stress. That means they are not sitting there on a bank vault full of money with the tills full of cash. Rather, small business owners are working the telephone and calling in those debts that need to be repaid promptly. They need the cash, they are under stress, the payments are slow to come in and they are not as much as they used to be. The outgoings have increased and, of course, they have got to pay wages.
Cash-flow stress is the most fundamental feature of small business during these tough economic times. So what do the Labor Party propose as their panacea for small business? The Labor Party’s proposal is for a 50 per cent tax investment allowance. So how does this actually work in practice? The Labor Party say, ‘Well, what we’re going to do to stimulate the small business sector is we’re going to say to them, “Go out and buy small plant and equipment worth more than a thousand dollars and you’ll get 50 per cent back upfront”.’ As I said, there is some merit in that idea, but the fundamental problem is that if you are not sitting on cash, if you do not have access to credit and if you do not have a bank vault full of money then this kind of incentive is worthless. Unlike this government’s approach to finance, most small business owners do not just go out and get what they want now and to hell with how they are going to pay for it. They actually take disciplined, financially responsible decisions. They will look at plant and equipment that they would like to purchase and say, ‘I can’t afford it right now.’
I know that is a jarring realisation for the Australian Labor Party—the government that are putting us $188 billion in debt, the government that are driving up our deficit to a record $58 billion this year alone. I know that that is something that this government cannot comprehend, but let me inform the government that every small business owner out there knows this fundamental fact: if you cannot afford it, you do not buy it. A tax investment allowance of 50 per cent, as generous as it is, is useless if you do not have access to credit or are unwilling to use credit and you are not sitting on cash. That is why coalition representatives pleaded with the government to please look at what we have said in our six-point small business action plan and do something to assist small business with cash flow. We outlined a series of proposals that we thought would be very good. These included, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition, a number of key commitments. I will run through them quickly.
As an alternative to Labor’s $42 billion cash splash, the coalition proposed that a more effective approach to support small businesses would be to reimburse a portion of the superannuation guarantee contribution for small businesses. We thought in the first year it should be three per cent of the nine per cent paid by small business. This achieves two outcomes. The first is that it ensures that the costs of employing staff are reduced. We would make it cheaper to keep people on the books. That is something that is important when this government’s forecasts are for there to be one million people unemployed. The second thing it does is help small business with cash flow. Because they are no longer required to make those payments to the ATO and the superannuation accounts, they can keep three per cent extra in their business to help them with cash flow. That would be a far wiser thing to do. A second thing that we outlined, a second initiative of the coalition, was for a cash loss and tax loss carryback. Again, this focused on bolstering the cash position of firms that have a solid operating history but are facing large operating losses in 2009 and/or 2010. The coalition recommended introducing a two-year window for businesses to offset the tax value of any losses they suffer in 2009 and/or 2010 against up to $100,000 of taxes that the businesses had paid over the previous three years, enabling those taxes to be refunded back to the small businesses.
Let me explain for union members opposite what that would mean. Those firms would be able to offset their operating losses and retain staff by claiming back the taxes they had previously paid. The measure would only apply for businesses with at least one employee in each year a refund claim was made and in each year the tax was previously paid—again, an incentive to keep people on the books. The carryback would be governed by the same rules that currently apply when companies carry forward tax losses to reduce their liabilities in future years. Since the carryback refunds would over time be offset by lower losses that were carried forward, the long-run budgetary cost of this measure would largely arise from the changed timing of receipts and in fact would basically be nil.
This is a measure that many First World countries are already instituting. Similar treatment of current losses to reclaim past tax payments is available to firms in the UK, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United States, where the Obama administration recently extended the carryback period from two to five years. However, again the Australian Labor Party has stubbornly refused to adopt this proposal. But it has not refused to adopt it because it would cost money—we know that the impact on the budget would be next to nil. It has refused to do it because it was a coalition initiative. That is the reason this arrogant Labor government, which does not understand small business, has not instituted this reform that would make a meaningful difference to the cash-flow positions of small businesses today and help keep Australians employed. I would dearly love to hear from members opposite why they will not adopt the tax loss carryback initiative that the coalition outlined. There is no budgetary reason not to; there is just the simple pride of a Labor government that refuses to acknowledge it is getting it so very wrong.
Another key aspect of our policy, because we are so often asked what the coalition would do, is to reduce the overall regulatory compliance burden on small business. We know the economic costs of meeting regulatory requirements are onerous for business owners. Time is money and currently time is spent and lost filling in forms and filing taxes. We recommended applying a comprehensive quantification to the full range of Commonwealth, state and local government filings that are required to start or expand a business. This regulatory burden needs to be reduced to at least match, and over the future years improve on, OECD best practice.
Another aspect is to cut red tape. We outlined our proposal to deliver a one-stop business regulatory portal for small businesses which would provide integrated online access to all forms and filings regardless of which tier of government was imposing them, forcing local governments and state governments to work with the federal government to make sure that there is only one place that businesses need to go for their regulatory requirements. Cutting red tape and bringing these functions together requires substantial cooperation and does heavily depend on the accelerated replacement of traditional reporting methods with internet based alternatives, something that surely the Labor Party would be supportive of, given their grand scheme for the National Broadband Network of some $43 billion. To make this one-stop shop for compliance and regulatory filings a reality, the coalition will create a small business service delivery agency expressly charged with delivering integrated online access.
Another key part of the initiative was the family business support. We identified that the new small business service delivery agency should also operate a program that can provide support and advice for family businesses on succession planning and family business professionalisation, working closely with a key advocacy group in the sector. This is not a large resource outlay, but it does represent an appropriate response to what is a vital issue for Australia’s small businesses, so many of which, of course, are small family businesses.
Of course, all of these initiatives have come about because the coalition, unlike the Australian Labor Party, has given small business a seat at the table where it matters. The shadow cabinet appropriately recognises small business’s importance to the national economy. Unlike the minister for small business in the Rudd Labor government, who is sidelined in the outer ministry—and, we know, whom the Treasurer despises—as shadow minister for the coalition I sit at the shadow cabinet table because we believe, front and centre, that small business policy must be at the epicentre of decision making for the coalition. This six-point small business action plan is focused on supporting small business to help them manage their cash flow and keep staff on the books.
There have been some very direct criticisms of this Labor bill. Indeed, there are many examples of businesses that might have participated but are excluded from doing so. That is one of the fundamental concerns that we have with the bill before the House. I encourage the government to run through the six-point plan that I outlined and use that information and those initiatives to bolster support for small business. It is clear that the measures in the bill will not do enough for the small business sector, not only because it is already under cash-flow stress but also because a raft of problems with the legislation as it stands have been outlined.
A number of groups have come to speak with me over past months in relation to this bill and its various previous iterations. The Australian Information Industry Association, Australia’s peak technology industry body, has indicated that the exclusion of software and related services from the investment allowance effectively nullifies the potential productivity upside impact of the tax break. This is a government that says so much about productivity. This is a government that says that, wherever possible, we should be providing incentive to boost Australia’s productivity. Yet in this very bill, when the government has an opportunity to provide an extension of this allowance to incorporate expenditure on things like software—which, of course, is a productivity boost—it does not take it. Again, the Labor Party is very quick to say one thing but very different when it comes to the follow-through.
The AIIA believes that the exclusion from the operation of this bill decreases the attractiveness of this allowance to business taxpayers. In addition, it also fails to act as a stimulus for the Australian ICT software sector, which is increasingly being impacted by a slowdown in business procurement. In addition, the association has indicated that computer systems, which are eligible assets, are frequently purchased with software embedded in them. The administrative burden associated with separating the cost of those tangible and intangible assets in such a purchase will involve additional red tape for small businesses intending to use the allowance. I would say to the minister: please, exercise some common sense—recognise that under your proposal those Australian small ICT software suppliers are excluded. A business that purchases equipment with a software program already installed is then somehow meant to split the cost between the eligible cost of the plant equipment—that is, the computer—but exclude the cost of the software. This is the kind of madness that we see from policy directions given by the Australian Labor Party.
I also know that Irrigation Australia have raised their concern with a number of members on this side, and possibly even with the government, that the bill specifically excludes water efficient irrigation equipment. Irrigation Australia has noted that such exclusion will not assist the irrigation sector to recover from the prolonged drought conditions across Australia. Notwithstanding this, the coalition accepts that this measure would be welcome by small businesses. Moreover, we know that some businesses have made capital purchases based upon this tax break and are relying upon it to help justify the cost of the investment. Again, I implore the Australian Labor Party: think about which assets are included and which are excluded, because at the moment there is a snub to the entire agricultural sector that would be looking at purchasing efficient water irrigation equipment in order to take advantage of the allowance as it currently stands.
In looking at the bill in toto, where do we actually see Labor’s approach to small business as reflected in this bill? As I said, it has been an interesting journey. Originally announced on 12 December last year and re-announced on 3 February and then last night reiterated once again, the bill is finally before the parliament for debate on 13 May. And bear in mind that prior to last evening, this allowance, as it was previously announced on 3 February, would have completed on 30 June of this year. After 30 June, the announced additional incentive as of 3 February would no longer apply. And the first opportunity that the parliament has had to debate this bill, to demonstrate its intentions with respect to this bill, is now on 13 May. So little wonder that so many small businesses started contacting the opposition and asking if this measure would go through. They knew that they needed to have some indication from the coalition as to whether the measure would be passed.
But the key point is that the coalition has done the government a favour. I took the decision to assist the government not because I was that interested in assisting the government, but because I wanted to assist those small businesses across Australia for whom this piece of legislation was an important aspect in their expenditure considerations. They wanted to know whether the bill would be passed, but despite the many sitting weeks between 3 February and 13 May, despite the many opportunities that the government had to introduce this legislation prior to now and to ensure that the debate was had, that it was taken to the Senate and a position determined, this government refused to do it. It is little wonder that small businesses were calling up and saying, ‘If the Labor Party can’t control their legislative agenda, how can we expect them to control the Australian economy?’ I agree, and that is why I took pity on this hapless minister for small business and indicated to the media that we would not frustrate the passage of this legislation. Because otherwise this so-called tax effective investment allowance would have been completely ineffective because businesses would not have dealt with the uncertainty that existed as a result of this government dragging its heels on this initiative and not even getting it into parliament for debate until 13 May. Talk about a government that has lost control.
So vital is this piece of legislation according to the minister—and the Prime Minister referred to it numerous times today—so crucial is it to the small-business sector of this country that the government could not even get it together to bring it into the parliament for debate ahead of 13 May. What an indictment on the priorities of the Australian Labor Party. No wonder small business has a question mark over it. In fact, the minister should come into the chamber and acknowledge and thank the coalition for making his job easier by indicating that we would not frustrate the passage of this legislation—notwithstanding the fact that the six-point proposal that the coalition outlined is vastly superior in initiatives and support for small business and their cash flow than this piece of legislation that is before the House today.
Finally, based on the amendments that the Assistant Treasurer has circulated, we know the bill will provide a 50 per cent tax deduction for assets costing $1,000 or more for small business with revenue of $2 million or less. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, such an allowance has some merit—I acknowledge that it has some merit—and it will be welcomed by some small businesses. However, this bill—and I should note that it forms the pinnacle in the Holy Grail of the Australian Labor Party’s approach to small business—does basically nothing for the vast majority of small businesses. You do not have to take my word for it because according to the March 2009 MYOB Australian Small Business Survey, and the minister referred to this number today in question time, only 30 per cent of small businesses intend to take advantage of this legislation.
For 70 per cent of the 2.4 million small businesses that employ around 3.4 million Australians, this bill will mean nothing to them. The reason it means nothing to them is to go right back to where I started in this debate that when times are tough small business owners know you cannot buy what you cannot afford. That is the fundamental issue that they have and that I have with this piece of legislation. Fundamentally we will not frustrate its passage but we recognise this bill will do very little for those small businesses that are struggling out there. This bill will do nothing for the 70 per cent of small business who simply do not have access to cash or credit to buy new plant and equipment.
I implore this government to not be arrogant about their policy approach to small business. The coalition understands that Labor just does not get small business. That is why we are doing our best to make it easy for you. That is why the coalition has outlined a six-point plan. I would encourage the Australian Labor Party to copy our six-point plan in exactly the same way that it copied our PAYG initiative. I would encourage the minister for small business, perhaps the only person on the Labor Party frontbench who has had some involvement in small business—albeit a consultancy back to the government—and the Australian Labor Party to copy these initiatives. (Time expired)
I rise to speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business and General Business Tax Break) Bill 2009. Whilst I certainly do not want to waste the time I have in this debate to respond to the member for Moncrieff I will make two points. One of them is that, prior to entering this House, for some 40 years leading up to that time I operated a small business and I have been associated with small business since leaving school. I would also say that, when it comes to pretenders in respect of who are the friends of small business, the pretenders are the members of the coalition.
I want to reflect on a comment that was made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government earlier on when he was speaking about nation building. He made the comment that in the first 18 months of this government being in office we have spent more on infrastructure than the previous coalition government did in all of their 12 years. The same statement could apply when it comes to small business. The Rudd Labor government have in fact done more in their first 18 months in office to support small business than the previous coalition government did in 12 years. I can say that, as I was someone who was a small business operator for that 12 years and was directly affected by the policies of the Howard coalition government at the time. As someone who does understand what it is like to operate a small business, I certainly welcome the initiatives of the Rudd Labor government, including the one I am about to speak to.
This bill provides a temporary bonus income tax deduction of originally 30 per cent of the cost of an asset if the asset is acquired between 13 December 2008 and 13 June 2009 and the asset is installed ready for use before the end of June 2010. As we heard last night, when the Treasurer was delivering the budget, that 30 per cent figure has now been increased to 50 per cent for those businesses that have a turnover of less than $2 million per annum, and the offer of 50 per cent has been extended until 31 December of this year.
The bonus tax deduction is in addition to the normal depreciation deduction for assets for which capital allowance deduction is available under the core provisions of division 40 of the Income Tax Assessment Act or new expenditure on existing eligible assets. To qualify for the tax deduction a minimum expenditure of $1,000 must be made by a small business and a minimum expenditure of $10,000 must be made by all other businesses. For business assets acquired between 1 July 2009 and the end of December 2009 a bonus tax deduction of 10 per cent of the asset’s cost will be provided if the asset is installed and ready for use by the end of December 2010 and it is a business of over $2 million turnover per annum. These are very sensible and very welcome measures for the Australian business sector during the current economic downturn.
It was interesting to hear the member for Moncrieff on the one hand telling us how he had been lobbied and pestered effectively by small businesses that he talks to about whether this legislation is going to get through, and then on the other hand suggesting that it has limited value. You cannot have it both ways. Businesses would not be contacting you wanting to know whether you are going to support it if they did not think it was legislation that was going to be in their interest.
Mr Ciobo interjecting
Order! The member for Moncrieff has had the opportunity of making his contribution. I would ask him to contain himself.
This is good legislation because it provides businesses with a much needed cash boost that can be used to purchase new assets which in turn will add to business efficiency and productivity and thereby further stimulate the economy. It was only last Wednesday that this legislation was being discussed at length by financial commentator Paul Clitheroe and leading talkback host Leon Byner on Adelaide radio station FIVEaa. They were speaking of the benefits of this legislation to the business community generally with the only proviso that they did not know whether the opposition was going to support it or not. Australia’s 1.9 million small businesses employ almost four million people and their ongoing viability will be crucial to Australia’s economic recovery and Australia’s economic growth.
The Rudd government understands the important role of small and medium businesses, and the provision of a bonus tax deduction for capital purchases adds to a number of other support measures for small and medium sized businesses already committed to by the Rudd government. I want to go through some of those measures, which include reduced pay-as-you-go tax instalments in the year 2009-10 and $46 million funding for some 36 business enterprise centres around Australia. Again, this is something the previous government never ever did. It is the first time ever that a federal government has supported small business through investing in BECs around the country. There is an on-time payment guarantee that commenced in December 2008, which means that small businesses that contract with government departments will be paid within 30 days or penalty interest may be charged by the small business—and we know how many small businesses are dependent on government contracts.
Cutting red tape by targeting 27 areas of state and federal regulations affecting businesses—I heard the member for Moncrieff talking about how this has to be done. Again I ask the question: why didn’t you do it in the 12 years your party was in office instead of talking about it now? Instead of giving lip service, you should have actually acted. I go on with some of the measures introduced by the Rudd government: a simpler superannuation payment system for small businesses, the rollout of a national high-speed broadband network across Australia—and I welcome the $43 billion recent announcement by the government in respect of that. I digress on that particular topic. The member for Moncrieff went on to talk about software. Where was his and his party’s concern about software, broadband and computers when they were in office? I can tell him that, when I was Mayor of the City of Salisbury, we had to look for our own investment and go into partnership with a private company in order to provide the broadband services that small businesses in that community needed but could not get access to, thanks to the federal government’s inaction on that very issue.
I add to that list the announcement by Senator Kim Carr on 7 May 2009 that Enterprise Connect, a $271 million network of manufacturing and innovation centres designed to help firms become stronger by focusing on innovation, creativity and excellence, will join with up to 19 organisations, private and government, with substantial business experience to deliver 180 workshops across Australia. I welcome that because it is an attempt to reach out to those small businesses and give them the kind of assistance that in many cases they need. The workshops will be held at no cost to participants and will focus on topics such as managing cashflow and how to better generate sales.
There was further support for small and medium businesses announced in last night’s budget. There were measures such as, as I said earlier, the increase in the tax deduction from 30 per cent to 50 per cent for businesses with turnovers of less than $2 million who acquire assets before the end of December 2009; new research and development tax credits available in 2010-11 of 45 per cent for companies with turnovers of less than $20 million and a doubling of the research and development expenditure threshold from $1 million to $2 million for the years 2009-10; additional support services for small business, with $10 million for the Small Business Online Program and another $10 million for the Small Business Support Line, which will provide initial over-the-phone advice and put small businesses in touch with specialist advisers on matters such as cashflow management, obtaining finance, marketing, and personal counselling and support; an increase in funding for current programs such as the Export Market Development Grants Scheme; further cashflow relief via the previously announced pay-as-you-go instalment adjustment; and $196 million for the new Commonwealth Commercialisation Institute to give small and medium sized businesses the power to turn great ideas into reality. We have not even come to the $4.5 billion relating to the Clean Energy Initiative, which undoubtedly will be a huge boost to so many small businesses out there.
Of course, the most significant boost to small and medium businesses came through the Rudd government’s economic stimulus strategies: the investment of $14.7 billion in upgrading or building new facilities at every school; the construction of 20,000 new public and Defence homes; an increase in the first home owners grant to $21,000 for newly constructed homes; almost $4 billion to insulate 2.9 million homes around Australia; and $800 million for 3,000 community infrastructure projects across Australia, such as town halls, parks, playgrounds and sports facilities. They are all investments that will ultimately provide support to small business. It will be small businesses that will get a direct and immediate benefit as a result of those commitments. In fact, it would be small and medium sized businesses every step of the way that will deliver those projects for Australia. That in turn means local jobs, with benefits that flow through every sector of the community, from suppliers to tradespeople and through to the local lunch bar. How better can you support small business than to add expenditure in the very areas where they will get a direct benefit?
I have had many discussions with school councils and local community groups about these commitments by the government. I have been incredibly impressed by the keenness of those local community groups to ensure that, when the work takes place, local people are contracted to carry out the work. They are as concerned as anyone else to ensure that their local people are the beneficiaries of these government commitments.
On the specific issue of jobs, I understand that in some trades there is still a shortage of suitably skilled people. I want to talk about a conversation I recently had with a constituent. Graeme Parkin, one of my constituents in Makin, raised with me his concerns about finding suitably skilled tradespeople in the tiling industry and, more specifically, about the low number of apprenticeships within that industry. Tiling is not the most appealing vocation for a young person to pursue, but the real problem is that too few tradespeople are prepared to take on an apprentice tiler. As Graeme Parkin quite correctly points out, there needs to be a reassessment of the apprenticeship and training process relating to the tiling industry. The Rudd government is taking action to address these skills shortages with the delivery of 701,000 new training places over the next five years, the building of trade training centres in our schools and the $145 million for securing apprenticeship initiatives which support out-of-trade apprentices and trainees to remain connected to the workforce and maintain their investment in training.
I said earlier that small and medium businesses will be critical in Australia’s economic recovery and growing our nation. Small and medium business operators are accustomed to doing it tough—working long hours, taking risks, and surviving downturns in business—so, in these tough economic times, it will be the resilience and the entrepreneurship of the small and medium business sector that will be critical to our economic revival.
I want to talk about a specific business. I was recently asked to speak at a launch at a business known as SA Motorcycles. The launch was for a new motorcycle, the Kawasaki ZX6R. This is a business that was established just over 10 years ago by a young person who had an interest in motorcycles and, along with a few friends who also had an interest in motorcycles, he put together a team of people who understood that particular sector. Today that business employs about 15 people, and it is still growing. The last two of those people were employed in recent weeks. More importantly, it has become the number one Kawasaki dealer in South Australia.
Evan Byles, the director of this company, deserves an incredible amount of credit. But he also deserves credit for being someone who is prepared to do all of those things I mentioned earlier—working long hours, taking risks—and he was quite proud to show me the amount of background work he had undertaken with his wife in the lead-up to getting that business up and going. It is a credit to him, and there are so many other small business operators just like Evan who are doing exactly the same thing and are prepared to work through the tough times and work the long hours that it takes to ensure that a business remains viable. For them, the tax deduction that is provided will give them the ability to invest in new assets, thereby reducing ongoing overheads and improving business efficiency while simultaneously creating flow-on benefits to those from whom those assets are bought.
This legislation is good for business, good for the economy and good for jobs—just as were the direct payments to Australian people in the Rudd government’s economic stimulus package. Those payments undoubtedly contributed significantly to the strong retail figures that we have seen over recent months. We have heard how the retail sector in this country employs some 1.5 million people. In my own State of South Australia, it employs 117,000. In my own region, it employs about 25,000. It is probably the single biggest industry sector employer in the region that I represent. I care about the people in the retail industry sector, and I care about the fact that they too, the retailers, are under pressure as a result of the economic downturn. But, thanks to the economic stimulus package, we have seen remarkably strong growth in the retail sector when contrasted with comparable overseas countries, and the situation is even more remarkable when compared with the previous month’s figures prior to the economic downturn.
That growth in retail spending has undoubtedly ensured that the jobs of those 25,000 people in my region who are employed in the retail sector have been secured. If it were not for that growth, I am sure that things would be much worse for them. It may well be the case that no-one can quantify with absolute certainty just how many jobs will be created or saved, however you want to look at it. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that that growth has contributed to employment certainty for those people—and their jobs are just as important as anybody else’s. Let us look at some of the retail figures. Between November 2008 and March of this year, Australia has seen a 4.5 per cent increase in retail trade. This is compared to a 3.1 per cent fall in Japan, a 2.5 per cent fall in the US and a 2.2 per cent fall in Germany over the same period. The Rudd government’s economic stimulus strategy is having the right effect, and the figures prove that. That strategy was the right thing to do for the nation, the right thing to do for the 1.5 million people employed in the retail sector, and the right thing to do for the tens of thousands of small businesses in the retail sector.
The opposition’s attack on the government’s direct payments to families is misguided. To claim, as the opposition has continually done, that the stimulus package has not worked not only is contradicted by the retail figures that I have just referred to but also demonstrates just how out of touch opposition members are with their communities, how little they understand local economies and how little they care about the 1.5 million people employed in Australia’s retail sector. There is a similar story with respect to this government’s housing commitments. Total building approvals rose for the second consecutive month, in March, by 3.5 per cent and the increase in house approvals of 3.4 per cent is the highest monthly rise since March 2007. The National Australia Bank’s April business survey, released yesterday, showed an improvement in business conditions and an increase in business confidence described by NAB Chief Economist, Alan Oster, as ‘the most encouraging set of numbers for some time’. What could you put that down to other than the government’s stimulus package? It is small businesses in both the construction and retail sectors that will be the prime beneficiaries of the Rudd government’s housing stimulus package.
There is a fundamental difference between small and medium sized business and big business. Small and medium sized businesses are primarily owned and operated by people who have invested their life and their future in their business. They have everything at stake in the success of the business and, unlike big business, where decisions are often made by highly paid executives who come and go, making decisions using investors’ or shareholders’ funds, small and medium sized business owners have a huge personal stake in the decisions they make. But they, too, are facing additional pressures because of the global recession. The Rudd government values the small business sector and, rather than just pay lip service to the sector, the government is providing real assistance with a broad range of policies that respond to key areas of concern raised by small and medium sized businesses throughout Australia. The minister is listening to those concerns, and I am pleased that he attended a small-business function in my electorate only a month or so ago where the 120 small businesses that attended could speak directly to him. He listened to what they had to say, and I did not hear one of them stand up and criticise the government for not doing enough. This is good legislation, and I commend it to the house.
I am already on the record as saying that, of all the measures contained in the stimulus response of around December last year, it is the 30 per cent small-business tax break through to June of this year that I consider the best and most appropriate stimulus response of all. It was a pleasant surprise for me, and I can confirm for my small business community on the mid-north coast of New South Wales, to see it geared up another level, up to 50 per cent through to December of this year. In light of that, of measures announced in the budget last night, and from what I have read and seen, I would consider this to be the best aspect of the budget last night, including as it does a stimulus response but also recognising the role to be played in the engine room of business in Australia, and that is the small-business community.
On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, 95 per cent of the business community is small business. We are very much a ‘five employees or less’ community. The businesses are family based. A lot of them are home based microbusinesses. Therefore, this is a nugget of gold from the federal government in directly assisting business activity and business growth in a difficult 12 to 18 months. My message for government while I am on my feet tonight is this. As I as a local member talk to business communities—businesses that are connected to chambers of commerce and the various other business organisations, such as the BECs and the Australian business networks—I notice there are a lot of small businesses that for one reason or another still are not aware of this. Therefore, I hope that advisers in the boxes, government members and the executive can consider how this message can be got out to the small business community. In most cases they are head down and bum up doing the job of making a living and are not tuned in as clearly as we might like to think they are to messages that are coming out of this place. Selling this program is incredibly important, because it should be considered by every single small business. It should be deeply discussed with accountants. The fine detail and the future planning for potential capital purchases should be weighed up over the next seven months, because there will be no better offer from government.
Probably the best budget one-liner last night was from a colleague upstairs, Senator Xenophon. He described it as the ‘Harvey Norman budget—the buy now and pay later budget’. This aspect of the budget has bargain basement, Crazy John elements to it. I say that in a positive, not a negative, way. We will see no better offer by government than a 50 per cent tax concession on capital purchases. Therefore, over the next seven months I would really encourage the small business community to look at this and to consider how it fits in with strategies within their businesses. If there are capital purchases to be made within the next couple of years—and I am sure there will be—why not make them in the next seven months while this offer is on the table? A substantial tax break has been put on the table by government. It is, in my view, the best aspect of the fiscal stimulus and the federal budget. I could not be hotter on this and I could not endorse it more. It fits in well with several programs that we are trying to get up and running on the mid-North Coast both with government and separate from government.
I note the comments that have already been made about some of the small business aspects of last night’s budget, such as the new support line and the online programs. I sincerely hope we see the delivery of the National Broadband Network both on time and to the home. To the extent that we are hearing it discussed, it will change the nature of small business in regional communities. In fact, it will change life in regional communities such as ours. In my community we are still reliant on dial-up. That might make people in this chamber laugh. We are not only reliant on dial-up but also frustrated by dropouts when we are trying to access what in a building such as this is considered a basic service. This is creating the haves and the have nots in the knowledge economy. The National Broadband Network and fibre to the home are absolutely crucial. Hopefully, over the next couple of years, we will see that not drop off the agenda but in fact be delivered in an even shorter time frame than proposed.
I also note the doubling of the R&D tax credit in last night’s budget. Among the small business community and former governments as well as the current government I would hope there was and is general consensus that the R&D tax credit program is excellent. It probably does not get the attention that it deserves within political circles. I have noticed in my first eight months as a federal member the number of businesses that could and should apply but which are not aware of the programs offered and available from the government through AusIndustry, Enterprise Connect or other means. I was very pleased to see the Cutler review turned into a doubling of the R&D tax credit last night. Also, there were various aspects of the stimulus package for the local trades community through schools, home insulation, solar hot water or various other things. Those will and are making a difference on the ground. I would encourage government to stay committed to those programs through the next six to 12 months in particular.
As well, regardless of the role of government, at the mid-North Coast level we are getting organised with the small business community. For the first time the mid-North Coast is participating in the Innovation Festival, which nationwide has been running since 2002. We are underway with the Innovation Festival in May. Hopefully that will engage small business in the creativity through to commercialisation aspects of their business that sometimes do not get the attention they deserve as people push hard just to make a living. Also, we now have up and running what I consider a very important step for our region—that is, a couple of education and skills forums within our local community. They are engaging councils, TAFE, the education sector generally and the business sector. The forums are just about getting everyone around the one table on a semiregular basis to try to sniff out the opportunities from government and other areas and seeing how we can improve our situation.
Frankly, our situation on the mid-North Coast is not good. We have over 10 per cent unemployment, as of the last figures. That should not be lost on the government as we make our way through a difficult 18 months. The mid-North Coast has pretty beaches and a lovely hinterland and there is the perception that we are the land of luxury, but we are in the top 10 poverty areas in Australia. Unemployment floats between two and five per cent above the national averages. For youth unemployment, you can double that again and, for Indigenous unemployment, you can probably add another five per cent. Our income and education levels are some of the lowest in Australia.
We have some significant structural disadvantage issues that we have to deal with if we are going to have equity of advantage and equity of services with the rest of Australia. Programs like this do talk to my region; they do talk to the mid-North Coast. They are incredibly important in addressing some of those fundamental structural issues that make life there somewhat different from life in other communities, such as this one that I have now started to visit. I sincerely hope that the government promotes this package to every small business operator in Australia. I sincerely hope that every small business operator does their bit and takes half an hour to read this, digest it, think about it and, if they can sniff out an opportunity, jump on the phone to the accountant and actually do it in the next seven months.
This is a great window of opportunity for Australia at the most local level and at the small business level to kick some real goals. If we can do that, with the thinking that small business is the engine room of business and is the engine room of life in Australia, I think we will be no longer talking about recessions and sooner rather than later we will be talking about recovery, and strong recovery. I strongly support this legislation.
I rise to support the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business and General Business Tax Break) Bill 2009. This legislation was announced as part of the Rudd government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This bill puts in place an important mechanism to provide immediate and short-term stimulus to the Australian economy and support for small business. It was great news last night that the 30 per cent tax break will be extended to 50 per cent for small business.
Small businesses all across the country, including in my electorate of Leichhardt, are being impacted by the global recession. The Rudd government has had a stark choice: it could sit on its hands or it could act decisively to support small businesses to support jobs in the Australian economy. That is what we have done since the global financial crisis rolled out and impacted all across the developed world, creating a global recession.
We moved quickly last year with our banking guarantee to restore confidence and ensure that we have confidence in the financial system. The banks are not often popular with small business, particularly at the moment—they would like to see them pass on some more of the interest rate cuts that have come through from the Reserve Bank—but the small and medium sized businesses in my electorate understand how important the banking system is for a strong Australian economy and how important it is for them in their business operations. So supporting the financial system and producing confidence in that was the fundamental response that the Rudd government made.
Similarly, we acted early and we acted decisively to support business by introducing some stimulus last year through bonuses and some other measures. This was to support jobs in the Australian economy. My electorate of Leichhardt has a lot of retail and hospitality businesses. The area is strongly built on tourism. Those cash payments and bonuses, not only last year but also recently in the Nation Building and Jobs Plan that are flowing through now, are important to the retail and hospitality industries. Small businesses in my electorate have benefited directly from that stimulus.
The government acted decisively. It supported the financial system and it is supporting activities within the economy through the stimulus measures last year and this year with the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. These have been important measures. Initially the opposition said they were supporting the stimulus measures, but then they sought to undermine them. The opposition’s small business spokesman today spoke for 30 minutes on this legislation. It took us 27 minutes to work out whether he supported the legislation or was going to oppose the legislation. He took 27 minutes of the 30-minute speech to say whether he supported it or opposed it. Small businesses in my electorate support this legislation. They are telling me that they are tired of the opposition opposing everything that the Rudd government puts forward to try to support them as they are dealing with these pretty tough economic times.
I see the member for Blair, the member for Makin and other members here who also have businesses in their electorates that are struggling. Those businesses want the opposition to support the measures the government is taking, particularly measures like this one that is particularly focused on small business. Many businesses in my electorate have said to me that they are really struggling finding the confidence to take up the 30 per cent tax break, and now we are going to see a 50 per cent tax break. They want to see this legislation go through the parliament before they are prepared to make that investment. All they hear from the opposition is opposition for opposition’s sake. The opposition is about opportunism. Businesses want this legislation to go through so they can have the confidence to make those investments.
Businesses in Cairns are under a lot of pressure. Rio Tinto has had to cut 100 jobs in Weipa. That directly flows through to the Cairns economy. We saw in the tourist industry Qantas make cuts last year. There were a significant number of jobs lost in Cairns as a result of that. The federal government and the Minister for Tourism responded by putting in place a $4 million tourism support package. That has been welcomed. It has been invested in marketing to bring tourists back to Cairns. A recent report done as part of that package by Access Economics demonstrates that the Cairns region is the most vulnerable area around Australia as a result of the global financial crisis and as a result of a downturn in the tourism industry. So we are hurting.
The construction industry is a very important industry in my electorate. We have introduced measures in our stimulus package—70 per cent of our stimulus is infrastructure investment—to support the construction industry. But the construction industry has some difficult times ahead. Just last week it was reported that CMC, a major construction company in Cairns, were looking at potentially going into receivership and liquidation. They employ hundreds of people through their subcontractors and there is real concern in the Cairns community. But they are looking to government to act, not to sit on its hands as the opposition would have us do. And they are looking for the opposition to support the government in our measures to build confidence in the Australian community and in the Australian business community.
There must be a concerted push from a range of angles to stimulate the economy. The government has carefully formulated and implemented a number of stimulus measures in recent months. Many of these have been centred on nation building or on investment in infrastructure. As I said, 70 per cent of our stimulus measure is investment in infrastructure. However, the small business and general business tax break is a critical element in this mix. The tax break was a big winner in last night’s budget as well. The tax break was expanded—costing $141 million over the forward estimates—to build on the previously announced tax break, which now totals $3.7 billion of tax relief for small businesses and larger businesses. This is significant and it is also very well targeted.
The expanded tax break will give small business an additional tax deduction when they acquire new assets or renovate an existing asset. Small business will now be able to claim a bonus tax deduction of 50 per cent, which is up from the 30 per cent that was announced in the February stimulus package, of the cost of eligible assets acquired between 13 December 2008 and 31 December 2009 and installed by 31 December 2010. An additional 50 per cent is a significant amount and, for example, should a business in Cairns, say, an engineering workshop, purchase a new welder that is valued at $12,000 and do this by the end of December this year, they can claim $6,000 thanks to the small business and general tax break. When lodging their tax return this engineering business would be able to claim this deduction in addition to the usual depreciation deductions in respect of the asset. It is clear that this will be a great benefit to businesses throughout Australia and in my electorate of Leichhardt.
The small business and general business tax break is a major announcement for small business—that is, businesses that have turnovers of less than $2 million annually. But it is also important to note that larger businesses do not miss out under this measure. They can continue to access the tax break at the 30 per cent rate for eligible assets costing $10,000 or more that are contracted for between 13 December 2008 and 30 June 2009 and ready for use by 30 June 2010. They may also claim 10 per cent for eligible assets over $10,000 that they commit to invest in between 1 July 2009 and 31 December 2009 and have ready for use by 31 December 2010.
The tax break has been carefully developed. It specifically targets and it has been developed in consultation with industry associations, businesses and the accounting profession. I see that the Assistant Treasurer is here today. I congratulate him and the Treasurer on these measures and the work that they have done in bringing them forward.
It is very important to note that second-hand assets are not eligible under this bill. I have had some inquiries about that in my electorate. They are not eligible under this bill, nor have they been eligible under previous investment allowances. This bill is geared towards new investment that will upgrade and extend our economy’s productive capacity as we are in the middle of a global recession. Clearly a recovery will not happen overnight. We need a clear long-term plan for the future, and new capital and new equipment are a fundamental part of gearing up for the future.
We want to support small business in these difficult times to bring investments forwards and to make those investments that improve their productive capacity so that they can take advantage of the recovery. We are investing in long-term, nation-building infrastructure because we recognise that at this time we need to invest in the productive capacity of this nation, build infrastructure—the roads, the ports and the railway lines. That was a central part of our budget last night, in which we proposed a $22 billion further investment in nation building. In the same way that the government is investing at this time to build the productive capacity of our economy through investment in infrastructure, through support for skills and training in universities and TAFEs, and all the way through our schools with investment to support modernising our schools and early childhood education, this is a good time for small business to also make investments, and that is what this business break is about.
Local small business representative organisations have supported this measure. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the following about the tax break:
The extension of the investment allowance to 50 per cent for small business until December 2009 is an excellent initiative—and the stimulus measures first proposed by the ACCI and our members.
So they supported it and thought it was an excellent initiative. The Chief Executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, Andrew McKellar, said:
The Federal Government’s Budget decision to increase and extend the investment tax break for small business provides a valuable incentive for new vehicle sales. The tax break will help stimulate the new vehicle market and support jobs in the industry.
So they too support it. We have also got the Master Builders Association supporting it. The Master Builders Association also welcomes the increase in the small business investment tax allowance from the current level of 30 per cent to 50 per cent. So we have got the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the automotive industry and the master builders supporting this tax break. They understand how important this measure is for their members and they want to see this measure passed through the parliament as quickly as possible.
I recently held a small business forum in Cairns. Over 80 local businesses attended to see how they could make the most of the government’s $42 economic stimulus package. I am very committed to ensuring that businesses in Cairns have every opportunity to access and to take advantage of our $42 billion nation-building package. This business tax break at a 30 per cent level was a very popular item of conversation and there was quite a lot of follow-up in the media in relation to it.
People want to take advantage of this investment. I understand from listening to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy in question time today that ACCI have done a survey showing that there are about 30 per cent or more people that are looking at taking advantage of this tax break. And that was at the 30 per cent rate. It has been increased to 50 per cent for small business, and no doubt larger sized businesses will also be taking advantage of it. So it is a welcome initiative by the small business and general business community.
The Pressure Pumps NQ owner attended the business forum that I ran to keep Leichhardt working. Owner Derek Ross, who I met at the forum, has looked the global financial crisis in the eye and cast it aside. He has taken the proactive approach. He is always looking for opportunities and is very positive about the future. He said that there were so many infrastructure projects in a number of government initiatives—just like the tax break—about at the moment that business can take real confidence and get a decent kick out of. So you have a fellow who is running a small business selling tools, compressors and other things to the construction industry, the other industry really taking benefit from this tax break and other measures and really supporting the work the Rudd government is doing to try and support business.
A local medical firm in Cairns has similarly spoken to me about taking advantage of the tax break. They are introducing a new telephone system and computers, and putting in place an elevator to enable patients to better access their clinics. There is a range of different areas.
PTS Traffic Management Services in Cairns has also moved on the tax break. They said, and I quote from a recent article in the Cairns Post:
It’s going to be a big saving and an enormous help.
They have already purchased two new utes to improve their fleet and may add another two more before the end of June. They quote:
Thirty per cent on $53,000 (for the new utes) is $15,900 and that’s a big help.
You have got medical industries, you have got small businesses selling tools, you have got people in the traffic management area all taking advantage of the tax break. They are going to go out and spend money in their local communities. I encourage people, when they are taking advantage of this, to spend money in their local communities and ensure that we, wherever possible, buy Australian and buy locally. The car industry definitely needs support, and this announcement is no doubt welcomed by the automotive industry, as I have already quoted.
I strongly support this measure. I say to the opposition: business wants confidence to undertake this tax break, to utilise this tax break. They are only going to get that if this legislation is passed through the House and the Senate quickly. It is very important for business to have that confidence. Get out of the way, stop opposing, stop being opportunistic about the way that you approach our stimulus measures. Support these measures and business will welcome that. I really commend this measure to the House and again congratulate the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer for the work they have done in bringing it forward.
I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business and General Business Tax Break) Bill 2009. This bill, of course, implements the small business and general business tax break, a key part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan to help cushion Australians from the worst impacts of the global recession. As the Treasurer said in his second reading speech for this bill, this $3.7 billion tax break will help boost business investment, bolster economic activity and support Australian jobs. It is targeted towards encouraging Australian business investment in the face of the global recession. The response from business has been overwhelmingly positive. The honourable member for Leichhardt went through his experience. It has certainly been my experience and the experience of the Treasurer, the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, as we travel around talking to businesses, that businesses are very keen indeed on taking up this proposal.
I would like to foreshadow several amendments to the bill. Foremost amongst these amendments will be expanding the tax break to provide additional assistance to small business, as announced in last night’s budget. I will also move several minor amendments of a technical nature. These will ensure that the legislation operates as intended. I recognise the support of the opposition. As the honourable member for Leichhardt said, it did take 27 minutes into the shadow minister’s speech before he got to this particular piece of legislation, but he did indicate support. It was rather belated, because there has been some concern in the business community that the level of uncertainty about the passage of this bill was discouraging investment. Some small businesses were not prepared to make that investment until they were guaranteed of opposition support so they would know it would pass both houses of the parliament. The shadow minister had previously indicated that they would not actively frustrate, but that was not enough for the business community. Understandably, given the opposition’s opportunistic opposition to everything this government does, they wanted to see a very clear indication of support. That will no longer be an issue. I do, in fairness, acknowledge the opposition’s assistance in having this passed through the House today. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together.
Leave granted.
I move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 5 (after line 11), after paragraph 41-10(3)(a), insert:
(aa) disregard section 40-90 (reduction in cost where debt is forgiven); and
(ab) disregard subsection 40-365(5) (reduction in cost for replacement asset where involuntary disposal); and
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 6 (lines 1 to 20), omit section 41-15, substitute:
41-15 Amount of deduction
(1) The amount that you can deduct is:
(a) if the *new investment threshold for the income year in relation to the asset is $1000 (small business entities)—50% of the total of the *recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset; or
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply but subsection (3), (4) or (5) applies—10% of that total; or
(c) otherwise—the sum of:
(i) 30% of the total of the recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset that meet the condition in subsection (2); and
(ii) 10% of the total of the other recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset.
(2) A *recognised new investment amount meets the condition in this subsection if:
(a) the *investment commitment time for the amount occurred before 1 July 2009; and
(b) the *first use time for the amount occurred before 1 July 2010.
(3) This subsection applies if the income year is the 2011-12 income year.
(4) This subsection applies if:
(a) you can deduct the amount because of paragraph 41-10(4)(a); and
(b) the *new investment threshold for the income year in relation to the asset exceeds the total of the *recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset that meet the condition in subsection (2).
(5) This subsection applies if:
(a) you can deduct the amount because of paragraph 41-10(4)(b) or (c); and
(b) the *new investment threshold for the income year in relation to the asset exceeds the sum of:
(i) the total of the *recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset that meet the condition in subsection (2); and
(ii) the total of the amounts treated under paragraph 41-10(4)(b) or (c) (as the case requires) as recognised new investment amounts for the income year in relation to the asset that meet the condition in subsection (2).
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 3), omit “commence”, substitute “start”.
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (after line 30), after subsection 41-25(3), insert:
(3A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) and subsection (2), treat yourself as having started to construct an asset at a time if you first incur expenditure in respect of the construction of the asset at that time.
(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), treat yourself as having started construction for an economic benefit at a time if you first incur expenditure in respect of the construction for the benefit at that time.
There are three amendments to the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business and General Business Tax Break) Bill 2009. Amendment (2) provides a major boost for small businesses by increasing the bonus deduction to 50 per cent, as announced by the Treasurer last night. Small businesses will now be able to claim a bonus tax deduction of 50 per cent, up from 30 per cent previously, of the cost of eligible assets acquired between 13 December 2008 and 31 December 2009 and installed by 31 December 2010. I think most honourable members would acknowledge that small businesses are the backbone of the economy, employing millions of Australians, but many have faced some tough times during this global recession. The increased tax break provides small businesses with an even greater incentive to invest in new capital items such as computer hardware and business vehicles and to make capital improvements to existing machinery and equipment. The remaining amendments are technical in nature. In its current form, the bill precludes a taxpayer from claiming the 30 per cent deduction on a batch or set of eligible assets. A similar issue arises when an asset is jointly held by multiple taxpayers. This was not the intended outcome.
Amendment (2) also ensures that taxpayers can claim a deduction at the rate intended. Amendment (1) ensures that taxpayers are not precluded from a tax break merely because they have a debt forgiven or replace an asset that was subject to an involuntary disposal, even if the cost of the asset is reduced to zero for depreciation purposes. Amendments (3) and (4) clarify the meaning of the term ‘start to construct’ in the bill for taxpayers who construct their own assets.
This is a very important bill. It is an important measure not only to assist small business but also to stimulate investment in the economy. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Ms Roxon:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to contribute to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. By way of background, this bill was implemented as a 2008-09 budget measure which Labor says was an election commitment, but we can find no such commitment. It will impose fees at three points: the original submission for listing, after successful application and at resubmission.
The introduction of a cost recovery measure was expected to generate additional revenues of $7 million over forward estimates, with a net cost of $2.2 million. However, the EM states that, once fully operational, annual revenue from fees is expected to total about $9.4 million in 2008-09, rising to $14 million in 2009-10. Irrespective, savings are a very small proportion of the approximately $7 billion spent on the PBS.
Indicative fees and charges proposed under the scheme as at June 2008 were as follows: a major submission, $119,500; a minor submission, $12,500; secretariat listing, $1,000; generic products, $500; and pricing arrangements, $25,000. This effectively means it could cost approximately $145,000 to make a single submission. To bring new drugs to the market, the costs are estimated to be approximately $315,000, providing there are no complications.
Cost recovery measures were first introduced in the 2005-06 budget, with a proposed implementation date of 1 July 2007. Implementation was delayed due to consultations with the pharmaceutical industry about the PBS reform process during 2006.
When originally proposed in 2005-06, there was concern that such measures were undermining the independence of the PBAC and might result in manufacturers declining to list drugs on the PBS. In 2005-06, Medicines Australia argued the operation of the PBAC was a Commonwealth government function and cost recovery measures would be inappropriate. Arguments in favour of cost recovery suggest that a pharmaceutical company receives significant benefit from listing and it is unreasonable that the taxpayer should pay the bill for listing. Manufacturers already incur significant costs in preparing a submission and, under such a proposal, the pharmaceutical industry would also have to pay the additional fee when the submission is considered by the PBAC. There are concerns that cost recovery could affect the independence of the PBAC and the PBS.
Cost recovery has been implemented successfully in the TGA process, which has maintained its independence. However, the TGA and the PBAC have very different roles. The TGA decides whether a drug or medical device can be marketed in Australia, whereas the PBAC advises the minister on which drugs should be approved for a public subsidy.
The Productivity Commission advised that cost recovery arrangements should only be introduced to improve efficiency and should not be implemented where it is inconsistent with policy objectives. Whilst cost recovery may improve efficiency, if it leads to higher drug prices and delays to PBS listings, it would be inconsistent with the objective of the PBS of providing timely and affordable access to pharmaceuticals.
Like many people in this place, including the minister, I have contact with the industry and listen to stakeholders. Their concerns in relation to this particular bill are certainly strongly held. The industry argues that this would be a global first, that it would be unprecedented and that the measures do not adhere to the principles of cost recovery. There is no service to the seller. Recovery is being made for a purchaser’s function, and it could take the costs of a listing to over $1 million. It could risk Australian patients’ access to some new medicines and it could impact small population groups—and this is a very important point.
The point relates to drugs which are brought to the market, which do have a very small patient base, where it is a listing which involves a so-called ‘orphan drug’ and where the returns to the company are nowhere near what the public perception might be about the returns on some of the so-called superdrugs—where there is a significant return on investment to companies. We are talking about smaller population drugs where there is significant cost to the company to bring that drug to market. In many cases, it is already financially unviable for that drug to be brought forward to market, but there is cross-subsidisation that takes place, obviously, in relation to some of the decisions that these companies make. It means that they can afford, in some cases, for the public good, to bring a particular drug forward even though the returns might be quite minimal—if positive at all.
So there are concerns, and I say to the minister that there is a need for the department and for her office to heed those concerns and to look at the measures and how they can provide a way forward so that patient outcomes are optimised into the future.
Some companies will decide that it is not worth listing some drugs for those groups and that is going to have a detrimental outcome for some patient groups. Again, that is something that the government has to weigh up in the decision-making process. It does, the industry advise, have the potential to deter innovation and investment in the Australian pharmaceutical industry and it is, in fact, a tax. It should be acknowledged by the government as such. There is no comparison to the TGA process where payment is for registration. These are all important points in this debate. The government reintroduces this measure at a time the industry is dealing with a substantial four-year reform process initiated in 2007 and it also comes as the budget imposes a further $175 million in price cuts on the industry. It is important to note as part of this debate that the now minister expressed strong opposition to cost recovery when she was the shadow minister for health and ageing. Indeed, the minister said that such actions would threaten the independence of the PBS:
The PBAC needs to be independent of government and of industry, and we cannot see the justification for this move to the cost-recovery model. I have asked the government to reconsider this approach given the risk to the independence of the PBAC.
Obviously, the minister’s view has changed quite considerably over the course of the last 18 months. I also note, as part of my contribution to this debate, that the chair of the PBAC suggested that there were no concerns about cost recovery impacting on recommendations or, indeed, independence of the commitment. The PBS gives Australia one of the best pharmaceutical delivery systems in the world and we intend to make that better. Giving Australians access to the best available medicines that are safe and of the highest quality should be a priority of any government. It certainly was a priority of the coalition government. That is why we initiated the PBS reform and it is why this government has continued with that process.
The coalition fully supports the charter of the PBS to provide timely and affordable access to subsidised medications for the Australian community and, despite some rewrite of history that has taken place in a number of portfolios over the course of the last 18 months by this government, it is important to place on the record that during the coalition government’s time we increased expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits from $2.22 billion in 1996-97 when we came to government to $6.4 billion in 2006-07. That is a significant increase, recognised by people in the industry but most importantly recognised by Australians who have the potential for lifesaving drugs to make a difference to their situation and to improve their health. That is certainly a continuing priority for this coalition. When we return to government we will make sure that we continue to have a sustainable PBS system. We will also continue to listen to the concerns of those within the industry who are making investment decisions about whether or not they will manufacture or conduct research and development in this country and whether or not they continue to employ staff in a highly productive industry. These are all decisions which go to whether or not these future investments will be made in this country. That is why the government needs to tread very lightly.
As part of this debate, I want to mention Pauline Talty, a very brave woman who lives in Sydney. She has a terrible condition which necessitates a transplant that is going to be performed overseas because of an announcement made by the government earlier today. This has been a very difficult time for Pauline and her family. It has been an extremely taxing time for a number of months. They have jumped through bureaucratic hoops to facilitate the only option available to this young woman. I have met with Pauline in hospital. I have listened to her case and I have spoken and corresponded with her family and supporters and her case is compelling. I thank the government for their change of heart, for the reversal of their decision. It is a common-sense outcome that they would support this woman to travel overseas to have what potentially is a lifesaving transplant operation.
I thank the government for that change of heart, which did not come easily. A great deal of public debate has taken place. I also want to thank all of the media outlets involved in airing the case of Pauline Talty. I want to thank the Alan Jones program for the interest they have shown in this issue because this really was about the life and death of a young Australian. We have been able to help Pauline in her cause to come to this great outcome, an outcome which I said on radio recently I would praise the government for if they were to change their mind. I offer that praise to the government today. I hope that every accommodation will be made in the delivery of this outcome and Pauline’s travel overseas. We wish her a successful operation and hope and pray that she is returned to Australia so that she can lead the life she has dreamed of for so long, and for her family to live with some peace of mind knowing that she has been given an opportunity to have her life extended, a life which otherwise, without the assistance of this program, would not have been possible.
Also, I want to make some comments about the announcements in the budget last night. The situation is quite dire for public hospitals right around the country. That is why this Prime Minister promised at the last election that he would fix public hospitals by mid-2009. There is now a closing gap but nonetheless a six-week window open to the Prime Minister to fix public hospitals. That is the promise he made at the last election. It is a promise which is going to be broken in six weeks time because, despite any best intention at the eleventh hour, this Prime Minister is not going to be able to fix public hospitals in six weeks. That was the commitment given by this government at the last election but we came through another budget last night without any evidence whatsoever of how they are going to fix public hospitals.
Interestingly enough, the words that were used by the Prime Minister were that he would fix the public hospitals. That has been airbrushed from the Prime Minister’s website. It now says that they will improve public hospitals. And the latest contribution from the federal minister is that they will water down that commitment even further. That is of great concern to all Australians, because all Australians heard at the last election that this Prime Minister would fix public hospitals by mid-2009, and he has failed to do so. And how can you have a health system—
I rise on a point of order as to relevance. The member is not addressing the bill that is in the parliament at the moment.
There is no point of order.
This of course, to any Australian, is part of the response to the health outcomes of all Australians. To have a member from the Northern Territory stand in this place and suggest that public hospitals are not important really is a sad development. This really is—
I rise on a point of order with respect to relevance. The bill is the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2] and the member is not addressing the bill in question.
The title of the bill is ‘A Bill for an Act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and for related purposes’. As the occupant of the chair I obviously have to make sure that all honourable members observe the standing orders, but the addition of the words ‘and for related purposes’ does tend to widen the area that members are able to debate. However, I ask the honourable member to be cognisant of the specific provisions of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and observe the standing orders in making his contribution.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Of course, no debate can be had in this place in relation to PBS or health without talking about public hospitals. The prescription of drugs at public hospitals is an integral part of how the public hospital system operates in this country, and it is a very important issue about which we should not be afraid to speak. The member for Solomon does not need to sign up to every prescriptive word provided through the Prime Minister’s office. If he believes that public hospitals are okay in this country and that they are working well in the Northern Territory and that no fixes, changes or improvements could be made to public hospitals in the Northern Territory then he should say that by way of press release.
We would welcome the member’s contribution by way of press release to his constituents to say that public hospitals in this country cannot improve. There are plenty of other examples in the health system—there is no question about that—particularly in the Northern Territory in relation to the provision of super clinic services. That has been a complete and utter failure, not just by the Northern Territory government but, importantly, by this government as well. The reason that I raise that is in part because this really goes to the way in which this government has managed health over the course of the last 18 months.
There clearly have been a series of blunders. We had the minister involved in the alcopops debate, which was a complete humiliation for the Minister for Health and Ageing. It was a complete embarrassment. This same bill that is before the House came before the House last year, but just before the last election this minister was out saying that she was opposed to the position which she now advocates. So it has been quite a telling exercise, over the course of the last 18 months, to see similar management practices by the federal health minister that we have seen by health ministers at a state level over the last 10 or 11 years—which have been completely and utterly disastrous. That is why I raise great caution in relation to this bill.
If drugs which provide life-saving opportunities to Australians are prevented from being listed then that will be a very sad outcome. We take the assurances of the government that that is not going to be the case. We take the assurances of the government that this bill will not impose those impediments which the industry warns of. But we do put the government on notice that, their having given all of these assurances, we will hold them to account at a future time. For that reason I move a number of amendments which I have circulated in my name. I move:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
I move those amendments because we think that this would go some way toward improving the position that the government is putting forward. We think that it would provide a better outcome for a more transparent process if reviews were able to be conducted—if the advice that was raised as a result of the recent Senate inquiries and the advice of the industry were adhered to. I just flag a word of caution to this government that they may see people on private health or people in the pharmaceutical industry as an easy touch but the reality is that these people have a significant contribution to make. If this minister is just dismissive of views which are contrary to hers, then we will not arrive at a position of delivering better legislation to the Australian people. That is why we move these amendments as circulated.
In conclusion, I am happy to say to the Australian people that the coalition, when we were in government, stood for a sustainable PBS regime. We have not differed from that stance one iota. We still have a very strong commitment to providing a viable, well funded and sustainable industry to this country into the future. We will rectify the difficulties that this government have created in 18 short months. After the coming election, we will wind back as much of the difficulty that they have put in place as we can. What will take time, of course, is to repay the enormous debt that the Labor Party have created.
The Australian people know that it took Paul Keating and Bob Hawke about 13 years to create $96 billion worth of debt; it has taken Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan about 18 months to rack up $188 billion of debt and there is no end in sight. That is going to make future funding decisions very difficult, and not just in relation to the provision of drugs but for the provision of health services in general. That is why we have to recognise as part of this debate that the government is making it more difficult for future decisions to be made when it has an $8 billion a year interest bill on this huge debt that it has incurred in such a short period of time. That will impact on the government’s capacity, and the incoming government’s capacity after the next election, to make decisions which are going to be beneficial to the Australian health community. We want to provide better health outcomes for all Australians. That is what a coalition opposition stands for, it is what coalition governments have always stood for and it is what we will fight for after the next election.
Is the amendment seconded?
I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
I thank the honourable member for Dickson for his contribution to the debate and note that, if he would like to have some copies of my press releases in regard to the $85 million worth of health programs that were in the budget last night for the good people of Solomon, I will happily provide those to him. I have a copy of them here.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to make my contribution to this debate on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This important bill proposes to amend the National Health Act 1953 to provide the legislative basis for the Commonwealth to recover costs for services provided. The services provided by the Commonwealth are in relation to submissions for the listing, or changes to current listings, of medicines and vaccines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, and the National Immunisation Program, the NIP. The arrangements are required to provide the framework that will establish charges on a fee-for-service basis.
The bill is not a taxing bill and expressly provides that fees must not amount to taxation. The arrangements are aimed at recovering costs from applicants, usually pharmaceutical companies, who apply for products to be listed on the PBS or the NIP. Having a medicine listed on the PBS or a vaccine designated on the NIP generally provides a high level of commercial certainty to the sales of that product in Australia. In order to establish that a product is worthy of the public trust that accompanies any listing, the assessment process of products requires rigorous tests to ensure the accuracy of the clinical claims made. Those tests and those assessments cost money. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the government to recoup the costs associated with assessing a product’s suitability for subsidy.
It is envisaged the fees prescribed in the regulations will be derived from an activity based costing model. The more complex and time consuming the evaluation, the higher the fee. Let’s be realistic about this: pharmaceutical companies, many of them subsidiaries of large multinational pharmaceutical companies, have the financial capacity to meet the cost of these assessments. Why should the taxpayer of Australia foot the bill? In 2007-08 the top 20 pharmaceutical companies each received, on average, $241 million from the Commonwealth via the PBS or NIP subsidy.
Cost recovery is not a new concept for the pharmaceutical industry. The pre-market evaluation of products through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or the TGA, is funded through cost recovery arrangements and has been since 1991. This bill is a logical extension of the TGA’s cost recovery process. In fact, the Productivity Commission has noted that cost recovery can provide an important means of improving economic efficiencies and equity by ensuring those who use regulated services bear the costs.
Medicines supplied under the PBS are provided directly to the people of Australia by chemists, doctors and hospitals on a government subsidised basis. Co-payments and other amounts charged will not be affected under the cost recovery arrangements. The PBS was established to set the public co-payment amount. It is very important to note that Australians accessing the PBS will not be required to pay any extra for PBS listed medicines or NIP vaccines as a result of this measure.
Importantly, this bill also ensures the independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, or the PBAC. This group provides expert advice on medicines, independent of government and industry. Members of the PBAC are selected from consumers, health economists, practising community pharmacists, general practitioners and other specialists. They make recommendations to the Minister for Health and Ageing as to which medicines and vaccines should be made available for government subsidised supply. The arrangements for funding the PBAC directly through the budget will continue, and the PBAC will have no role in setting fees and will take no part in discussions with companies over fees. This bill will ensure there will be ongoing monitoring mechanisms to ensure fees continue to reflect costs. It is expected that fees will be indexed annually, and in accordance with the government’s cost recovery guidelines there will be a full review conducted within five years. The bill will see ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, including peak industry, consumer and healthcare provider bodies.
It is not the first time this bill has been before the House. The bill has been scrutinised by two Senate committees looking at various aspects of the bill and the regulations in detail. Both committee inquiries recommended that the bill be passed. Delay in the passage of this bill has already resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in revenue—in fact, around $9.4 million in 2008-09. The bill provides for a commencement date of 1 July this year. Previous operational data suggests fees would be expected to total approximately $14 million in the first full financial year of operation.
It is very interesting that those opposite announced in the 2005-06 budget that costs associated with listing products on the PBS and the NIP would be recovered from the pharmaceutical industry. So I think it is worth repeating what our fantastic Minister for Health and Ageing asked yesterday at the end of her second reading speech for this bill:
Given that this was a measure of the previous Liberal government in the first place, it is reasonable for us to ask why they continue to oppose it. It is just another example of opposition for opposition’s sake, or is it just the opposition choosing to once again support big business over the interests of the Australian people?
I commend this bill to the House.
I also rise to speak in support of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2008 [No. 2]. This is a bill which will allow the Australian government to recover costs associated with the assessment of applications for both new listings and changes in the listing of products on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or for the designation of vaccines under the National Immunisation Program. These assessments are undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is fundamental to the architecture of the way the Australian government administers health in this country. In the financial year 2007-08, $7 billion was paid out in subsidies under the PBS. There were 171 million prescriptions made in that year, the equivalent of eight prescriptions for every Australian. This is a scheme fundamental to ensuring that drugs and medications can be provided to Australians at an affordable price, thus making our system one which we would want to see representing a developed economy and country. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme has been providing affordable medications to Australians for 60 years and it is essential to the administration of health in this country.
While the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme provides an enormous benefit to those persons buying drugs and medications, there is also, very evidently, a significant benefit which goes to the pharmaceutical companies who have their products listed under the PBS or their vaccines designated under the National Immunisation Program. Indeed, in the financial year 2007-08, the top 20 pharmaceutical companies who had products under the umbrella of these two schemes received, on average, $241 million each through subsidies under the PBS or the NIP. It is clear that it is essential to the business plan of these pharmaceutical companies that they receive the subsidies that are paid under the PBS or through the NIP.
So the proposition which forms the heart of this legislation is very simple: if these companies are to receive the considerable benefit associated with having their products listed on the PBS or designated under the NIP, then the assessment which is undertaken by the government of their products in order for those products to come under the umbrella of those programs ought be paid for by the companies receiving the benefits. And these costs are not insubstantial. The assessment process is significant. It involves a very exhaustive assessment and testing of the particular products involved so that the clinical claims being made by the pharmaceutical companies can be verified by the government. That is very important in ensuring that there is public trust in the products which find themselves listed on the PBS or the National Immunisation Program. There is also a function undertaken by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee of entering into negotiations around the ultimate price which a consumer is required to pay for these products on chemists’ shelves.
Seeking cost recovery in circumstances such as this is consistent with the Australian government’s cost recovery guidelines. Indeed, the Productivity Commission has commented on the importance in circumstances such as these of having cost recovery programs, and for three reasons. Firstly, there is an argument of equity. If companies which are in a position to pay are receiving a significant benefit from a service provided by government, then it is appropriate that they, rather than the taxpayer in general, pay for that service. Secondly, there is an economic argument that goes to economic efficiency on the part of those who are providing the service through government. They will provide that service in a more efficient and productive way if they know that they are subject to the discipline of needing to provide a bill to those applicants seeking listing of their products on the PBS. Thirdly, there is an economic efficiency argument from the point of view of the applicants themselves, and that is that there is an incentive not to put in place a substandard application if they risk the prospect of that application being knocked back and of then having to pay a price without getting an outcome.
This bill provides for the cost recovery scheme by allowing for regulations to be made under the National Health Act for such a cost recovery regime. It is important to understand that we are not here tonight legislating for a tax; this is a fee for service. The regulations that would come under this legislation may include but certainly would not be limited to provisions which deal with the administrative process for putting in place the cost recovery scheme through the making of the submissions and the prescribing of fees. They would deal with provisions relating to the payment of those fees and whether there are any categories of applicants or products which ought to be exempt from those fees, and whether there ought to be perhaps a provision which deals with the waiver of fees in certain circumstances. The provisions can deal with refusal to provide services in circumstances where no fees are paid—in a sense, a ‘down tools’ provision that if the company is not paying the fee then the service being provided, the assessment of their product, would stop. The regulations will provide for the recovery of unpaid fees, for the provision of penalties where there are late fees and, importantly, for a review mechanism for the administrative decisions which are made in the process of putting this scheme in place.
These regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They will provide for a very simple method, a very simple proposition, which is that the more complex the assessment of a product, the more complex the price negotiations involved in a product, the greater the fee that will be charged. Indeed, if there were an application that was substandard and was knocked back, as I said, then every new application would be subject to a new fee, as there would be a new service provided. It is expected that these fees would be indexed annually, that there would be a full review of all the fees within five years and that the department would put in place a mechanism for monitoring the fees. As the member for Solomon said, it is anticipated that the revenue raised through this cost recovery scheme would be in the vicinity of $14 million annually.
The independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will be assured, as the Commonwealth will continue to directly fund the committee and the revenue raised as a result of this regime would be paid into consolidated revenue. Very importantly, Australians accessing PBS products—accessing the medications or the drugs which are subsidised through the PBS—would not be paying a cent more as a result of the implementation of the scheme, and that is really a function of the process of negotiating the price, which is part of the assessment of the product in the first place.
There has been significant consultation with stakeholders in the pharmaceutical industry over the last two years about the implementation of this scheme. And, indeed, this is not new. There are cost recovery schemes, for example, in relation to the Therapeutic Goods Administration, where there is a system of providing for the registration of products or goods for their sale and for their marketing, and, as part of the assessment process required for registration, there is a fee paid by the applicant. So this is not a new concept to the industry; it is something that the industry is very familiar with.
This bill has a recent legislative history. It was first passed by this House of Representatives on 5 June last year. From here it went to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs and from there to the full Senate, where the motion for the second reading was rejected, on 28 August last year. It went back to the Senate community affairs committee, where a second inquiry into the bill was held. It is worth mentioning to the House that both the committee inquiries recommended that this bill be passed.
The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is a very important part of the architecture of this country’s administration of health. This bill will absolutely improve that architecture. The pharmaceutical companies are certainly receiving a reasonable benefit, but the service that is provided by government in assessing their products to form part of the PBS or the NIP is a service for which they ought to pay, and so I commend this bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Member for La Trobe, some members having just entered the House, can we call the quorum off?
by leave—I withdraw that request.
in reply—I note that the member for Dickson is in the House and has flagged some amendments to this bill. It is my intention that those amendments be discussed in the Senate. It might be helpful to the member for Dickson to hear these commitments: we are happy to undertake to discuss those amendments but, in order to not delay the proceedings of this House, our suggestion, given that a number of the other parties in the other place have also suggested some amendments, is that those discussions and negotiations occur in the other place. It would be my intention to seek the bill’s passage through the House today and for discussions to be able to commence.
I thank the other members, the member for Corio and the member for Solomon, for speaking on this bill. It is a bill that would provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to submissions for listing, or amendment to a listing, of medicines, vaccines and other products on the PBS or the NIP. As I have informed the House, this bill has been subject to considerable review already by the Senate community affairs committee, which has held two inquiries into the proposed cost recovery measure, with both inquiries recommending that the bill proceed in its current form.
As I have indicated, in this debate the member for Dickson has proposed some amendments to the bill which the government is prepared to undertake to consider, but in order to avoid further delays to the bill the government proposes that it be passed by the House in its current form and that the government consider its position on any amendments proposed by the opposition or other parties when the bill is debated in the Senate.
The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dickson has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr McClelland:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I will not speak for long and I am sure that the member for O’Connor will get an opportunity to speak on this as well before we adjourn. The Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 is the most recent of a long line of legislation in this place that has dealt with the complex and often controversial question of native title, particularly since the 1992 Mabo decision finally rejected the legal doctrine that Australia was terra nullius at the time of European arrival and settlement a little over 200 years ago. This was a pivotal moment in Australia’s history, granting legal recognition of our Indigenous communities’ previous possession of Australia, and dispossession as a result of European settlement. It was also a recognition of the devastating consequences that have resulted from dispossession, which have reverberated through generations and are still keenly felt today.
The Native Title Act 1993 was the legislative response to the High Court’s decision in Mabo, introduced by the Keating government in the face of a very significant and at times vicious fear campaign about the threat posed by that legislation and the High Court decision to various types of property—ranging up to, and including in some cases in the fear campaign, suburban backyards, although it was quite clear that the Mabo decision did not involve any suggestions that native title would defeat existing property rights under the Australian and common-law systems. The 1993 legislation saw legislative recognition of those previous rights and the Indigenous Australian connection to the land in the pre-existing English and then Australian and common-law hierarchy of property rights that has endured since European settlement.
The act was a vital tool for restoring the cultural, social and economic benefits that that connection between Indigenous communities and their land brings and was a major step forward on the march towards lasting and true reconciliation. The preamble to the act states that the people of Australia intend:
… to ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire.
Sadly, I am sure that nobody in this House could argue that we do not still have a long way to go to fulfil the intention included within the preamble to the legislation.
This year marks the 15th anniversary of the Native Title Act coming into operation and taking force and, whilst there have been some successes, it is widely accepted, I think, that the process under that act is excruciatingly slow and complex for all parties involved. The delay that we have seen in the resolution of native title claims and the litigation that flows from those claims has resulted in millions of dollars being wasted, opportunities for reconciliation and development squandered, and the flourishing of distrust and disillusionment with the process by all parties involved, Indigenous communities and others with interests in the land. The prolonged delays in resolving claims have meant that some people have died while still fighting for their rights under the native title process and been denied the chance to see their native title recognised. If this situation continues, as I understand the position, the best estimate is that another 30 years will be required to resolve all current native title claims, not including any that come about in the future.
This government is committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous advantage. The Prime Minister’s apology to the stolen generations gave the nation fresh impetus for renewing efforts in reconciliation and moving forward towards a more equitable future for all Australians, including Indigenous Australians. Getting the native title process right is an important part of that broader ambition that we have for our nation. Native title and its associated agreements are an essential part of closing that gap. Whilst the process for recognising claims struggles under the weight of protracted litigation, our Indigenous communities and other communities that have connection to the relevant lands are being further deprived.
This government believes that negotiation is more likely to produce results than litigation and that native title issues should be resolved by negotiation wherever possible. Negotiation is better suited to achieving timely and effective resolution of those claims. The adversarial system by its very nature is not conducive to encouraging long-term, productive working relationships into the future, which are often so important in ensuring that the land is used in a productive way. Frankly, negotiation and mediation have always been the intent and the spirit of the legislation.
My home state of South Australia provides an impressive example of what can be achieved through negotiation. Our state’s biggest native title determination was made in March this year, after many years of determined effort. It involved the recognition of the non-exclusive rights and interests of the Adnyamathanha people over more than 41,000 square kilometres of land in and around the Flinders Ranges. It recognises rights and interests including access to perform ceremonial or cultural activities, to hunt, to camp and to gather natural materials such as plants and ochre. These were consent determinations that resolved one claim and partially resolved another. The Indigenous land use agreement is currently being finalised for comanagement of Flinders Ranges National Park. The parties to the determination included 45 pastoral lease holders, mining and exploration companies, along with the Adnyamathanha people and the South Australian government.
Achieving this major determination without litigation not only shows the potential for negotiated settlement but, just as importantly, paves the way for future cooperation between all of the parties in managing the land and jointly exploring other economic development opportunities. As the Native Title Tribunal Deputy President Chris Sumner said:
This determination is an example of what can be achieved when all agencies involved in the native title process—especially the Federal Court, the Tribunal, South Australian Native Title Services, the SA Government and legal and anthropological advisers—work together in a co-operative way, which is a feature of native title negotiations in South Australia.
Our government wants to see all of the country following South Australia’s example, and this bill aims to facilitate that. The government believes that broadening the scope for mediation whilst tightening case management, a much-needed step in this area, will increase flexibility and efficiency, resulting in more timely and effective negotiated resolution of claims.
A key aspect of this bill is to amend the act to give the Federal Court a central role in managing native title claims. The Federal Court, as we know, has vast experience in alternative dispute resolution in a range of different areas of the law. The Federal Court will henceforth, if this bill passes, oversee case management of the native title claims. The Federal Court can provide transparency, independence, accountability and competency that is vital to maximise faith in the native title process, deliver results and fulfil the hopes and aspirations of native title claimants and other involved people. By centralising control over case management in the Federal Court, opportunities for resolution can be more easily identified, deadlocks can be worked on more efficiently instead of being left to fester, a more focused approach can be pressed upon the parties by the court if one or more of the parties is dillydallying and issues in dispute can be more readily identified along with options to further progress the claim’s resolution.
As part of its central role, this bill allows the Federal Court to refer the whole or any part of a proceeding for mediation to a court mediator or to the Native Title Tribunal or another individual or body. It provides a flexible and responsive approach to mediation and allows the court to use the most appropriate form of dispute resolution according to the circumstances of the case. The court will continue to utilise the Native Title Tribunal’s experience and specialist capacity without relying on it necessarily as the only available mediating body. The Federal Court will better coordinate, prioritise and allocate resources for mediation than currently is the case. The success of negotiating agreements through mediation depends heavily on the good faith of all parties involved. Without a cooperative approach and sincere efforts from all, very little can be achieved. One of the court’s new roles will be to assist in identifying parties who are acting in bad faith and pulling them into line.
The bill will also enable the court to make consent orders—and I stress ‘consent orders’—about matters beyond native title that might be conducive to a positive working relationship between all parties. This could include agreements relating to economic development opportunities, training, employment, heritage, sustainability or existing industry principles. Permitting the court to assist in the resolution of native title and other matters at the same time will foster future cooperation and agreement, hopefully to the benefit of all parties.
The bill will also give the court discretion to rely on agreed statements of facts between some or all of the parties. At a minimum, this agreement must be between the native title claim group and the principal government concerned but can also be between a range of other parties involved in the claim.
This bill also seeks to broaden the scope of claimants utilising the recent changes to the rules of evidence introduced by this government in the Evidence Amendment Act last year. This has the potential to greatly assist native title claimants with giving evidence relating to traditional laws and customs. In particular, amendments to the hearsay and opinion rules recognise those rules’ incompatibility with providing evidence on the existence of traditional laws and customs. This shifts the focus away from legal technicalities to the more pertinent issues—and, frankly, more reliable issues—of reliability and weight. In order to ensure that native title claimants reap the most benefit from these changes, this bill will make exceptions to the transitional provisions so that the new rules relating to evidence can apply to proceedings initiated prior to 1 January 2009. This bill will also streamline processes dealing with the recognition of native title bodies that can be involved in the resolution process. Experience has shown those bodies to be a very important part of successful claims.
The whole thrust of this bill is to facilitate a more cost-effective, efficient and timely native title process that focuses on negotiation rather than litigation to achieve results. The government has consulted widely on the amendments and there has been wide-ranging support for what is proposed in this bill. A discussion paper was released by the Attorney-General and distributed to over 70 stakeholders, although we accept there is still more to do than this bill presents. This bill is part of an ongoing process of reform in consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to make real and lasting improvements that achieve the original intent of the act 15 years ago.
The bill before us today, together with renewed efforts by all parties to work constructively together to further the interests and the intent of those the act was intended to benefit, can make some much-needed improvement that will enable a more flexible, effective and timely response to determining native title claims. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank the member for Port Adelaide for not taking up his full time, because I feel I can bring quite a lot of good advice to the House on this matter of the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009 simply because in my business career I lived in—and managed businesses, including hotels, in—a town that had at all times about one-third of its population being of Indigenous descent. I also happened to chair the backbench committee under the Howard government that discussed the amendments that the Howard government provided to the Native Title Act. That in itself involved quite a piece of negotiation amongst the variety of interests involved within the party.
We have here today another attempt to find a mechanism that delivers a speedy resolution of native title claims. I am not totally convinced that it will be any more successful than past attempts. My reasoning is not all that difficult to follow. When the bill for the act was first brought to this House, I think even the Keating government wanted to amend it but at that stage our leader, John Hewson, decided that we would support no amendments and would oppose the legislation lock, stock and barrel, so it was passed in its original form. The opposition has made the point that it wants to wait for the report from the Senate on the legislation before us and hold off its final decision until that occurs. I am hopeful that at that time the government will see the sense of an amendment to the right to negotiate provisions. It is one of the problems that need the attention of the government, and I do not know if it was all done deliberately or accidentally but, as I have said, my longstanding recollection is that the Keating government thought at the time they really should do something about it.
All parties involved in a native title claim bar one group are entitled to negotiate in good faith. The member for Port Adelaide talked about a court dealing with people who were not acting in good faith. But as the act prevails there is no obligation on the native title claimant parties to act in good faith or to negotiate in good faith. In fact, in my view it might best be described as the right not to negotiate. I have seen over the years numerous examples of that occurring and the only outcome of that has been that people have got more angry and the circumstances have not been the best. But, quite obviously, it will be otherwise if it is the view of the government that the Federal Court, with its increased powers and responsibilities, to which I am not an objector, can then in fact have the opportunity to say to any of the applicants or all those involved, ‘You will come to court and we will get this matter moving.’ That cannot happen today because under the act people do not have to turn up and they are not deemed to have been failing to negotiate in good faith. There is no obligation upon them to do so.
If one has had experience, as I have had, with Aboriginal families—and later I will comment a little further on the representations that I have had from Indigenous families within my own electorate—one would know that the first responsibility is to get them to agree amongst themselves. One of the changes with the 10-point plan was to require, for the first time, that there only be one applicant body; in other words, Aboriginal or Indigenous people had to sort out who was going to be the claimant. We had the situation previous to that of a claimant making a claim, successful or not—and if successful often that involved a financial settlement in those days—and then someone else would make a claim and somebody else had to make a financial settlement. Consequently, we amended that situation by saying, ‘Well, there can only be one claimant whatever that matter is.’ But this is the situation that arises before native title issues are settled. It is arguable that under this right not to negotiate there are better outcomes for Aboriginal opportunists in some cases to wait until someone has reason to develop a piece of land and then apply or threaten to apply for native title. Under the act they have a right in those circumstances to negotiate, ostensibly to protect their own interests and culture. But if they can delay a development for sufficiently long, there is usually a financial payment. With a much larger thing like the recent Woodside James Price Point arrangements in the Kimberley of Western Australia, the reality was that the newly elected Premier said, ‘Listen, Fellas, if you can’t come to an agreement I will’—as the 10-point plan provided—’resume native title.’ Because that is a law of the Commonwealth, it would have been resumed with compensation. The other fact that is misunderstood in all of this is that native title is not a right as to property, although that does apply in the Northern Territory, where the Fraser government created a law for the Northern Territory which actually granted property rights. Throughout the rest of Australia a native title right is a right of access and a right, on account of that access, to hunt and gather and to conduct traditional ceremonies.
As time has progressed, I think there has been a more generous view than that amongst many people, particularly in the mining sector, who are more than happy to look at the rights of Indigenous title holders and give them better opportunities in employment, better facilities and things of that nature, which is the outcome of proper agreements. But that is typically after native title is granted. The big problem that first needs to be fixed is that, where native title does not exist but the right to negotiate does, one party has no responsibility to negotiate in good faith. I will be encouraging my colleagues to see that that is changed as a major enhancement to these other measures.
But there are other aspects of native title that worry me considerably. For many people, I think it has created a cargo cult culture. Their expectations are beyond what it is likely to deliver. I think that is a pity. I went to Carnarvon in 1958, nine years before the Australian government had any constitutional right to do anything about Aboriginal people. You may remember the history of our Constitution, in which the founding fathers wished to implement the White Australia policy—under the pressure, I might add, of Labor members of parliament, who thought that the Chinese were going to pinch all their jobs. They therefore created a clause in the Constitution for the federal parliament to pass laws for people of certain race. The purpose of that was to tell them they could not come to Australia. Then someone said, ‘Oops. We’re not going to kick all the Aboriginals out,’ and someone else said, ‘We’ll put in “excepting the Aboriginal race”.’ That insertion forbad the Australian parliament from doing anything on behalf of or for the control of Aboriginal people. It was all a responsibility of state governments.
When I arrived in a town of 2,000 or 3,000 people with a local population of 300 or 400 resident Aborigines and a peripheral population of probably some thousands residing on station properties, which were typically their homelands, and serving as a labour pool in those days, everybody had a job. There was no welfare. Outrageously, you could apply as an Aboriginal person for citizenship of Australia. That was the situation, but people did not have the problems we know of today. They were hardworking and, in fact, at that time a major construction project commenced, building the road from north of Northampton, which is just north of Geraldton, all the way through to Onslow and onwards. The Carnarvon main roads department ran the job for that length of road, and their third in command was an Aboriginal person and very good road builder. A very large number of their skilled grader operators et cetera were Aboriginal. These people just got along. Their kids went to school and all the problems we read about today did not exist.
In 1967, with goodwill and with the aid of my vote—the only time I have ever voted ‘Yes’ in a referendum—the Australian people gave an opportunity to the Commonwealth government to be part of the process. I do not believe that we have done very well. I think there are numerous reasons for that. I promoted to our former leader John Howard the idea of reversing the funding process from tops down to bottoms up. I still believe that the local government financial assistance grants model is the best way to go, but one of the things it does, of course, is disadvantage the Aboriginal elite, and therefore that is a problem.
When one looks at the circumstances that exist, it is too simplistic to say that you can just give more power to the Federal Court. In principle, I do not oppose that, but we need to look at the details surrounding it. There needs to be an understanding that, firstly, the Aboriginal people have to get together and move forward together. If they do not, the court should have the capacity to say, ‘Delay is not acceptable. You have your rights to put your case.’
I am also somewhat of a critic of what I term the inventiveness that exists in tradition and culture. A lot of that, I think, is manufactured and not true—and certainly not true when I knew people who had scars on their chests. One of those people told me they never had a sacred site but had a lot of sacred objects. When one thinks of their nomadic existence, there was probably some truth in that. But I just wonder when the Akubra hat or a flag become part of a culture. They are not cultural things. And smoking ceremonies are an American Indian cultural issue. All of a sudden it sort of looks good because you see it in the movies.
It wasn’t an issue; it’s part of their culture.
It is not a part of Aboriginal culture as I know it. What I am saying is that some of this inventiveness is of little value when, in fact, I and others would like to see the life of your typical Aboriginal person much improved. I am not convinced that the focus on land rights has been productive in that regard, nor do I believe a centralised bureaucracy is the way to resolve it—and I have produced papers on the subject and tried to do something about that.
I sincerely hope that this otherwise rather inconsequential piece of legislation can be the foundation for some much more sensible things. Might I say, before the Speaker tells me it is time to adjourn the House, some very silly things happen. A CDEP manager has just been sacked because he took the view that if you wanted CDEP you actually worked for it. I have anecdotal evidence to prove that the powers that be sacked this bloke. By being made to do some work, two people got full-time jobs. That sort of thing has to be looked into. I will continue my argument when the debate is resumed.
Debate interrupted.
Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
There is much discussion amongst the budget deliberations of families and the effect on families, but let us not forget that there are many government decisions pre budget affecting families, some in a negative way. In my area of responsibility as shadow minister, I feel compelled to make comment yet again on the bungled way in which the government has handled the whole ABC Learning Centres mess. We remember Ms Gillard’s promise that childcare centres cannot close in this country without 30 days notice. In her own electorate of Lalor, in Altona North a centre closed with six days notice. I have been contacted by a very distressed but eloquent mother detailing some of the problems and explaining that no parents, children, carers or affected community members were contacted, that this centre was fully occupied and recently renovated, that there is a demand for child care in that area, that all they had was a real estate agent who came to value the property and that no-one came to assess the quality of care in spite of the fact that there is an obvious market. In fact, to add to the insult, the correspondence they received from PPB listed one of the centres that could be used as an alternative form of care for parents who had their children in the Altona North centre. They listed one of the centres where this very woman has had a child on a waiting list for 3½ years.
This is the sort of mess we find when the government has said time and time again it is working ‘hand in glove with the administrators in this matter’. If it is working hand in glove with the administrators, it is either being deceptive or deliberately allowing PPB to run this less than satisfactory and quite embarrassing—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: as I understand the standing orders, members are not allowed to infer or make impersonal imputations about other members of the parliament. The use of the terms ‘deceptive’ and some of the other words—
Order! I will listen carefully to the comments of the member for Indi.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It defies any understanding about why the government would allow this to happen. This is part of the government’s attempt to close down centres just because they are privately run. The government has said it wants to rebalance the system irrespective of parents’ requests, irrespective of the needs of children and quality care for children. How can it do this to families? How can it leave and ignore the pleas of families in need? This woman who emailed her member, the Minister for Health and Ageing, and the Deputy Prime Minister—
The centre is not in the Deputy Prime Minister’s electorate.
The childcare centre is.
It is in Altona.
Gellibrand, but she has written to Ms Gillard—
Government members interjecting—
I am not familiar with the minister’s electorate, but—
This is becoming a debacle.
No, this is not becoming a debacle. What is a debacle—and you should know this—is that families are suffering because the manner in which the ABC Learning Centres has been handled has been a disgrace and parents have been left in the lurch. This woman now has her child in child care for two days in a local centre and one day in the city, which breaks up that child’s care and attention.
Hundreds of potential buyers have pulled out of final offer stages for ABC Learning Centres because they were not provided with details and correct information, and this is despite the minister’s assurances last month. It seems centres like Altona North, which were told they had a confirmed buyer, continue to face uncertainty. Now they are closing and the government needs to explain why there has been such a long line of bungles in the whole tender process for this centre in Altona North—and I correct myself—which is in the health minister’s electorate. This constituent of the minister for health has had no satisfactory response. The government has not responded adequately as to why it has allowed this debacle. (Time expired)
Last night’s budget provides Australian pensioners with increases as part of the Australian government’s secure and sustainable pension reforms. All 3.3 million age pensioners and disability pensioners, carers, spouse pensioners and veteran income support recipients will benefit from increases in their pension payments. From 20 September 2009, the secure and sustainable pension reforms deliver increases of $32.49 per week for single pensioners on the full rate and $10.14 per week combined for pensioner couples on the full rate. From 20 September 2009, total assistance for single pensioners will increase from $304.19 per week to $336.68 per week and for pensioner couples combined from $497.36 per week to $507.50 per week. This increase brings the single rate of the pension up to two-thirds of the combined couple rate.
The reforms are focused on addressing the particular inadequacy of the single pension, as highlighted by the Harmer review of pensions. Single pensioners who currently receive a part-pension will benefit from an increase of between $10.14 and $32.49 depending on their level of private income. Around 75 per cent of single pensioners will receive the full increase. All current pensioner couples will receive $10.14 per week combined. The base rate of the pension will continue to benefit from benchmarking to wages. The benchmarked rate will increase for singles from 25 per cent to 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, an increase of more than 10 per cent. The new benchmark will be enshrined in legislation. Annually, this represents a total increase in permanent payments of $1,689 for singles and $527 for couples combined.
Labor recognise that pensioners are the best judge of managing their own budgets, so we are merging four payments into one by introducing the simplified pension supplement to replace separate allowances for GST, utilities, telephone and internet, and pharmaceuticals. The new pension supplement will initially be paid fortnightly, and from 1 July 2010 pensioners will be able to choose to receive around half of the new supplement on a quarterly basis. This is great news for older Australians. In the current economic climate, it is hard for those receiving the aged pension to make ends meet. In December last year the Rudd government made lump sum payments of $1,400 to each single pensioner and $2,100 to each couple—a down payment on the pension reform we committed to in this year’s budget. Statistics indicate around 17,000 central Victorians will benefit from the increased payments and some $15 million will be injected into the local economy. So not only are these pension increases most beneficial for all pension recipients but they will also provide a $15 million boost to central Victoria’s economy because most pension recipients are forced to dispose of all of their income each fortnight for their everyday needs.
In February, coalition spokesman the member for Warringah turned his back on older Australians, saying that increasing the aged pension would cause an enormous hit on government revenue. This is the classic coalition attitude, clearly showing all of the compassion of the Third Reich. This is one of this nation’s most disadvantaged groups, and the coalition are more concerned about perceptions of maintaining their fiscal bottom line than looking after the people who helped to build this nation to what it is today. The aged pension increase announced last night is yet another step Labor has taken to reduce the impact of the global economic crisis on pensioners’ budgets. It has taken the Rudd government just 15 months into its first term to provide some social justice for our pension recipients after 12 years of neglect by the Howard government.
The Rudd government’s other initiatives in order to help older Australians are: reviewing the value of investments following the recent dramatic falls on the share markets; twice lowering the deeming rate to take account of lower investment yields; and bonuses of up to $900 for self-funded retirees who paid tax on their investment income in 2007-08. The two-thirds ratio between singles and couples will apply across both the base pension and the new pension supplement. Mr Speaker, what are you laughing at? These reforms give pensioners more financial security and flexibility in how they receive their payments. The reforms will simplify the complex maze of pensioner payments and make the system fairer and sustainable into the future.
To provide a strong safety net for those who rely on the pension to survive, the government has also taken necessary decisions to make sure these reforms are affordable. Through a series of tough decisions, and despite the ageing of the population, secure and sustainable pension reform will be fully offset by the year 2020-21.These are the most significant reforms to the pension since it was introduced 100 years ago and a vital investment in preparing Australia for the future. I commend these initiatives to the House.
Australia is poorer after the budget that was delivered last night by the federal Treasurer. The people of Ryan are poorer after the budget was delivered last night, as well. In particular, I want to speak in the parliament tonight on behalf of those tens of thousands of couples who would be feeling immense pain and immense sadness tonight. The reason for that is that the Rudd government will introduce a cap on Medicare benefits payable under the extended Medicare safety net for a range of items with excessive fees, including to all assisted reproductive technology items, items for treatment to varicose veins, the injection of a therapeutic substance into the eye, hair transplants and a cataract surgery item. The caps will take effect from 1 January 2010. I specifically want to speak on behalf of tens of thousands of couples who will be feeling terribly sad this evening because they will be affected in relation to IVF treatment. The safety net was brought in by the Howard government in 2004. It pays 80 per cent of Medicare related out-of-pocket costs above $555.70 for families and concession card holders and above $1,111.60 for others.
In the parliament tonight I want to quote the words of two very brave and courageous constituents in the Ryan electorate, Casey and Karen Pfluger. They gave me permission to read out their email to me on Saturday evening. They have been in contact with me in recent weeks, and we have developed a friendship over the email and over the telephone. I know that they are listening this evening. I want to thank you two, very much, from the bottom of my heart, for your courage in allowing me to quote your words and to quote your names for the parliament to hear and, I hope, for thousands of Australians across the country to hear. I quote:
For couples such as ourselves IVF is the only way we can have children. Karen has a blocked fallopian tube and the other one probably doesn’t function after two years of attempting to conceive naturally with no pregnancy. She has regular ovulation, regular periods, correct hormone levels, and a healthy normal uterus, and my sperm is very healthy. Our IVF doctor said that after two years of attempting with all of those factors and our ages (29 and 31), we should have been pregnant. He believes Karen’s tubes are our only impediment to conception, and IVF will bypass that. After all, IVF was invented for couples with our problem: married, otherwise healthy but with blocked fallopian tubes.
As you see, our infertility is purely medical and beyond our control, yet the Federal Government is considering discriminating against us. We have a lot of love and attention to give to our future children, and are very committed to each other. Next month it will be our ninth wedding anniversary, and we have been together for almost eleven years. We don’t drink alcohol, smoke or do drugs. We don’t speed or drive dangerously. We pay our bills on time. We have no debt. We have no criminal records. We lodge our tax return on time each year. We both have Bachelor degrees. We have private health insurance with hospital cover. We love animals. Surely the Government wants people like ourselves to be having the children Australia will need in the future to care for the aging population, and to pay tax once they are old enough to have jobs. What we don’t have is unlimited funds to pay for IVF. If the Federal Government changes the Safety Net for IVF, we will only be able to afford a few more attempts, especially stimulation and egg retrieval. Our first embryo transfer was unsuccessful last month. We only had one frozen embryo from our egg retrieval, and it was transferred yesterday. We have everything crossed that this embryo implants and we finally get to meet our first child.
We need the Government to continue funding IVF treatment. Please do everything you can to make this happen. You are in a unique position to understand the heartbreak of infertile people across Australia because of your own experience.
My heart goes out to you, Casey and Karen. Infertility is not something that you wanted. Infertility is not something that you chose. Thousands of others across Australia do not choose infertility. I say to all those in this parliament and in particular to those in the government who are parents and who have the privilege of being a father or a mother: why should we prevent those who, through no fault of their own, cannot have children?
Prime Minister, you have three beautiful children. Treasurer, you have children. I am the father of a 2½-year-old. Why cannot some of our fellow Australians, who do not have the finances and who depend on IVF treatment, have children or have the chance to be parents? In God’s name, why cannot they have the greatest blessing and the greatest privilege it must surely be, to be a father and a mother? (Time expired)
I rise to acknowledge the absolute commitment of the Rudd Labor government to pensioners and its willingness to stand by that commitment, despite the pressures of the global economic crisis. It would have been convenient, some would have seen, for this government to use the global economic crisis as an opportunity to not pass on these increases to pensioners. But this government believes that not only was it important to pass on these increases but it was the right thing to do. I know that pensioners across my electorate of Petrie certainly welcome the announcement made in the budget last night to increase the full rate of the single pension by $32.49 per week and to increase the couple’s pension by $10.14 per week from 20 September 2009.
On the World News Australia website, a pensioner, Mrs Ethel Foyle, is 72 years old and lives alone in the North Brisbane suburb of West Chermside in my electorate. She has said that she is pleased with the increase, as the current pension is just enough for her to scrape by. She says that she requires ‘at least $7,000 a year for things like gas, electricity and rent’. Over 30 per cent of pensioners in North Brisbane are renting. She says there are things she misses out on because she can not afford them. What she says is that, as a Queenslander she is pleased with the government’s handling of the economy so far, and welcomes the extra money granted by the Rudd stimulus cheque late last year. She said:
There were things I needed doing around the house, which have now been done. I bought some Christmas presents for the grandchildren, and that’s basically where the money went, and I’ve got none left.
So she welcomes this increase to the pension. That was obviously on top of the stimulus package that this government delivered to pensioners in the short term last year, when we saw that the pensioners were doing it so tough that we delivered that one-off payment as part of the stimulus package. Now this government has delivered for the long term for pensioners—not just in my electorate of Petrie but across Australia.
I also call on the Queensland government to ensure that all of those pensioners living in public housing, in my electorate and across Queensland, see that full pension increase passed onto them, just as the South Australian government has announced, and not swallowed up with increases to the rent for that public housing. Certainly, that is what pensioners were asking of me last year when I held the Peninsula People’s Forum. All three levels of government, elected representatives, were there in the one place at a public forum to answer any questions. I know the first question was: ‘Would the government increase the pension?’ One of the other questions in that same forum was: ;If you do, will the Queensland government increase our rent in public housing?’
It is an issue where I hope the Queensland government, equally, does the right thing by our pensioners, and certainly those pensioners in Petrie would welcome such an initiative by the Queensland government. But, of course, we have heard of feigned concern by those on the other side that they are concerned about pensioners. We heard it last year and we continue to hear it. I am sure that, if given the opportunity, they would have been out saying, ‘Well, if we had one more year in government, we would have done it.’ But the fact is that, in the 16 months leading up to the election in 2007 while I was campaigning on the ground in Petrie, not once did I hear the Liberal member or the Liberal Party coming out saying that it was proposing an increase to the pension or that it acknowledged the pressures that pensioners were facing at the time.
This government has stepped up and delivered for pensioners. We will continue to support pensioners in the long term with the initiative announced in the budget that was delivered last night by the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan. In my electorate alone, 21,250 pensioners will benefit by this initiative. I look forward to going out next week and talking with my electorate about this initiative and about all of the initiatives of this government—the fact that we are about jobs for now and nation building for tomorrow. We are about apprenticeships and we are about small business. That is what a responsible government delivers, not just for local communities but for the nation as a whole. As I stated, I congratulate the government for the announcement in relation to the pensions. I congratulate this government, my government, about jobs, apprenticeships and small business. (Time expired)
I have referred before to the north-south pipeline, sometimes referred to as the Sugarloaf Reservoir project, and I want to talk about it again tonight. This is, of course, an extraordinary project which has the object of delivering water to Melbourne for their toilets, gardens and car washing. The water is to come away from the Murray-Darling Basin and be pumped over the Great Divide. The water is to come out of the Goulburn River system—which, sadly, is already designated as the most stressed of the major tributaries to the Murray River.
It is acknowledged officially that there are not the water savings to be found in the so-called Food Bowl Modernisation Project—which is plastic-lining irrigation channels in the Goulburn-Murray region and installing different metering systems. But, despite there not being water saved to put down this pipeline, there is still a statement being made from the Brumby-led Victorian government that there will be, ahead of schedule, water pushed down this pipeline, up over the Great Divide to Melbourne. In fact, they are bringing forward this pipeline event to early next year.
You would wonder where they are going to get the water from, given the Eildon Dam is down to some 15 per cent and below capacity. Mr Brumby is quite satisfied that there is sufficient of the environmental reserve left in the dam that he can take. He admits that there is 10 gigalitres of that 30 gigalitre reserve already given to the Coliban Water Authority to pipe via the so-called ‘superpipe’ to Bendigo, but there are still some 20 gigalitres of environmental reserve left. Apparently Mr Brumby is going to use that water.
The extraordinary thing is that Minister Garrett, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts in this place, has made this pipeline a controlled action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. He has quite categorically made one of the conditions the fact that the environmental reserve is not to be used to push water down the pipeline to Melbourne. So we are wondering what is going on. Why are Minister Garrett’s EPBC conditions being ignored? What is the power of the EPBC if it can be so actively flouted? Then we have the so-called ‘superpipe’ taking water out of that same system via Waranga Basin to Bendigo. Sadly, this pipeline was pushed through, again like the north-south pipeline, without any environmental, economic cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. The pipe was pushed through so fast that technically it is a very unsatisfactory conduit for water. It leaks. Coliban has acknowledged that. They said, ‘Yes, it does leak, but it’s not dirt building up in it; it’s just organic matter.’ The farmers whose properties this pipeline goes through have been quite interested in having their billabongs and low points filled with the leaking water over the drought periods of summer, but now they are much more concerned that they cannot crop their country because of the leaking pipeline and the disturbed ground which runs along the surface of this pipeline, where it has been buried, is now not farmable. They cannot farm their properties because there is a real problem of lack of compaction and such poorly laid pipes that their farms have become divided by this easement running through them. They have gone to Coliban and asked for compensation. Of course, Coliban has refused to talk to them. We have a real problem. Coliban has a real problem and they are saying, ‘We’ll do another pipe but this time we’ll stick it at the top of the Waranga Basin. That way we can get even more water out of the system than the 100 megalitres we take daily at the moment.’
The Eildon Dam system—the Goulburn-Murray system in the Murray-Darling basin—cannot supply Bendigo, Ballarat, Castlemaine, Kyneton and a number of Loddon River towns, as well as Melbourne and Geelong, but that is the expectation of the Brumby led government. This is environmental vandalism and it is destroying the agricultural, water security and food bowl future for constituents in northern Victoria. You do not have food security when you have no water security. There are 23 food manufacturing enterprises in the area who will lose their workforce and the transport sector that serves them. This is an extraordinarily serious problem which has been totally ignored by this government and the EPBC Act which should have been operative and brought the Brumby government to heal, but it appears to be completely powerless. (Time expired)
I am very proud to be part of the Rudd Labor government which, in the budget yesterday, delivered on increase in the pension. These are the most significant reforms to the pension since it was introduced 100 years ago and are a vital investment in preparing Australia for the future. All 3.3 million age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers, wife pensioners and veteran income support recipients will benefit from the increases in their pension payments. From 20 September 2009, the secure and sustainable pension reforms will deliver increases of $32.49 per week for singles and $10.14 per week combined for couples. From 20 September 2009, total assistance for single pensioners will increase from $304.19 per week to $336.68 per week and for pensioner couples combined from $497.36 per week To $507.50 per week. This increase will bring the single rate of the pension up to two-thirds of the combined couple rate. The base rate of the pension will continue to benefit from benchmarking to wages. The benchmarked rate will increase for singles from 25 per cent to 27.7 per cent of male total average weekly earnings—that is, an increase of more than 10 per cent.
Being the member of an electorate with one of the highest number of people aged over 65 years in Australia—over 20 per cent of my constituents—I have been advocating long and hard for improvement to the income for pensioners in my electorate. I know that living on a single age pension is very tough. How do I know this? Because my constituents have been telling me at the street corner meetings we hold, at seniors forums, at functions and at meetings in my office. They have not been telling me this just in the last 18 months since we have been in government; they were telling me this for the years we were in opposition. This is not something which has just happened; this has been around for a long time.
Let us contrast the decision of yesterday’s budget with the record of the former coalition government, which, in 11 long years did nothing to address the inequity for single pensioners. In 11 long years, the former Howard government allowed the pension rate to stay low and squandered the opportunity to support pensioners in an entirely different economic climate. Not only that, but the opposition have been acting with mock indignation regarding the pension rise.
Last year around this time, after the budget, they attempted to ram a pension bill through parliament and that was just for political point scoring because they had 11 long years in government to do something about pensions. So why did it suddenly become an issue for the now opposition after a Labor government was elected? Because they wanted to use pensioners as pawns in their political games. The preface of the opposition’s pension bill stated:
Assistance for single age pension is an immediate priority due to the urgent circumstances facing many recipients struggling to cope with escalating costs of living.
You cannot tell me that pensioners and pensioner groups were not raising their concerns in the whole 11 years when the now opposition were in government, but all of a sudden it was an issue for them because Labor was in government. To use a quote after the mock bill was defeated, the opposition spokesman on ageing had the following to say:
The contempt shown by this Labor government towards senior Australians is beyond belief.
The Howard government did nothing for pensioners for the entire 11 years.
Order! It being 8.00 pm, the debate is interrupted.
The following notices were given:
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to provide for an appropriation for the Australian Government Guarantee to Support Interim Funding to Car Dealerships, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, and for other purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority, and for other purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to reduce pollution caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009, and for other purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act about CPRS fuel credits, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Act 2009, and for other purposes.
to move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed fit-out of the ANZAC Park West Building, Parkes, ACT.
I recently had the great pleasure of visiting the RAAF base in the electorate of Pearce, the RAAF Base Pearce, where I attended the graduation parade of the No. 2 Flying Training School students who have recently completed the No. 214 RAAF Advanced Pilots’ Course. Having seen the 16 newest pilots in the country firsthand, I thought this was a great opportunity to let the House know that Australia’s security and our future is in safe hands.
I have been attending services at the RAAF Base Pearce over the 15 years that I have been the member for the Pearce electorate. While the personnel and the commanding officers often change, one thing that does not is the absolute dedication of these young men and women and of those engaged in the management and training programs of the base—a dedication to their training, a dedication to making the most of their abilities and a dedication to their country. These abilities and attributes see quality men and women turned out each year, after which they are assigned different postings around Australia.
It is interesting to note that the Royal Australian Air Force is the youngest of the three armed services in Australia and yet—as the House is perhaps not aware—is the second oldest independent and permanent air force in the world, which I feel underlines our commitment and willingness as a nation to embrace new technology and innovation.
The pursuit of excellence is reflected in the aims of the course provided to young pilots. It produces a pilot who is capable of flying training aircraft with the skill and confidence necessary to allow ready transition to operational aircraft. When you see the precision flying that takes place on that base, especially at graduations, you realise just how important their discipline, their knowledge of the capability of the aircraft and their attention to every minute detail are in ensuring that they are able to control the aircraft—if they are not, of course, it may endanger life.
Apart from being able to fly these incredible aircraft, the graduates must also be capable of discharging the duties and responsibilities of a junior officer in the Australian Defence Force. Therefore, they must have outstanding leadership capabilities. While attending the graduation at the base I was shown around by Squadron Leader David Campbell. One could not hope to find a better example than Mr Campbell of the kind of citizen the military can turn out. Mr Campbell is incredibly articulate, confident, disciplined and well-mannered—all skills the youth of Australia could benefit from learning. Mr Campbell is very much at the forefront of that training. (Time expired)
During the parliamentary recess, I had the pleasure of attending the opening of UnitingCare Burnside’s NEWPIN Centre at St Marys. Burnside has been running its NEWPIN, or New Parent Infant Network, program for the last 10 years in three states in Australia. NEWPIN is an early intervention program that targets vulnerable families who are socially isolated and whose children are in danger of, or suffer from, neglect and abuse. Originally developed in the United Kingdom, NEWPIN aims to break intergenerational patterns of child abuse and social exclusion by equipping parents with life skills and a better understanding of the development of their children. Giving parents these skills empowers them to take control of their lives.
Parents attending NEWPIN courses generally report an improvement in their confidence and self-esteem, which then has a positive impact on the way they engage with and care for their children. Underpinning this process is the involvement of mentors—parents who have successfully completed a NEWPIN course and have gained the personal skills to support others in breaking the cycle of abuse and neglect. It is these mentors who will be central to the success of the new NEWPIN centre at St Marys.
Five former NEWPIN course participants—Leanne Fyfe, Kathy Doyle, Mabel Venica, Jenny McNamara and Terri Butler—are now staff members at Burnside, and it was fitting that they cut the ribbon to launch this important new service. Collectively, these women and their inspiring personal stories represent the new beginning that a service like NEWPIN can offer parents caught in a cycle of destructive behaviour. The NEWPIN mentors show parents that with determination and support you can turn things around. I offer each and every one of the participants the best of luck on the journey that they will undertake to improve their lives and the lives of their families.
There are now three NEWPIN centres in Western Sydney. Each of these centres assist between 120 and 150 clients each year. Parents attend the centre for up to four days a week, 50 weeks a year, for an 18-month intensive parenting intervention course, while children are engaged in play therapy sessions and counselling support. Services like NEWPIN are at the frontline of helping our most vulnerable families, and they are staffed by dedicated men and women. I have had the honour of meeting many of our frontline community workers and without them our community would be much poorer. The staff at NEWPIN St Mary’s are no exception, and I would like to acknowledge the coordinator, Tracie Mitchell, and the former St Mary’s Uniting Church minister, Keith Hamilton, for his ongoing support of the service. I also acknowledge Minister David Riethmuller and his congregation for their tremendous support of this project. I look forward to witnessing the results of the great work of the team at NEWPIN St Mary’s. I know that this service will have a beneficial impact upon the lives of many local residents in my community.
May I join with the member for Pearce in acknowledging the role of our armed forces. I have just spent Anzac Day in Kandahar and have had the privilege of being with our troops and with representatives from all the coalition forces there—a magnificent body of men and women doing an incredibly professional job. I will later join with the condolences in recognising Corporal Hopkins, Sergeant Till and all the others who have lost their lives or their health while working on behalf of Australia in the region.
I would also really like to bring the House’s attention to comments made by Kevin Rudd, before he became Prime Minister, about the buck stopping with him on health. While it would seem to be a New South Wales problem, the Emergency Rescue Helicopter Service based in Orange services the biggest area of New South Wales, but it is being totally mismanaged. It works only in daylight hours—and for only part of that—and it is a short-range helicopter. However, Wollongong has a 24-hour, winch equipped, long-range helicopter service. I am happy that Wollongong has that—as indeed they should—but I do not see why western New South Wales, which has a helicopter based in Orange that is called out more than the Wollongong one, would not have the same. I am happy for Wollongong but I defend the right of my people west of the mountains to have the same service.
The government will not say what they are going to do and they have obviously decided to leave it as it is. I must say that western and central western New South Wales has risen up in arms, as indeed they might, on this issue. Nearly 6,000 people in a very short space of time have signed a petition—the Country Women’s Association and many individuals have sent in page upon page of petitions to the state government calling upon them to rectify the situation. Some of these people are from as far away from Orange as Nyngan, Coolabah, Condobolin, Lake Cargelligo, Bourke and Hillston. We are talking about people dependent upon a helicopter service which is hundreds of kilometres from them, and quite often it has to get over the mountains to get to safety. Even a person in Orange, two minutes flying time from the service, may have died because the helicopter was not equipped to deal with a particular emergency. People have had to wait about three hours after an incident has happened for a helicopter to come from Sydney. It is not good enough; it is not fair and 6,000 signatures are going to tell the New South Wales government that in very short order. (Time expired)
I rise to commend the federal government’s commitment to health in the Northern Territory. The government has allocated $27.8 million to Flinders University to build a dedicated network of hospital and community based medical education facilities to allow a full medical program to be delivered in the Territory. The new facilities will be centred at two sites: the Royal Darwin Hospital and Charles Darwin University. The government will also provide $4.4 million over four years to the Northern Territory government to support increased teaching costs and medical places for local students. These investments are expected to increase the number of graduates who choose to practise in the NT after finishing their medical degree and will help tackle medical workforce shortages and retention issues in the Northern Territory. Construction is expected to begin in 2009-10, with the first student intake to start in 2011.
The budget also provides $18.6 million to build an accommodation complex of 50 units on the grounds of the Royal Darwin Hospital for patients and their carers. This investment will alleviate problems caused by the current shortage of short-term affordable accommodation in Darwin for people from regional and remote areas and the effect this shortage has on access to medical services and discharge form acute-care facilities. It will provide immediate job benefits for local building workers. Construction is expected to begin in January 2010 and be completed in 2011.
More than $34 million will also be invested to build a centre of excellence in Indigenous health and education in Darwin. The aim of the centre is to assist researchers to develop the evidence base needed to drive improvements in Indigenous health. It will also provide an understanding of diseases affecting Indigenous communities, which will translate into better health care.
These projects are supported under the Rudd government’s nation-building Health and Hospitals Fund, which is building health infrastructure for the 21st century while also creating employment opportunities for Darwin. These facilities will be a lasting legacy for the people of my electorate. No longer will people have to go interstate to complete their medical degree, providing the best opportunity to keep local graduates working in the Territory. These are massive investments, including $19 million for an oncology unit and $10 million for a GP superclinic in Palmerston.
The 2009-10 federal budget also delivers a $134 million landmark package of measures to tackle shortages of doctors and health workers in rural and remote communities in Australia. The Rudd government is also providing an additional $7.6 million over three years to support the introduction of a new formula for funding the Division of General Practice network around Australia. We have a fantastic government that is committed to providing improved health care, a fantastic health minister who understands and listens, and fantastic people working across all health delivery sectors in the Territory. (Time expired)
I rise to speak about the Bunbury branch of the CWA, which is celebrating 80 years of existence. On 26 May 1929 eight ladies met at the Bunbury council chambers and decided that a CWA branch should be formed in Bunbury. Mrs Leslie Craig was elected as the inaugural president at its first meeting. Initially, meetings were conducted at various places offered to them by the public, but permanent ‘rest rooms’ were definitely needed. In 1930 a small parcel of land in Wellington Street was leased from the railways department, and Bunning Bros were contracted to build the rest rooms at a cost of ₤237.17. The grand opening of these rooms and the first meeting were held on 26 October 1931. Since that time numerous alterations, improvements and extensive additions, including a new kitchen, have been completed. These are greatly appreciated by all members, visitors and those who use the rooms.
In 2008 the Bunbury branch purchased a magnificent wooden fireplace from CWA House in Perth. It has been placed in the foyer for everyone to see and enjoy as they enter the rooms. When the Bunbury council decided to construct the Bicentennial Square, the land and rooms were in jeopardy. Through the efforts of Dr Ern Manea in 1988 the property, land and building was vested to the Bunbury branch of the CWA as an historic site. The rooms are open every Tuesday, when members gather for meetings, either for business or social purposes or craft activities. Visitors are always welcome, and of course there is always a cup of tea and great food. Some outside groups also use the comfort of the CWA rooms. Flowers for Friendship, where members make and hand out floral button holes to local shoppers and visitors, an annual church service, conducted in the rooms, and outings with sister branches of Thornleigh are highlights of the branch’s year.
Fundraising is ongoing, and donations are made to various clubs and organisations annually. Toys are made for the ambulance, hospital and fire brigade services, and comfort items are made for regional nursing homes and the women’s refuge. Volunteering is a high priority, with members always willing to help whenever needed. Ten members regularly visit nursing homes and hospitals in Bunbury and surrounding areas to entertain the residents with singing, piano duets and stories. On 30 June this year, Bunbury branch will celebrate its 80th birthday with a civic reception and luncheon, which, hopefully, state officers will attend.
The girls inform me that CWA actually stands for ‘chicks with attitude’, and I wish them all the best.
I am particularly pleased that last night’s budget included $35 million for a building for the Hunter Medical Research Institute. HMRI have already got commitments to the tune of $55 million; therefore, this brings the total to the $90 million which is required to construct a new medical research facility in Newcastle, New South Wales. The achievement of the funding in last night’s budget follows close collaboration of regional Labor members of parliament, including myself, with HMRI chairperson, Bob Kennedy; HMRI director, Professor Maree Gleeson and University of Newcastle Vice-Chancellor, Professor Nick Saunders.
The Hunter Medical Research Institute is a partnership between Hunter New England Health, the University of Newcastle and the local community. The HMRI building will provide researchers with a purpose-built research facility immediately adjacent to the John Hunter Hospital, which is the largest teaching hospital outside a capital city in Australia. HMRI researchers are delivering world-leading clinical research outcomes and, as a result of their continuing success, HMRI researchers have outgrown their current facilities.
The state-of-the-art building which will now be constructed will accommodate over 340 medical researchers in a building of 13,000 square metres. It will provide a specialised research and training facility and allow for innovative biotechnology and commercial research laboratories to be developed. The new purpose-built facility will allow collocation of biomedical researchers with clinical researchers. This will facilitate the effective translation of research into improved health outcomes. The provision of quality research facilities not only attracts the best researchers to an institute but also attracts the best clinicians to the health service. This will help to ensure that the people of the Hunter have access to the best possible health care.
With proximity to the John Hunter Hospital—the region’s major teaching hospital—this project will accelerate the translation of new discoveries to patient care. It will result in improved clinical practice and health outcomes as well as greater local and national health and economic benefits. The new facility, of course, is also an investment in the economy of the Hunter region. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation has estimated that the construction of the new facility will create over 680 jobs and add nearly $180 million to the local economy in the immediate future.
As a world-class medical research centre, the facility also has the potential to expand the local biotechnology industry for the commercialisation of research, further adding to the economy of the region. The HMRI building is ready to be constructed, and the HMRI will be ready to tender for the construction team in October 2009 and ready to commence major construction of the building in January 2010. We welcome the news. (Time expired)
In Cowan there are many schools doing great work with our children. In the suburb of Hocking, there is a new primary school named after the suburb. Hocking Primary School is led by the principal, Steven Dickson, and deputies, Steve Hardingham and Mark Pegoraro.
This is only the second year of operation; however, the school has a strong focus on technology. This focus is clearly demonstrated by the fact that interactive whiteboards have been installed in every learning area and that the school successfully utilises a wireless network. Credit for this initiative should be allocated to Steven Dickson, his leadership team and the staff at Hocking Primary School.
I know that the parents and students have a very high opinion of the school and, just last week, I attended an assembly where the high collective morale of the school community was on show. The assembly was the Mother’s Day assembly and it was conducted by the two classes of preprimary students. As is the normal procedure in Western Australian primary schools, many of the students who are aged around five and six years old have to speak in front of the whole school community as well as sing songs. This has been very good for the personal development of the young children and contributes strongly to their self-confidence. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of the class teachers Julie Jackson and Jo Mitchell and their education assistants, Chantelle Watts and Sheila Cairns.
In other speeches I have made I have consistently spoken of the importance of leadership and the examples shown to children by their parents. As part of my Junior Cowan Community Watch initiative, where I encourage greater community awareness and involvement, I presented membership certificates and badges to four students, Melissa Tran, Megan McLoughlin, Stacey Smith and Nicole Voskamp. Soon I will also present membership certificates and badges to Tyler Clement and Jade McLoughlin. I thank these six students for their interest in working with me to help build an even better community. It is my view that the interest shown in the community by these young students reflects favourably not only on their characters but on the way their parents have raised them and on the school leadership. I would also like to thank their teacher, Mr Grant Rielly, for his support of the Junior Cowan Community Watch.
It is clear that the school leadership, the teachers, the parents and the students are working together for a better community, and I am confident that a great suburb and a great school will only get better and better in the future. I would also acknowledge the parent volunteers of Hocking Primary School, led by the P&C President, Laura Allison; Danielle Pickett, the Vice-President; Kelly Walker, the Secretary; and Janine Carter, the Treasurer; together with members Phil Mears, Desmond Lees, Karen Cappiello, Richard Termini, Chantel Mussard and Adriana Manera. I wish Hocking Primary School all the best for their future and I remain confident that their successes will continue.
I rise to talk about the local jobs forum that was held in my electorate of Dobell, on the Central Coast, on 17 April this year. The Parliamentary Secretary for Government Service Delivery, Senator Mark Arbib, attended the jobs forum and gave a wide-ranging talk on the government’s stimulus package and the effects that it would have on local communities like mine.
Over 200 organisations turned up to the jobs forum to listen, to participate and to see how they at a local level could be part of the stimulus package and how it could apply to their businesses. In particular, I would like to thank Mary Doherty, from the chamber of commerce, Central Coast branch, who helped to organise the forum. Because business understands the importance of these stimulus packages, Mary was glowing in her praise for what the government is doing in directing funds to make sure that businesses can create and maintain jobs in our local area. Working with businesses every day, Mary understands how important it is that these stimulus packages are put in place. She understands how important it is for local businesses and for the local economy.
I would also like to mention the Mayor, Bob Graham, who also spoke at the forum. He talked about the $1½ million that the local council is getting for local works that they have long been looking to do but for which they did not have the money for. In particular, he mentioned the netball courts at Wyong, which had been on the drawing board for 10 years but which a lack of funds meant could not be built. Already they are turning sods for the netball courts and people are being employed. So Mr Graham was very enthusiastic about the government’s approach to local jobs. This is a man who is not a Labor mayor. This is a man who was in the state parliament as a representative of the Liberal Party, but he understands the importance of these initiatives for local communities.
In my electorate some $400 million from the education package is being spent at schools. You could not have a better example of just how needed this package is than the Tacoma School, which I visited last Friday and which will receive $2 million for a community hall. The school has 156 students and has been trying to raise money for a community hall to try to involve the community in the school. This piece of infrastructure will provide not only much needed social infrastructure for the area but also jobs. That is one reason why this stimulus package is so important for the community of Dobell.
As I sip on my glass of water here this morning I would like to draw to everyone’s attention to the lifeblood of this nation, which is water itself. In particular in my region, the Macarthur area, it is the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. I would like to bring to the attention of this chamber the fact that in 2007 the then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, announced the coalition’s $132.5 million plan to help the Nepean River recover.
It is important to note that 97 per cent of Sydney’s drinking water comes from the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment area. That catchment area supplies 4.13 million people of Sydney and supports 70 per cent of the state’s income. The fact that the river is in such dire straits—together with poor leadership—is obviously an example of why New South Wales is probably running down the gurgler at the moment. Having said all of that, this morning I call on the Rudd government to come good on the promise made by John Howard back in 2007 of that $132.5 million funding. It was already set aside—and I emphasise the fact that it was already set aside—for this project. Because the money has already been put aside it would not be extra spending, so I call on the Rudd government to support this program and to work with the New South Wales state government to clean up the Nepean River catchment area.
In the limited time I have available I would like to also touch on a couple of other points. Sitting in the House last night listening to the budget speech, I could not for the life of me believe that in just 18 short months we have gone from having a $20 billion surplus to a $188 billion debt in our forward estimates. This is a frightening figure for any of us who have children. Those of us who have children are looking at every man, woman and child in the next generation in this country paying back around $9,000, plus a $500 interest bill on top of that, just to try to get that back under control. When the coalition first came to government under the leadership of John Howard 13 years ago, we had a $96 billion debt. We paid that back. It took us nearly 10 years to do that, and we saved $5 billion a year as a result of paying back that debt and getting ourselves into a position of surplus. I want the Australian people to reflect on the mistake they made by putting the Labor government into power and putting them in charge of the finances.
I was quite amazed by the words of the last speaker when he referred to the federal government. I think that, maybe, economics is not his strong point. However, my issues today are very much about my community. I listened to the member for Cowan talk about his work with young people, and that is essentially what we as a government are about: providing services to our communities. I am sure every member in this chamber understands the importance of the youth in our communities and of making sure that they have a future. The member for Macarthur raised certain concerns, and I can tell they you were not well founded in economic strategy.
I would like to note that my electorate had a visit from Ms Kate Ellis, the Minister for Sport and Minister for Youth. She talked to a group of young people who represented their communities through the school network. The member for Cowan talked about leadership within our communities and within our schools. I have in my community a very strong group of young people who come together under the banner of the Beenleigh-Yatala Junior Chamber of Commerce. The group comprises about 80 young people from the community and, while it is under the auspices of the Beenleigh-Yatala Chamber of Commerce, it is very much about young people being engaged in the community and understanding the work that we as members of parliament do—whether at the state, federal or local government level.
A number of people organised this forum, in which I am now heavily involved, through some of the chaplaincy services that are provided in our Queensland schools. Frank Barnes—a man who at 83 years of age is sprightly and runs around like a 50-year-old—has committed a lot of time and effort to these young people, in conjunction with Cheryl Taylor.
The work that they do is about, as I said, bringing those young people together for a purpose. As federal members, we always look for ways to better engage with our community groups. When we have community groups that want to engage with their elected representatives it makes it much easier for us to talk about a whole range of issues. I would like to make mention of the participation of the schools that support this particular network. We have the Beenleigh State High School, Windaroo Valley State High School, Trinity College, Canterbury College, Loganlea State High School and Rivermount College. There are also particular employment groups involved. One is known as the Indigenous Extreme Team and another is Beenleigh Adult Education. They are working together in terms of services for young people and making young people aware that there are ways in which they can engage and get policy issues on the table so that I as a federal member am able to come into this chamber and proudly espouse the values, concerns and priorities of the youth of my community.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That the House expresses its deep regret at the death on 16 March 2009, of Corporal Mathew Ricky Andrew Hopkins, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
I rise on behalf of the opposition to support this condolence motion for Corporal Mathew Hopkins, a brave soldier tragically killed in action while working as a member of the mentoring and reconstruction task force in Oruzgan province in Afghanistan on 16 March this year. Corporal Mathew Hopkins, known as ‘Hoppy’ to his mates, was born on 27 August 1987 in Christchurch, New Zealand, and arrived in Australia with his family in 1988. He was, sadly, the ninth Australian soldier to have lost his life during operations in Afghanistan since 2002.
Corporal Hopkins was involved in training and support alongside a unit of the Afghan National Army, assisting them to assume greater responsibility for order and security in the region. As a part of this training, Australian soldiers serve alongside these Afghan troops in operations and patrols. Corporal Hopkins was leading a patrol of Australian and Afghan troops in the Baluchi Valley, only a short distance from the Australian base in Tarin Kowt, on 16 March when the patrol faced heavy contact with the Taliban insurgents, who emerged from their winter recess with renewed attacks on coalition forces.
It was during this attack, in the face of withering small arms and rocket propelled grenade fire, the Corporal Hopkins suffered fatal gunshot wounds. Despite his evacuation, he was deceased on arrival at the field hospital. At Tarin Kowt, Australian, Afghan and other coalition troops held a moving ramp ceremony bidding farewell to a popular, professional soldier whom they admired and respected. A tribute from Defence to Corporal Mathew Hopkins states:
His mates in the 7th Battalion described him as a very professional soldier, but always a bit of a larrikin having a joke when the chips were down. Corporal Hopkins was always keen to get the job done which gave his subordinates something to emulate. He was a good leader and a good mate who would go out of his way to provide any assistance within his capacity.
Mathew was an approachable bloke with a genuine caring attitude for his soldiers. He upheld the Army values as a source of inspiration particularly courage and mateship. He was a soldier who led from the front, never from the rear and always looked out for his mates and most certainly for his soldiers. He was a keen sports player; he particularly enjoyed rugby within the Battalion and the competition within the Brigade.
As I watched the footage of the plane taking off from Tarin Kowt in the darkness as illumination rounds were fired in tribute, it certainly touched me with its solemnity.
At the ramp ceremony, the commanding officer of the mentoring and reconstruction taskforce, Lieutenant Colonel Shane Gabriel, said, ‘This hits us all hard.’ He said:
I take Mathew’s loss, as his Commanding Officer, very personally and very deeply. He was an outstanding soldier. He was extremely well known and greatly respected across the battalion and indeed across the battle group here on this operation.
One of the most difficult tasks any Defence minister or shadow minister can face is attending the repatriation ceremonies and funerals of Australian military personal who are killed in active service.
I attended the repatriation ceremony at RAAF Williamtown on 23 March and also the funeral of Corporal Hopkins at the Christchurch Cathedral in Newcastle on 27 March. It would be an understatement to say that both services touched all of those present as we shared—at least in a small sense—in the grief that Corporal Hopkins’ family and friends felt at his passing and as we shared the admiration for his dedication and service and for the great sacrifice that he has made.
At the funeral, Mathew’s mother, Bronwyn, delivered a very touching eulogy, which reflected on Mathew’s commitment to family and his desire to serve Australia through the Army. She said:
Family was everything to Mat. He lived his life full-on. He learned to run before he could hardly walk. He had a love of books and a great thirst for knowledge. Mat only ever wanted to join the Army, and when everyone else in year 12 was studying or out partying you would find Mathew reading every book you could read on Army life or out training so he could be the best possible soldier.
Corporal Mathew Hopkins joined the Army in March 2005, a young man keen to serve his country. He served with distinction on his initial deployment to Afghanistan in 2006, where his abilities and professionalism were noted, leading to his rapid advancement to the rank of corporal. He was redeployed to Afghanistan where, as a section commander, Corporal Hopkins led that fateful patrol in the protection of freedom and security. Corporal Hopkins was also a decorated soldier, having received the Australian Active Service Medal with International Coalition against Terrorism clasp, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal and the Infantry Combat Badge. It was during the ramp ceremony at Williamtown RAAF Base that Corporal Hopkins was posthumously awarded the Australian Defence Medal.
Corporal Hopkins was a member of the 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, based in Darwin. There are over 1,000 troops currently serving in Afghanistan as part of Operation Slipper. Those troops face a harsh climate, rough conditions and an enemy intent on creating chaos, yet our service personnel continue to demonstrate great commitment and professionalism to their duties. As always, our troops punch well above their weight.
Corporal Hopkins and his wife, Victoria, are the proud parents of a son, Alexander, who was just five weeks old when Corporal Hopkins was sadly taken from us. In a statement, Victoria said:
Mat had the most important job—he was a father to our son Alex, my husband and my best friend.
He was excited about becoming a daddy. He only got to spend 4 days with our son when he was born before he had to go back overseas. I am so glad that Mat got to meet his son and experience fatherhood.
As Malcolm Turnbull, the Leader of the Opposition, said in his speech on the condolence motion, speaking to ‘Hoppy’s’ son, Alex:
… you will know that all of us here assembled, representing the entire nation—your nation—to honour your father’s courage and to thank him for his service. We say to you, Alex Hopkins, across the years, that no son could have a finer example of strength and honour, courage and sacrifice, than the example your father has given to you, his baby son, and to all of us Australians.
There is no Australian who could not wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments so eloquently and emotionally put by Malcolm Turnbull. To Mathew’s wife, Victoria, to his son, Alexander, to his mother, Bronwyn, and father, Ricky, to his brother, Corey: our words can do so little to relieve the sense of grief and loss that you must feel and to enhance the sense of pride you would feel for the dedicated way he went about his service and for the respect his colleagues had for his abilities and his leadership. Australia today again mourns the loss of another of its brave sons. As always, Australia prays for the protection of those serving in overseas operations and acknowledges the sacrifice made by Corporal Mathew Hopkins. Lest we forget.
I rise to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Paterson and others who will speak on this condolence motion in expressing my deep regret and sorrow for the loss of Corporal Mathew Hopkins. Again I offer my profound sympathy to his family and again I would like to extend my sympathy and thanks to his very young wife, Victoria. As the member for Paterson indicated, they had not long had a child—a son—and I too am very pleased that Corporal Hopkins had the opportunity to see his son and spend some time with him before giving his life in the name of his country. I also again extend my sympathies to his mother, Bronwyn, and his father, Ricky. It is a very sad and difficult time for them and I hope they find some comfort in the recognition the parliament is giving to Corporal Hopkins today. Like the member for Paterson, I spent time with them at both the ramp ceremony and the funeral service. Both occasions were very moving and great tributes were paid to Corporal Hopkins, not only by his family but also by those who served alongside him.
I have met many of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and I am always most impressed by their professionalism and their courage. Corporal Hopkins made a significant contribution while serving in the Australian Army. He enlisted in the Army in March 2005. After initial training, he was allocated to the Royal Australian Infantry Corp and qualified as a rifleman in September 2005. Corporal Hopkins first deployed to Afghanistan on Operation Slipper, when Operation Slipper was formed, from November 2006 to April 2007. He was promoted to lance corporal in April 2008 and to corporal in August 2008. On 16 March 2009 Corporal Hopkins was serving with the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force when he was tragically and fatally wounded in an engagement with insurgents. He was a valued member of the Darwin based 7th Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment. Corporal Hopkins was conducting a patrol near Kakarak when he and his team were engaged by a group of around 20 Taliban insurgents.
Corporal Hopkins died serving his country and is owed a special debt of gratitude that can never, ever be fully repaid. He was an outstanding soldier, displaying courage and professionalism in the most demanding of environments. Many members will know that I saw that environment firsthand in recent weeks when I travelled to Afghanistan. I visited forward operating base Buman at the entry to the Baluchi Valley and, with the assistance of binoculars, I was able to look out to the area where Corporal Hopkins lost his life fighting alongside members of the Afghan National Army. I was able to speak with members who were serving with him there, and they were so visibly and obviously still feeling the pain of the loss of their comrade and their friend.
While visiting forward operating base Buman and forward operating base Loch, I learned a lot more about the detail of the work that the men and women of the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force are doing. It is really meaningful work that those like Corporal Hopkins are doing, embedding themselves with kandaks, or the Afghan National Army, and helping them to build their skills and their capacity so that eventually they will be in a position to take care of their own local security. For Australia, that is the focus of our task: to bring the Afghan national security forces to a capacity and skill level which allows them to take care of their own security. While there, I had some very good briefings by our people, in particular from Major David McCammon, who leads the operation there. I cannot speak more highly of the leadership and of the real work our men and women are doing on the ground.
When the government reconfigured and created the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, we said that the risk would be higher, that our men would be going out with Afghan kandaks, and that would be doing not only meaningful work but also quite dangerous work. Very sadly, the loss of Mathew Hopkins confirmed that to be the case. Sometime very soon we will be seeing off Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force 2, and we keep them in mind as today we reflect on the loss of Corporal Hopkins and thank him for what he did for his country.
On behalf of the Australian government, I offer my prayers and my support to the family of Corporal Hopkins. His passing brings the total number of fatalities in Afghanistan to nine ADF members. The other fatalities are Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Lock, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell and Private Greg Sher. It is a tragic loss for the Australian community. Whenever we have a loss in Afghanistan there is a constant message from the families that their loved one—their husband, their son or whatever the case might be—fully understood what he was doing and fully understood the risks involved but really wanted to be doing exactly what he was doing. I think that is an important message. It is another reason why we can be so proud of our people who are serving in Afghanistan and of those who have served or are about to serve. They do so with great determination and dedication to their country and for that we can be eternally thankful.
Benjamin Disraeli said that the legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example. Corporal Mathew Hopkins is indeed a great example to all Australians and it is with great pride mixed with much sadness that I rise to honour this fallen warrior, the ninth lost whilst defending and fighting for freedom in a foreign land known as Afghanistan.
Corporal Mathew Hopkins, known as ‘Hoppy’ to his mates, was actually born in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 27 August 1987. He saw the light and arrived in Australia with his family in 1988. He enlisted in the Australian Regular Army on 28 March 2005. After completing recruit training he was allocated to the Royal Australian Infantry Corps and was subsequently posted to the School of Infantry, where he qualified as a rifleman after completing his initial employment training on 9 September 2005. He was posted to the 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, with effect 10 September 2005, where he fulfilled a range of junior soldier roles and qualified as an M113 crewman driver.
Corporal Hopkins deployed to Afghanistan on Operation Slipper with the first reconstruction task force from November 2006 to April 2007. His military decorations include the Australian Active Service Medal with International Coalition Against Terrorism, ICAT, clasp; the Afghanistan Campaign Medal; the NATO International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, Medal; and, of course, the Infantry Combat Badge. He remained with the 7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, upon the delinking of both battalions and later qualified as an M113 crewman commander. He was temporarily promoted to Lance Corporal in June 2007 and was made substantive in April 2008. He was promoted to Corporal before his 21st birthday in August 2008, which is certainly testimony to his leadership qualities, his hard work and his commitment. Corporal Mathew Hopkins deployed to Afghanistan as a member of the fourth protection combat team, known as Combat Team Tusk, serving with the first Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. He was a section commander with the fourth protection combat team.
His mates in the 7th Battalion described him as a professional soldier and a bit of a larrikin having a joke when the chips were down. He strikes me as a typical modern Anzac. He was always keen to get the job done, however, which gave his subordinates something to emulate. He was a good leader and was described as a good mate who would go out of his way to provide any assistance within his capacity. He sounds like a bloody good young Australian. He was an approachable bloke with a genuine caring attitude toward his soldiers. He certainly upheld Army values as a source of inspiration—particularly courage, mateship and endurance. All who knew him said that he was a soldier who led from the front, never from the rear, and always looked out for his mates and most certainly for his soldiers. He was a good section commander. He was a keen sports player, and he particularly enjoyed rugby within the battalion and the competition within the brigade.
Mathew was recently married to Victoria and was present during the birth of their son, Alexander. I have two little boys, and I can attest to the wonderful joy of being there when they come into the world and take their first breaths. I have no doubt Alexander will be immensely proud of his dad.
Corporal Hopkins was serving with the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force in Afghanistan when he was killed while conducting a patrol near Kakarak, when he and his team were engaged by a group of around 20 Taliban on Monday, 16 March. Corporal Hopkins was a valued member of the Darwin based 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. He fought like a soldier. He died a soldier’s death. It is attributed to George Orwell that we sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. If indeed freedom is the sure possession of those alone with the courage to defend it, then Corporal Hopkins stands tall in this nation’s history of warriors who have defended all that we stand for.
This is in the great tradition of an ancient warrior, statesman and king, Pericles, who founded the Athenian empire 2,500 years ago and led that nation during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War. He said, ‘What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments but what is woven into the lives of others.’ The loss of Corporal Hopkins is a tragedy for the nation. He died fighting for freedom, defending all that we stand for and all that we believe in. His heroism will inspire generations to come. What he has done will have touched the lives of this country. What he has done is to defend a freedom we hold dear. This parliament and this nation will not forget his heroism or his sacrifice.
As we have heard, Corporal Mathew Hopkins was only 21 years of age when he was tragically killed in an engagement with insurgents in Afghanistan on Monday, 16 March this year. He left behind his wife, Victoria; his mother, Bronwyn; and his father, Ricky, as well as his young son, Alexander, who was born only on 5 February this year. I did not know Corporal Hopkins personally but I have come to learn a lot about him since that tragic day. It was indeed a great honour to attend his funeral, where his life and accomplishments were celebrated by his many friends and family at Newcastle Christ Church Cathedral.
After finishing school in Brisbane, Mathew enlisted in the Army in March 2005. In what was a relatively short career, he achieved a great deal, including a promotion to lance corporal in April 2008 and then a promotion to corporal in August 2008.
Mathew was first deployed to Afghanistan for six months in November 2006. As a member of the Darwin based 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, Mathew was deployed for a second time to Afghanistan with the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. He was killed, tragically, when his team was engaged by a large group of Taliban. He died serving our nation, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.
The loss of Corporal Hopkins, as with every loss, causes us to reflect on the dedication of and the sacrifices made by all of our deployed forces and to think of others who have lost their lives fighting for Australia. In particular, we think of those who have most recently lost their lives in Afghanistan—Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Gregory Sher and, most recently, Sergeant Brett Till. As the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, I had the enormous privilege of visiting Afghanistan early this year, along with the Chief of the Defence Force, to view at first hand the achievements of our Australian men and women working so hard so far from home.
As you may know the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force, of which Corporal Hopkins had been a part, is a relatively new role for our Army. Within the task force there are operational mentor liaison teams. These ‘omelette’ teams as they are colloquially known mentor and train the 2nd Battalion of the Afghan National Army, which is a challenging yet critical role for developing the capability and self-reliance of that army. It was on one such ‘omelettte’ patrol alongside the Afghan National Army that Corporal Hopkins lost his life. As such his death is a very sad reminder of the dangers our deployed soldiers are facing while serving their country.
I know a number of young men involved with 7 RAR and who knew Corporal Hopkins well. Each of them attests to his bravery and describes him, as others have said, as an outstanding soldier who made a significant personal contribution while serving in the Australian Army. This was brought home to me on Anzac Day in Dili where I was at the dawn service at Camp Phoenix. It was a time, of course, to remember all Defence men and women who have lost their lives in the service of our nation. A number of the troops who I met on that Anzac Day had served with Corporal Hopkins and knew him. Some had deployed with him previously. Each of them attested to his valour, his camaraderie and his good spirits.
Corporal Hopkins will be forever missed by his family, friends and by his Army mates who continue to serve in Australia and overseas. But they grieve knowing they have the gratitude of a nation.
On Monday, 16 March this year 21-year-old Corporal Mathew Hopkins died in Afghanistan after being shot in a battle with the Taliban in the south of Oruzgan province. It is clear that the loss of his life is a tragedy, as is the loss of all the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan. While some may question the wisdom of our involvement in that country, the reality is that Australians have always fought and died in defence of other peoples and countries when required. That is a reality and a necessity.
Afghanistan is exactly such an example where the weak must be defended and the extremists must be opposed. Soldiers like Mathew Hopkins understood that in the same way that all our service men and women understand that. The situation is that our soldiers fight extremists who would like to see a different Afghanistan than the one that currently exists and that the people of that country want. The extremists are known to us as the Taliban. The Taliban want Islamic religious law to be strictly applied. The world that the Taliban would like to see is one where males have greater rights than females, where only boys would be allowed to go to school and where, from eight years old, girls have many restrictions imposed on them.
Apart from all their extreme interpretations of their religion, the Taliban also oppose democracy. They are destructive and terrible people that want to rule all of Afghanistan. Our soldiers such as Mathew Hopkins and the soldiers of our allies, just like Mathew Hopkins, are there fighting to protect the ordinary people of Afghanistan who do not want the Taliban to take over that country again. We must always remember that the Taliban need to be fought against because they will not listen, they will not talk and they will not be reasoned with. As we have recently come to know, the Taliban are not happy with just trying to rule Afghanistan, but they have tried to take over part of Pakistan. The Pakistani Army is fighting hard to free the Swat Valley and I wish them every success.
Corporal Mathew Hopkins died shortly after becoming a dad to baby Alex. He left behind his wife, Victoria. As a father myself—a parent, as most of us are—I know that I would gladly lay down my life to protect the lives of my children. Mathew Hopkins gave his life for the children and the future of Afghanistan. He gave his life to oppose the spread of the Islamic religious extremists that threaten the development of the people and the nation of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an example of where those that cannot defend themselves must be protected. The harsh reality is that Australians have fought and died in Afghanistan for the belief that the world can and must be a better place, that the forces of oppression and domination must be defeated. Australians have done so and continue to do so with a grave acceptance of the fact that some things must be fought for.
It is clear that Mathew Hopkins was proud of being a dad. The photo that we saw of him holding his son, Alex, and wearing his 7RAR Battalion t-shirt is testament to that. We can also be sure that his wider family was proud of the essential work that he did and that he died doing. As a nation we are proud of all our service men and women, who wear our uniform and do the tasks that need to be done both here in Australia and overseas in places like Afghanistan.
In the years ahead it will be hard for Mathew’s wife, Victoria, and his son, Alex, to carry on without him, but I hope that they will take comfort from the good that he did in Afghanistan and the righteousness of the cause he fought for. I hope for that because the future of the children of Afghanistan and the future of their country depend on brave and courageous men like Mathew Hopkins being prepared to fight and lay down their lives for the cause of freedom and democracy. I say this because it is only through freedom and democracy that boys and girls, and men and women, can access the opportunities in their lives that we in Australia enjoy.
The action of the Taliban in trying to take over the Swat Valley in Pakistan is evidence that they have wider ambitions than Afghanistan and is therefore another reason for Australia and our allies to continue to oppose them. Corporal Mathew Hopkins died fighting the Taliban for a just cause, to protect freedom and democracy. I join with my fellow speakers to state my appreciation of his sacrifice and to express my condolences to his wife, Victoria, his son, Alex, and his wider family. Mathew Hopkins was a great Australian who laid down his life for others. Australia will forever be thankful to him.
I rise also to support the motion and offer my sincere condolences to the family of Corporal Mathew Hopkins. Corporal Hopkins was killed during service in Afghanistan and was Australia’s ninth casualty in that theatre. Tragically, he was only 21 years old and married with a very young son. By all accounts, Corporal Hopkins was an exemplary soldier, a professional in a service that requires a level of dedication and selfless commitment.
He enlisted in the Australian Regular Army in 2005. After completing recruit training he was posted to the Royal Australian Infantry Corps, where he qualified as a rifleman. In September 2005, Corporal Hopkins was posted to the 5th/7th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment, where he fulfilled a number of junior soldier roles and subsequently qualified as a M113 crewman driver. The battalion was based at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory, and formed part of the Australian 1st Brigade. In late 2006, as part of the expansion of the Australian Army, the unit was broken up into two separate battalions once again. Corporal Hopkins remained with the 7th Battalion, and later qualified as a M113 crewman commander, in November 2007. He was temporarily promoted to lance corporal in June 2007, which was made substantive in April 2008. He was promoted to corporal before his 21st birthday in August 2008.
His battalion 7RAR has produced many fine soldiers. It is a regular infantry battalion of the Australian Army. It was formed on 1 September 1965 at Puckapunyal in Victoria during the expansion of the regular infantry that occurred because of Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The battalion served two operational tours in Vietnam, between 1967 and 1971, with 33 men killed and 220 wounded, and receiving 31 awards for gallantry.
Corporal Hopkins deployed to Afghanistan on Operation SLIPPER with the 1st Reconstruction Task Force from November 2006 to April 2007. Operation SLIPPER is Australia’s military contribution to coalition efforts against international terrorism. Corporal Hopkins deployed to Afghanistan as a member of the Force Protection Combat Team, known as Combat Team Tusk, serving with the 1st Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. The Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force consists of about 440 personnel and also includes an operational mentor and liaison team, which assists the Afghan National Army with training and capability development. The task force is comprised of engineers, mechanised infantry and cavalry from the Darwin based 1st Brigade and is drawn mainly from the 7th Battalion Royal Australian Regiment, 2nd Cavalry Regiment and 1st Combat Engineer Regiment.
Corporal Hopkins was a section commander with the Force Protection Combat Team. A valued member of the task force, he was part of Australia’s first army training team assigned to live and train with Afghan troops. He was more than halfway through his tour in Oruzgan when he was badly wounded as his team conducted a patrol near Kakarak soon after 9 am on Monday, 16 March this year. It is understood that his team were involved in an intense fire fight with a group of approximately 20 Taliban insurgents when he was wounded. The insurgents were using small arms and rocket propelled grenades. Corporal Hopkins was evacuated by a coalition helicopter to the nearby medical facility in Tarin Kowt as soon as the security situation allowed. Tragically, despite all efforts, he died shortly after arriving at the hospital.
We know from the words of his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Shane Gabriel, that Corporal Hopkins was an outstanding soldier, that he was ‘extremely well known’ and ‘greatly respected’. He was also held in high esteem by his mates in the 7th battalion, who invariably reinforced his character as a professional, as a good leader and as an approachable bloke. He was also, of course, a much loved son, husband and father. It was no doubt with great pride that he witnessed the birth of his son, Alexander. He got to spend only four days with his newborn baby and wife Victoria before returning to Afghanistan.
We know that Corporal Mathew Hopkins epitomised the values of the Australian solider. His military decorations include the Australian Active Service Medal with International Coalition Against Terrorism clasp, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal and Infantry Combat Badge.
I would like to acknowledge, along with the others who have spoken on the motion, the extreme sacrifice made by Corporal Hopkins on behalf of all Australians and the deep and overwhelming grief felt by those who knew Mathew as a loving partner, a proud father, a wonderful son and brother, and a good mate to many.
It is incumbent upon the government—indeed, all Australians—to do everything we possibly can to support the families and communities of veterans lost to combat. It is imperative we recognise the valour, integrity and resilience of our servicemen and women, reflect on their experiences and remember those who make the ultimate sacrifice. I wish to extend my sympathies to Victoria, Alexander and Corporal Hopkins’s extended family and to those who served with Corporal Hopkins. He was a brave and loyal soldier, and he will certainly be remembered firmly as such.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Committee.
I move:
That further proceedings on this bill be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 12 May, on motion by Mr Rudd:
That the House record its deep regret and sorrow at the death, on 19 March 2009, of Sergeant Brett Till, killed while on combat operations in Southern Afghanistan, and place on record its appreciation of his service to the country, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement
The coalition joins with the government in supporting this condolence motion for Sergeant Brett Till, who died in southern Afghanistan on Thursday 19 March 2009. Sergeant Till, a highly skilled explosive ordnance disposal technician, was killed during a route clearance task undertaken by the Special Operations Task Group in southern Afghanistan when an improvised explosive device detonated as he was working to dispose of it. Sergeant Till’s passing, following so closely the loss of Corporal Hopkins just three days prior, caused an already-grieving nation to pause longer, to reflect more deeply and to acknowledge the further sacrifice made by our service personnel. Sergeant Till was the tenth Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan since Australia deployed there in 2002. Sergeant Till’s body was returned to Richmond Air Force Base on March 26, with a lone piper playing as the body was removed from the plane by an honour guard and bearer party made up of members of the Incident Response Regiment.
The Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, reflected on Sergeant Till and said, ‘Without question he saved the life of his mates’. Brett’s father Noel, in a statement made after the ramp ceremony, paid tribute to his son’s commitment to his family and his military history. He said:
I will be forever proud of Brett, for his devotion to his wife and children, for his selfless concern for the well being of others and his dedication to his mates and country. What more could anyone ask. Yet he gave more.
In a moving and solemn funeral service on March 31 at the Woronora Cemetery, Sutherland, Sergeant Till’s brother Tony shared the sense of grief yet admiration many felt on the passing of Sergeant Till when he said, ‘Losing Brett is the toughest thing that has ever happened to our family. These have been some of the toughest days of our lives and yet we have never felt prouder of Brett.’ His commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Russell Maddalena, the Commander of the Incident Response Regiment, also paid tribute to the professionalism and commitment of Sergeant Till, saying:
Sgt Till was a patriotic Australian and a valued member of his regiment. He is owed a special debt of gratitude that can never fully be repaid. I know all Australians will remember and honour Brett’s sacrifice.
Brett is gone and we celebrate his life and courage and mourn his passing. We look upon his life, his integrity, leadership, courage and love of family and friends and we give thanks that we were able to be part of it.
Sergeant Till was a relative latecomer to a military career, having previously worked as a mechanic. It was his love for his family and his desire to ensure their security and wellbeing that led Brett Till to the Army, where he enlisted in 2001. Sergeant Till was recognised for his dedication, commitment and integrity with prompt promotions throughout his career. Sergeant Till was a decorated soldier, awarded the Australian Active Service Medal with International Coalition against Terrorism clasp, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, the Australian Defence Medal, the NATO ISAF Medal and the Army Combat Badge. Sergeant Till was a member of the Incident Response Regiment, having also served with the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment and the School of Military Engineering. The Incident Response Regiment, based at Holsworthy, was formed in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks and designed to provide a specialist response to incidents involving explosives or chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear hazards.
Sergeant Brett Till is survived by his wife Bree, to whom he had been married less than 12 months prior; their unborn child; and Brett’s children, Taleah and Jacob. After Brett’s death Bree Till made a statement paying tribute to her husband and highlighting her memories of Brett. She said, ‘I need you to know he was not a hateful, spiteful or vengeful man. He was good, humble and honourable with unequivocal, uncomplicated intentions.’ To Bree, Taleah and Jacob, to Brett’s father, Noel, and to his mother, Susan, and to all who had the privilege of knowing and loving Brett Till, I hope our words of sympathy, support and remembrance will demonstrate, in some small part, the thanks of a nation that will always owe you a debt of gratitude. To his family, in particular his yet-to-be-born child, and friends all, I say: always remember that Sergeant Brett Till was a hero, the bravest of the brave, who was determined to make sure that his family had a safe and secure future, that he led from the front in protecting his comrades in arms, and that he had a personal commitment to ensure the freedoms and democracy that we enjoy. Lest we forget.
I rise to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and other members who make a contribution to this important debate. I record my deep regret and sorrow over the death of Sergeant Brett Till and extend my profound sympathies to his family. I extend sympathies to Sergeant Till’s wife, Bree-Anna, who is a wonderful person; his children, Jacob and Taleah; his mother Susan and her husband Leigh; and his father Noel and his wife Cathy—all wonderful people whom I had the pleasure to meet both at the ramp ceremony for the repatriation of Sergeant Till and at the funeral service.
I have met many of the men and women of the Australian Defence Force and I am always impressed by their professionalism and courage. Sergeant Till made a significant contribution while serving the Australian Army. He enlisted in the Army in July 2001. After initial training, he was allocated to the Royal Australian Engineers and completed his combat engineer initial employment training in March 2002. Sergeant Till completed his ordnance disposal technician course during 2007 while he was an instructor at the School of Military Engineering. Sergeant Till deployed to Afghanistan in February 2009. On 19 March 2009, Sergeant Till was serving with the Special Operations Task Group when he was killed by an explosion that occurred during a route clearance task in southern Afghanistan. Sergeant Till died serving his country and is owed a special debt of gratitude that can never be fully repaid. He was a dedicated soldier with high professional standards, displaying courage in the most demanding of environments. He was committed to his work and was an example to all those who served with him. He was a highly respected explosive ordnance disposal technician from the Incident Response Regiment in Holsworthy in New South Wales. It is surely one of the most challenging tasks any of us could ever imagine undertaking.
Members will be aware that I recently had the great honour and privilege of spending Anzac Day with the men and women of the ADF based at Camp Holland in Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan. It was a magnificent privilege and experience for me. There I learned the latest detail of the work of both the Special Operations Task Group and the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force. I got briefings in technical terms, but there is nothing more important to me than mixing amongst the troops and learning first-hand of their experiences in that war-torn country.
One thing that shines through for me is that they all understand very clearly why they are there. They understand this is an important mission for Australia’s national security and they are all dedicated to the task of lifting the capacity of the Afghan national security forces so that they can take care of their own security in the medium to long term. The special forces people are dedicated to the task of disrupting the insurgency. Sergeant Till, as I said, was performing a very special role. It is difficult for us to imagine filling the role he was playing—such a dangerous task—but, again, it underscores his commitment and dedication to his country.
I mentioned that I attended the funeral service. From my perspective it is always hardest when they put up the PowerPoint presentation. The pictures reflect the soldier’s life—in this case, the life of Sergeant Till and his time with his family. Nothing is more moving than when we have lost a soldier, but it was obvious in watching the PowerPoint presentation that there were many facets to Sergeant Till. He was a dedicated and professional soldier but certainly also a dedicated family man, and the family has paid very dearly for his dedication to his country.
I take this opportunity of paying tribute to all the men and women of the ADF who are making a contribution to our campaign in Afghanistan. It is challenging and dangerous work, but I know from their perspective that it is also rewarding work. I make the point that, whenever we lose a soldier, their families always reinforce for me the fact that they understood exactly what they were doing and the risks involved but they were doing exactly what they wanted to do. I think it is very important that the families know and appreciate that.
On behalf of the Australian government we again offer our prayers and our support for Sergeant Till’s family and his friends. The passing of Sergeant Till brings the total number of fatalities in Afghanistan to 10 ADF members—indeed, 11 if you count Rifleman Stuart Nash, who of course died fighting with the UK forces. The other fatalities fighting in the uniform of the Australian Defence Force were, of course: Sergeant Andrew Russell, Trooper David ‘Poppy’ Pearce, Sergeant Matty Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks, Signaller Sean McCarthy, Lieutenant Michael Fussell, Private Greg Sher and of course Corporal Matthew Hopkins, who we paid tribute to earlier this morning. Again, as the Minister for Defence and on behalf of the Australian parliament, I thank them for their service, I thank them for their sacrifice and I thank their friends and loved ones, who have given them as their own sacrifice on behalf of the nation.
Benjamin Disraeli said that the legacy of heroes is the memory of a great name and the inheritance of a great example. Sergeant Till is indeed a great example to all Australians. It is with great pride mixed with enormous sadness that I rise to honour this fallen warrior. Sergeant Brett Till was recently farewelled by fellow diggers in Tarin Kowt, southern Afghanistan. He became the 10th young Anzac, the 10th young soldier, the 10th young warrior killed in a foreign battlefield called Afghanistan. He was killed while trying to defuse an improvised explosive device. The 31-year-old was the fourth Australian to die from an IED blast in Afghanistan.
The cortege of vehicles, including one carrying Sergeant Till’s flag-draped casket, passed along a route lined by his Australian colleagues and representatives from coalition forces in Oruzgan. Eight of his mates then carried his casket into an awaiting RAAF C130 Hercules, which then brought this brave warrior home. He was serving with the Special Operations Task Group. His commanding officer said that his death was not in vain. He said:
Without question, Brett’s work on the day he died saved the lives of his mates.
He was a man who, with his team, would deliberately place himself directly between dangerous and unstable high explosive devices and the soldiers of the Special Operations Task Group on a daily basis, in order to ensure that they could carry out their important mission to make this country—
Afghanistan—
a safer place. Brett will be forever remembered both here and at home as a bloke that made a difference and saved lives.
Sergeant Till’s widow, Bree-Anna Till, paid tribute to her husband. She said:
Brett was such a beautiful man. His smile would crack the frowns off a hundred faces.
Mates of Sergeant Brett Till bid farewell to a friend and colleague during that solemn ramp ceremony in Tarin Kowt on Saturday, 21 March. Sergeant Till, from the Sydney based Incident Response Regiment, was serving with the Special Operations Task Group. Led by engineers from the Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force and accompanied by Special Operations Task Group colleagues, he was farewelled. He was the 10th Australian soldier killed on that foreign battlefield. He was an explosive ordnance disposal technician. He was a man whose job it was to place himself in harm’s way to protect those who could not protect themselves from the foulest of devices—that of improvised explosions.
He was 31 and lived in Sydney with his beautiful wife and two children. By way of background, Sergeant Till enlisted in the Australian Army in 2001. He was posted to the corps of Royal Australian Engineers following recruit training. He trained as a combat engineer and served with a number of units, including the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment and the School of Military Engineering. Defence Force head Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston paid tribute to Sergeant Till and his extraordinary bravery. He said:
Sergeant till’s selfless act to protect his mates and innocent civilians is a mark of the character of the man. My thoughts and prayers are with Sergeant Till’s loved ones at this difficult time. His sacrifice will never be forgotten.
This was a soldier who went to fight for freedoms we enjoy and take for granted. When I deployed in operations, I had a 21-year-old wife but I had no children. I cannot imagine what it would be like kissing small children goodbye and going to a foreign theatre of operations. But this is what Sergeant Till and thousands of young Australians like him do every day, every week, every month to protect and preserve freedom in our name. Sergeant Till paid the ultimate sacrifice in defending what we love and believe in—freedom.
It is attributed to George Orwell that we sleep safe in our beds because rough men and stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. Sergeant Till was one of those rough men, those young Australians, those young Anzacs, those warriors who stood ready 24 hours of the day to protect us and preserve our freedom. He knew that freedom is indeed the sure possession of those alone with the courage to defend it. Sergeant Till indeed stands tall in our nation’s history.
Pericles, the ancient warrior, statesman and king who founded the Athenian empire 2,500 years ago and led that nation during the first two years of the Peloponnesian War, said:
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
Sergeant Till spent his time on a foreign battlefield protecting his mates in a highly-charged environment doing a difficult job—working with improvised explosive devices. How many lives this brave man saved may never be counted, but his heroism will never be forgotten. His kids will remember him and they will honour his sacrifice, as this nation does. They will march every Anzac Day with his medals and they will be remembered as they remember their father. This nation and this parliament are very proud of Sergeant Till. We are very proud of all our young warriors who serve us so faithfully overseas and surely will never forget.
Today we pause to remember and pay our respects to the outstanding life and service of Sergeant Brett Till, who died for our nation on 19 March 2009 aged but 31 years. As we know, he was an explosive ordinance technician based at the Incident Response Regiment in Sydney serving in the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan. He was killed by an IED, an improvised explosive device, during a route clearance task—a very dangerous job. It has been acknowledged by the commanding officer of the Special Operations Task Group, that ‘without question Brett’s work on the day he died saved the lives of his mates.’ I have learnt much of this brave man over the past few weeks, as those who knew him shared their tales that told of a compassionate family man and an incredibly professional and dedicated soldier. Brett joined the Army in 2001 and trained as a combat engineer. He was highly respected by his peers.
I have personally witnessed over the last few years the great work our defence forces do in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste and variously the tough conditions and dangers they confront on a daily—if not hourly or minute-by-minute—basis depending on what they are doing. Our service men and women in the Special Operations Task Group are working tirelessly amongst daily threats of enemy fire, rocket propelled grenade attacks and IEDs. It is important that we acknowledge all of those currently serving our nation overseas as well as those in the past for their dedication and hard work and for their courage to face such risks on our behalf.
Last weekend, here in Canberra, I was at the Old Parliament House for a very good occasion, the commemoration of the history of Australian democracy. When you see our young men and women in uniform overseas, it is perhaps too easy to forget what they are fighting for. What was brought home to me on Saturday, and this is invigorated in my memory today, is the fact that these young men and women—like Sergeant Brett Till, who made the ultimate sacrifice—are doing it for us. They are doing it because we live in this nation of freedom. For the ongoing, enduring protection of our freedom, we request—indeed, direct—young men and women in uniform to represent our interests and fight for us on foreign shores. We should not underestimate the sacrifice that is being made, and I think we should embolden the Australian community to understand that, whilst they might see the war in Afghanistan as a long way away, in fact it has its roots here. Its roots are in this parliament, where we consider and contemplate the events of the day and where an executive government elected by the Australian people makes decisions on how our Defence Force is going to be deployed. When we make those decisions, they are very solemn decisions. When we ask our young men and women to go to these foreign shores and fight on our behalf, we are putting them in danger. I know my colleague the parliamentary secretary Dr Kelly has his own experiences of these dangers.
It is important that the Australian community understand how we the Australian community benefit directly from this service. Unfortunately, on occasions I think that is not the case. When we reflect upon the contribution and sacrifice made by Sergeant Till we should bear in mind what it means for his family. When they saw him depart this shore to do his job, as he wanted to do, they could not have foreseen the tragic way in which his life would end. He leaves behind his pregnant wife, Bree-Anna, and his children, Jacob and Taleah; as well as his mother, Susan, and her husband, Leigh; and his father, Noel, and his wife, Cathy. I extend my personal condolences to all of you who mourn his death. Having said that, when we think about this nation of ours and the sacrifices such as that which Brett has made for us, we should also contemplate that his family are now devoid of him.
When we ask our men and women to serve overseas, we should also be thinking about those they leave behind. We have an obligation to recognise our wonderful defence families—the mothers, the fathers, the wives, the husbands and the children who have to remain behind and, as in the case of Sergeant Till, who are left without their husband, their father, their son. I do not think one can contemplate what that ultimate sacrifice means to that family. When we are thinking about our ongoing contribution to these tasks that we ask our men and women in uniform to undertake on our behalf, we should on an ongoing and daily basis pray for and think about their families.
I personally would like to express my gratitude to Brett’s extended family for the support they gave him throughout his career. It enabled him to do what he wanted to do. It enabled him to serve our nation. I know there is nothing we can say that will fill the gap that is now there, but they should be aware that this parliament gratefully acknowledges his tremendous service and sacrifice for our nation.
I rise to support the condolence motion for Sergeant Brett Till. Sergeant Brett Till, his wife, Bree, and his children, Jacob and Taleah, lived in my electorate of Cook. It has always been difficult for me to fully comprehend the scale of human loss suffered by earlier generations of Australians who have served and experienced our nation during war. That all changed for me when I attended the funeral of Sergeant Brett Till at Woronora some months ago with former Prime Minister John Howard, Bree and her family, all of Brett’s family, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force. It was a very moving and very sad day.
Like many Australians from my generation and those that have followed, we have had the privilege to hear the stories of our veterans of previous conflicts. My grandfather served in Papua New Guinea and the Middle East. I can still vividly recall the discussions I had as a 15-year-old with a World War I veteran. George Wood, a warrant officer who served in the First World War, would talk of his experiences, but these were all just stories from another time and another place to which I have no direct connection. There are also the stories of those who lived during the war—the stories from my grandmother’s generation. They are stories about the uncertainty and the fear and the way that communities relied on each other during those times simply to get through each day.
While deeply respecting and honouring the commitment and sacrifice of all of these great Australians who went through these times, they came from previous generations so it was difficult to make that connection. At each Anzac Day the crowds gather—and they keep growing, and that is a wonderful thing—but I must say that it was not until Sergeant Till’s funeral that I really started to understand the mourning that accompanies a generation when they lose their own. Sergeant Till was the 10th soldier we have lost in Afghanistan and one of thousands of a new generation of veterans—and the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, who is here today, is one of them—who have been created since our major overseas deployments around 10 years ago.
Brett was 31. He is survived by his wife, Bree, and his two young children, Jacob and Taleah, who attend schools in my electorate. As I attended that funeral in southern Sydney that day I became completely overwhelmed by grief. This grief did not come from my personal relationship with Brett and his family, because prior to his death I did not know them personally; this grief came from our shared but unconnected experience of life. They lived in my community and they shared the same joys and aspirations that all young families like Brett’s and my own have in all of our electorates.
To see on that day the pictures of Brett together with his beautiful young family struck a very deep chord. My wife and I also have a young daughter who is the centre of our lives. Like Brett and Bree, we are expecting a child this year. As parents similarly enjoying this wonderful phase of life, the tragedy of Brett’s loss is so much more profound. I can only imagine what the sense of loss must have been like for earlier generations during previous conflicts where this story of a generation losing its own and coping with the grief and loss that accompanies that was repeated literally thousands of times over in the streets, suburbs and towns all over Australia.
I was reminded of this recently when I had the privilege of accompanying the member for Blaxland, my good friend Jason Clare, in bringing young people from our electorates—young surf lifesavers from the beaches of Cronulla and young Lebanese Muslim Australians from Bankstown—with us as we walked the Kokoda Trail. One of the missions of particularly those from the shire during that trail walk was laying a tribute to Sergeant Till at Isurava. Those of you have been to Isurava will know how moving a place that is. One of the most moving parts of being at Isurava and what was a wonderful thing to do on behalf of Jason and I was to honour Brett in a place where incredible true courage, mateship, sacrifice and endurance was displayed.
We think of the current conflict in Afghanistan and detach it from those earlier conflicts. But the thing about Isurava is that it is where VC Bruce Kingsbury died on the field of battle—literally metres from that memorial—and, as we reflected in laying the tribute to Brett, most recently we have seen the award of a VC to Trooper Donaldson in Afghanistan. We reflected on the fact that Australians still die today in uniform in our name and under our flag, protecting those values. Just as that was true back in 1942 for Bruce Kingsbury it was true for Sergeant Brett Till early this year in Afghanistan.
It does not matter what the conflict is or what the field of battle is, these places are dangerous. The men and women who put themselves in these places on our behalf deserve our undying respect and our unswerving honour. As I gathered there with those young people from the shire and we laid that tribute, I knew that it was fitting for Brett to be memorialised in the company of those great men, because he sits comfortably and worthily with all of those who have fallen. Every time I think of Isurava, I will think of Brett and his family.
The pride and respect of Brett’s fellow soldiers from his regiment at Holsworthy and the brave faces of his family, his wife and young children and his parents—and particularly his brothers as we spoke afterwards and before—spoke highly of this new generation of Australians, who clearly walk in the same spirit as those who walked before them. Our soldiers do not choose the wars that we ask them to fight. Politics is not their calling; it is ours. They simply serve in our name, living the values that they so faithfully defend. This above all things is what we must honour in their memory.
As a new generation coming to terms with the loss that accompanies war, we must also, like those before us, honour the memory of those who have fallen by tasking ourselves with the care of those who have been left behind. One of the purposes of the trek by Jason and I to Kokoda was to raise the profile and importance of Legacy. The mothers that we support now through Legacy are 20 years old. Bree is, I think, 25. She is expecting another child this year. The faces of Legacy are no longer people like my grandmother, who has passed away, but young people who are dealing with family and the loss of their husbands or partners or the injuries of their partners or husbands—or wives, for that matter. Legacy continues to play a very important role in their future. We must commit ourselves to their future. Legacy can no longer be for us the wonderful organisation that my grandmother used to talk about; Legacy must now be the wonderful organisation that, together with our defence forces, supports Brett’s wife, Bree, and Brett’s children and all of the families of the fallen and injured.
As a new generation we must take up this responsibility for these and other important institutions that create our community. We must continue to build the Australia Sergeant Till cherished and dreamed of for his own family and future generations. These challenges have even greater meaning now as we further appreciate their cost of purchase as a new generation mourning our lost heroes, and Sergeant Brett Till in particular. Lest we forget.
It is a privilege and an honour to be able to speak to the memory of Sergeant Brett Till. I pay tribute to the fine words of my colleague, the member for Cook, and thank him for his attendance at the funeral, and indeed all the members of the opposition who have accompanied us on those incredibly sad occasions—the ramp ceremonies and the funerals. It is terribly important that we do always demonstrate unity in those circumstances. As my friend has mentioned, it is important for us, as people who are responsible and who play a part in the decisions to send our service men and women and to put their families in those stressful circumstances, to fully appreciate always what it is that we are doing and what the impact of those decisions is. I know that people like the member for Cook and the member Pearce, who has accompanied me on another occasion, do feel these situations deeply. The unity that we show in those circumstances is a great tribute to the quality of the democracy that we have.
Sergeant Brett Till was a soldier of the contemporary environment that we face in terms of the threat we are confronting. If you look at Sergeant Till’s career, his time spent in the Incident Response Regiment as a combat engineer within the Chemical, Biological and Radiological Response Squadron dealt with the complex threats that we face not just in Afghanistan but globally. The types of weapons of mass destruction that can potentially be used by these heinous and moral-less persons that conduct their war against the innocents around the globe require men and women of bravery who are prepared to put their bodies on the line to deal with these sorts of threats. Brett, of course, went on to acquire great expertise in the area of explosive ordnance reconnaissance and disposal, and became a highly proficient EOD tech operator.
I do not think anybody can really appreciate the extreme bravery that is required to perform those duties; to know that you are facing death at any second—a direct confrontation, staring death in the face—from the sorts of threats in the ordnance and improvised explosive devices that these men and women deal with. The work that they do is so essential, and I am very proud to have worked very hard on this IED issue. It is the great challenge that our personnel face but it has a broader application. Certainly, the things that we reveal about the threat and our opponents through developing weapons technical intelligence about their tactics, techniques and procedures are so essential in this continuing fight. It is a game of cat and mouse, of measure and countermeasure, and it requires constant effort and courage on the part of these members to keep us on top of this threat and also to move forward the objective that we pursue in places like Afghanistan. The tasks that Brett was performing in route clearance have so many important features: ensuring that the civilians in the region can travel safely, ensuring that the economy of the region can operate with the freedom of movement along these routes and also ensuring the day-to-day safety of fellow soldiers and coalition members in the work that they do.
The damage that these improvised explosive devices do is horrific. It is true—I have seen and witnessed firsthand what can occur, and what these devices do to the human body. I have lost many friends and colleagues who suffered the results of these devices. To see young lives shattered in that way, to see them lose their limbs, faculties and indeed their lives is something that is very sobering, and also fills me with the motivation to continue to leave no stone unturned in our effort to deliver to our personnel force protection measures. We must continue to pursue the research and development of counter-IED technologies whether we are in Afghanistan or not. This is a constant, urgent demand for all of us in responsible positions relating to the Defence portfolio.
Sergeant Brett Till was in the front line of this effort. He was not only an outstanding soldier but an outstanding Australian. Reference has been made to the impact on families. It is something that I do not think is well understood; it takes you to attend these funerals and see the young children and the young wives and spouses as they try and deal with these situations. I have been incredibly impressed and overwhelmed by the fortitude of all the families that we have dealt with through these tragedies so far. Without exception they have understood the importance of the work that these members have done—the importance of the work in the global sense, too, of our continuing struggle against Islamist extremism. They have the understanding that this commitment must be maintained. It is an obligation on all of us to honour that commitment from them by continuing to do all we can to educate the Australian public as to the importance of this work and the need for this sacrifice that we call upon those members to render.
Today I particularly have in my thoughts Bree-Anna Till and the two children who will continue to live with this loss. Fortunately for Sergeant Till, it appears that his death was instantaneous and there was no suffering involved, but his family will of course bear long-term scars from this incident and it is important for us to continue to wrap around them. They are now part of the broader family that we always consider within the ADF. There will certainly be continuing contact with them from members of the unit, as I have witnessed in so many other cases. The memory of Sergeant Brett Till will live forever. His achievements and legacy will live for ever and his ongoing work will pay dividends in our efforts to counter those terrible devices and the evil, medieval and depraved minds that continue to employ them. Today I salute Sergeant Till but in particular I salute the surviving members of his family for their courage.
I rise today to pay tribute to one of our finest, Sergeant Brett Till. I honour him and acknowledge not only his sacrifice but the sacrifice of his mates and the men and women who serve our nation and the globe today. I particularly extend my thoughts and prayers to his family. I had the privilege of attending the ramp ceremony at Richmond. It was a very sad occasion. Today, as I hear my colleagues speak, I am reminded of what unites us as a nation.
He was a unique young man; there was no-one else like him on the planet. I did not know him personally, but having the opportunity to meet and talk to his mates and family gave me some insight into him as an individual. Soldiers from Brett’s unit at the Holsworthy based Incident Response Regiment formed an honour guard on 26 March this year, as the bearer party to receive and carry the casket from the C17 Globemaster aircraft to his family. It was a very solemn ceremony but it was also an opportunity for those close to Brett to pay their respects in private. I acknowledge that the Minister for Defence; the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston; the Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Ken Gillespie; and the Special Operations Commander Australia, Major General Tim McOwan, were also present on that day.
I would like to mention briefly some comments made by Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston as he expressed his condolences to Sergeant Till’s wife, family, friends and colleagues. He said:
Brett gave his life to protect others. We are humbled by his extraordinary courage and will be forever grateful for his selflessness …
Chief of Army Lieutenant General Gillespie asked Australians to remember the sacrifice of a young soldier who was serving his nation with distinction. He said:
Our thoughts are with Brett’s family and friends during this difficult period. As his tragic death is heavily felt throughout the Army, I want to ensure that Brett’s legacy and dedication is honoured and never forgotten …
Bree-Anna Barclay, Brett’s wife, an art teacher at a Sydney high school, is the primary carer of his two children, Jacob and Taleah. As has already been mentioned today, Bree-Anna is expecting Brett’s third child later this year. In a sense, their journey has really only just begun. While I cannot imagine what it would be like for a 10-year-old and a seven-year-old to lose their father, having lost a father as a teenager I can, I suppose, understand in part what they may be going to experience. I can only pray and hope that they will experience the comfort and the support that they deserve. As a grateful nation, we have heard today discussions about the support that Legacy and others provide.
Today we are indeed grateful for the life of Sergeant Brett Till, and I want to convey that to his family. Today is an opportunity for us to acknowledge not just his sacrifice but their sacrifice. Today around the globe, whether it be in Afghanistan or Iraq, whether it be in peacekeeping operations like in the Solomons Islands or Timor Leste, our men and women are putting their lives on the line to fulfil the call that they have but also what is asked of them by the nation today. It is important to acknowledge that their families today are making sacrifices for them to do that.
I pass on my deepest condolences. My thoughts and prayers will continue to be with Bree-Anna, Jacob and Taleah and the extended family. I know that at the ramp ceremony Brett’s mother, Susan, his father, Noel, his brothers, Glenn and Tracy, stepfather, Leigh, and stepmother, Cathy, and his half-sisters, Esther, Amelia and Sarah, were also present. I think it is important to mention them by name. They were part of Brett’s life. Whether it be his birthday, their birthdays, Christmases or important occasions, that is when they will be remembering Brett and his significance to them. Again, I express my deep regret for their loss, and I will continue to pray for them as they move into their future.
On 19 March 2009, Sergeant Brett Till was killed in Afghanistan. He was a member of the Army’s Incident Response Regiment, although he was serving in Afghanistan with the Special Operations Task Group. Sergeant Till lost his life whilst attempting to render safe an improvised explosive device that had been discovered during a patrol. It is clear that Brett Till’s profession as an EOD tech was a high-risk one. Despite the protective clothing worn by EOD technicians, the reality is that, if the device explodes, the chances of survival are remote. It is a tribute to his character that he chose this trade, this profession, in the Army to make his contribution to this nation.
As a former Army officer myself, in 2000 I had significant contact with the Joint Incident Response Unit, which, after the Olympics, became the Army’s Incident Response Regiment. Although the conditions under which the EOD teams operated during the Olympics were less onerous than the extremes of combat in Afghanistan, I came to appreciate the courage and the fortitude of those who put themselves between an explosive device and those who need to be defended from its effects.
My point is that there are a lot of very special and courageous people in the Australian Defence Force. We hold the SAS in the highest regard for their skill, effectiveness and courage, yet it is also right to hold up as great examples men like Brett Till, who put themselves at risk of certain death to protect others. The loss of Brett Till’s life is another tragedy for Australia, as all losses of our soldiers’ lives have been tragedies. We must nevertheless remember that Australians have always been prepared to fight and, if required, to die in the defence of other peoples and countries.
Afghanistan is an example where the weak must be defended and the extremists, the murderers, must be opposed. Brett Till knew what the mission was and the risk of letting the Taliban win. He knew that, as all our service men and women understand that. In Afghanistan, our soldiers fight extremists who would like to see Afghanistan dominated by strict Islamic law and the oppression that comes with that. The extremists are the Taliban. The world they want is one where males would have greater rights than females, where only boys would be allowed to go to school and have the opportunity to achieve in their own right, but would nevertheless still be limited by repression. Apart from all their extreme interpretations of their religion, the Taliban also oppose democracy.
Brett Till fought and, sadly, died to protect the ordinary people of Afghanistan, who do not want the Taliban to take over their country again. We must always remember that the Taliban need to be fought against, because they will not listen, they will not talk and they cannot be reasoned with. Their indiscriminate attacks, even on civilians, are evidence of a brutality that must be fought against and must be opposed. As we have recently come to know, the Taliban are not happy with just trying to rule Afghanistan; they have tried to take over part of Pakistan. There, the Pakistani army is fighting hard to free the Swat Valley, and I wish them rapid success in that fight.
Brett Till lost his life less than a year after marrying Bree and after finding out that he would again be a father. I know that he will be greatly missed by his wife and by his children, Jacob and Taleah. That makes his loss even more significant, as most of us here are ourselves parents. His loss will be greatly felt by his wife, his children, his family and his friends, yet I hope that they will always take comfort in the fact that he gave his life to oppose the spread of the Islamic extremists that threaten the opportunities for the children and the future of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan is an example of where those that cannot defend themselves must be protected. The harsh reality is that Australians have fought and died in Afghanistan for the belief that the world can and must be a better place, that the forces of oppression and domination must be defeated. Australians have done so and continue to do so with a grave acceptance of the fact that some things must be fought for.
I pay tribute to his life, his commitment to this nation and to a better world. I offer my condolences to his wife, his children and his family. Brett Till was a great Australian who will always be remembered, not just by his family but by the nation for his dedication, his courage and, ultimately, his sacrifice for the cause of freedom and democracy.
I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the Committee.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Lindsay:
That this bill be now read a second time.
May I commence by firstly commending the senators who participated in the committee to review this important and timely legislation. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the organisations and individuals who contributed a submission. Whilst these are most welcome, I would have liked to have seen a better opportunity offered to individuals to tell their own unique story because I suspect that what they would have said in their own right would have been far more telling and passionate. Perhaps in doing so we may all have gained a greater understanding of the torment and stress that many carers face each day. Of course, I welcome the legislation. Anything that improves the lot of this very dedicated group of people, no matter how small, has to be welcomed. There is always more that can be done and that is also true. The Australian, in its edition of 7 May, said:
However, in looking for new policy ideas from among the many heartfelt submissions, it is essential to seek sustainable long-term solutions; to distinguish between symptoms and causes of the dysfunction in the present system.
It is therefore disappointing that the latest inquiry has chosen to weight its recommendations towards short-term adjustments and amendments to the existing policy framework.
When Australian governments took the enlightened step of closing the Dickensian institutions in which people with disabilities had been locked away, they failed to design, let alone establish, a modern support system that was sufficiently comprehensive and forward thinking.
The minority report by the Greens also suggest this, and I have no dispute with their view, except to say that any government of the day works within impositions, often beyond their control. What needs to be recognised, though, is the common will to help those who selflessly help others. Perhaps this bill should be viewed as an incremental approach towards what is probably an unachievable ambition where everyone is satisfied with the status quo.
No-one wants to see someone else in such a state of servitude that it borders on repression. A carer’s role should be more dignified. Yet, over the years, I have constantly heard very sad tales of individuals virtually giving up their life to care for someone else. I have the deepest admiration for carers of all ages but, until I walk in their shoes, I will never know the extent of what they are feeling. It is difficult to appreciate what should be described as the hardest role for carers as though there is some sort of hierarchy of pain. To my mind, looking after someone near and dear to you with a terminal disease would be mentally excruciating but, then again, coping with someone with the irrationality from a mental disease would also be taxing on the soul.
I have had some experience with working with grandparents who have taken over the care of their children’s children. Whilst some reforms have been introduced over recent years I can well remember some grandparents coming to me originally in dire straights. They had assumed responsibility for their daughter’s children. Their daughter was a drug addict and, for all intents and purposes, had abandoned her children. The grandparents were both pensioners and, because they were not recognised as the legal custodians, they had to care not only for themselves but also for the children in their care from their meagre pension. The stress of stretching funds was bad enough but not as stressful as not being able to give the children the things they needed. The children—children being children—had no idea of the strain on the grandparents, who stayed outwardly loving and considerate. It was a huge burden at such a late stage in their lives. There was no respite for them, no break from the relentless daily grind. Happily, things are improving but it is still not what you and I would consider an ideal situation, but what can you do?
Politicians are inclined to argue that any largesse from the government comes from the taxpayer. How far can you ask the taxpayer to subsidise another person? But let me say this: carers save the government money. If no-one voluntarily took on the responsibility of caring, who would look after our infirmed? If suddenly all our carers said: ‘No more,’ what would the government do? It is a measure of our society as to how we care for each other. Are we a compassionate society? Are we a caring society? Have we evolved to a point where we can shoulder the responsibility of supporting those least able to do so?
The fact that this legislation is being debated today raises some doubts as to our own beliefs. But, getting back to the point I want to make—how much does it cost for a professional full-time carer? And contrast that with what we are paying a voluntary carer. I think you will find there is a very huge gap. I understand that there are occasions where residential care has been rejected because the aged parents want to stay home—understandably so, but it is their children who have to pick up the slack. The values of their children mean they will try to accommodate their wishes as best they can, even though that will impose a huge impost on their personal lives.
This legislation, however, is targeted at the carers of children aged under 16 years with a severe disability, physical or mental. I know of quite a few people in that category, and I do not begrudge them one iota—not even for a minute. I can only admire their tenacity, their total commitment and their endless patience. No two situations are the same, no two carers are the same and no two charges are the same. All come from a diversity of lifestyles and circumstances and all will deal with the situation in their own way. Despite the strength of their character, and their motivation, everyone has an end point. It is our responsibility to ensure that we contribute to easing some of the burdens that carers face. We need to assist in ensuring they do not burn out and then themselves become needy cases. And it is not necessarily a family member who may rise to the occasion. Indeed, I know of many carers who are not a family member but, through their heightened personal values, and a sense of compassion, turn their backs on living their own lives to help another less fortunate individual. These people have my undying admiration. I doubt whether I could do the job—but, I suppose that, until I am called upon, I will never know.
I have no argument with the provisions of this bill—they value add to the current situation. But the bill should not signal the end of the matter. I would join in the sentiment expressed by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, who seeks to amend this bill. What she is seeking is essentially a more flexible approach, and I cannot agree more. As I said, every situation will be unique, and I feel that some flexibility needs to be built in, to address each case on its merits. In fact, that was a matter identified by the carer payment review task force, which said that the system was overly complex and restrictive. The ‘cookie cutter’ approach might be all well for a dispassionate bureaucracy, but not for the people at the coal face—and certainly not for a community that likes to see itself as an advanced society. But I do believe the provisions are a step in the right direction.
I would like to touch on a contributory comment by Carers Australia, quoted in the committee report, in relation to aspects of the psychological impact of being a carer. As I said earlier, caring for someone with extreme disabilities is very stressful, and we must be conscious that in some individuals there will be an emotional price to pay. It is a matter of caring about the carer. So I would have liked to see some provision whereby carers had access to psychological support in times of dire need. This has to be coupled with reasonable access to respite services, and it may not necessarily be addressed through a direct payment of benefits. Rather, there needs to be provided a system of support services to alleviate the psychological pressures that will inevitably arise during the term of care. Alzheimers Australia, in their report released on 5 May this year, described an alarming toll of caring for a loved one. More than 40 per cent of informal carers reported high levels of stress, 65 per cent missed work as a result of their duties and 50 per cent reported a negative impact on their lifestyle. Alzheimers Australia are also calling for improved access to long-day respite care and more flexible workplace conditions for carers, along with training and support.
It is interesting to learn that, in the United Kingdom, the National Carers Strategy, which was published in June 2008, included £265 million of new funding, mainly for more breaks for carers, but unfortunately did not address the financial hardship faced by many carers. According to Carers United Kingdom, the government has accepted that Carer’s Allowance is not fit for its purpose, and has set out its intention to put in place measures by 2018 so that carers will not be forced into financial hardship by their caring role.
It needs to be remembered that carers, impoverished as they are, have to confront the day-to-day expenses of life, on top of their other worries. Like every other member of the House, I have people who, without the burden of caring for an incapacitated person, come into the office every day, telling me how tough things are and the worry of getting through each day; yet carers have that and more. These people definitely need a break. I am glad that we are taking steps to ease some of these pressures, but it is certainly not enough.
My colleague Annette Ellis, the member for Canberra, was reported on the ABC as saying:
… the system is in ‘crisis’ and many carers are under serious financial stress because payments are too low.
I could not agree more and I would hope that more can and will be done. In the policy we took to the 2007 election we on this side of the House said that the coalition recognised the vital role that carers play in our society and the tremendous financial and emotional burden they carry. We said that the vital caring responsibilities of Australia’s carers mean that they miss out on the opportunities offered by a strong economy and labour market. This may mean that they face difficulty in saving for regular household expenses. We committed to ensuring that they are able to maintain the lifestyle they deserve. That is why I support any additional benefits that this legislation brings. There is a government of a different colour in Australia today, and it is solely its responsibility to add credence to its word. With the deterioration in the economy, the situation for carers has become worse, and this government should do all it can to ensure that those least able to protect themselves will be protected.
It is timely to revisit last year, when this government decided to cut the annual bonus payments to carers. After the uproar, they recanted, but that was a political decision, not a humanitarian one. The 2007 ALP election policy is awash with fuzzy, vague statements. It is quite an extensive policy statement, yet there is no time line. I suppose it is open to semantic interpretation. Given the rather derogatory statements directed at the coalition government contained in the statement, I will be watching with some interest to tick off the boxes as the government takes the disabled and their carers to the promised nirvana.
The issue of providing adequate and functional support to carers and their charges is not restricted to Australia. Many of the advanced economies of the world are struggling with the challenge. According to the United States National Family Caregivers Association, more than 50 million people provide care for a chronically ill, disabled or aged family member or friend during any given year. In the United Kingdom that figure is six million. I hark back to the Australian, which I quoted in my opening remarks. The article’s opening line was:
Australia’s disability support system is inequitable, fractured, under-resourced and slowly collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacies, while sub-optimally consuming billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money each year.
That is after 18 months of the alleged new and improved neoconservative government. I think that describes adequately what needs to be addressed. This bill is helpful but inadequate. But we can use it as a starting point to help those who help others who cannot help themselves. The challenge for the government is to respond to the urgency that they have identified. If indeed it is urgent then it should not be sacrificed on the altar of economic expediency. But after the experience of seeing the attempted slashing of the annual carers bonus last year it is difficult to believe that this promise will be kept in this term, especially in an environment of a severely deteriorating national economy under a government that has converted the legacy of a $21 billion surplus into potentially a $200 billion millstone.
I rise today to speak in favour of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. I do so—and I concur with some of the comments of the member for Gilmore—because I have immense respect for the men and women across Australia who dedicate so much of their lives to caring for their loved ones. In my electorate of Kingston I have met many carers and they have sat down with me and told me about their experiences. They have had some hard experiences but they have also reported to me some very rewarding experiences that caring for their loved ones has provided them. They have talked to me often about the patience they have learned and the love they feel for their loved ones, which transcends what they previously experienced. I have heard some wonderful stories but of course, as we heard from previous speakers, carers also experience difficulties. This bill, appropriately, recognises and supports the contribution that carers make to our society.
The bill before us today recognises the difficult position that many carers find themselves in. The Rudd government made it very clear that they were committed to responding to the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce recommendations and, indeed, that is what this bill does. A particularly striking quote from the review, which reinforces the importance of carers in our society today, reads:
The Taskforce has accepted that the payment of Carer Payment (child) is recognition that caring for a ‘profoundly disabled child’ is a full-time, multiskilled and very demanding job that leaves little or no time for other activities. It is … unquestionably a role of immense social and economic value. The care provided often means the difference between life and death for the care receiver.
That is certainly how it has been described to me by many of my constituents, especially those who are caring for children. The bill before us will see many of the recommendations which have arisen from the review, commissioned by the previous government, implemented in time for the new financial year.
I want to take this opportunity to talk a little about the experience of one of my constituents, Wendy. She spoke to me about the carer payment as it applied before these amendments. She was not eligible for it because her six-year-old son, who suffered from a permanent disability, did not meet the specified criteria. Instead, she and her husband relied on the carer allowance. She complained to me about the incredible strictness of the eligibility for the carer payment, and she told me about how difficult it had been. She had welcomed the carer allowance when she was encouraged to apply for it, and when she originally applied she thought that she would be able to put it away for the expensive therapy that her son needed. She set up a bank account for the allowance to go into but, unfortunately, that bank balance has never been in the black. She has been spending huge amounts of money—not only to support her going to work, because of the full-time care that her son needs, but also to pay the extra costs incurred from the provision of intensive therapy. However, Wendy did say to me that she did not regret spending one cent on her child for that therapy; whilst they had had to make a lot of sacrifices, they would do it all again. She also said that while the carer allowance was welcome she is hoping that the changes will ensure that she and her son are eligible for the carer payment (child).
I also talked to Wendy about issues that were a little bit broader than just the carer payment. I think the things we spoke about are very true of many other mums and dads in my electorate that have children with a disability. She told me that she has found a good network of special needs mums, as she put it, who stick together and have become very good advocates for their children. They try to get together and lobby for extra SSOs or greater funding, and I have seen that in my own electorate in providing support to mums and dads who advocate for their children that are in need. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Wendy and the other mums for the great advocacy and caring work that they do.
These measures are much needed. The previous method of assessment for eligibility for the carer payment created a situation that precluded many people—who had to forgo full-time employment to care for their loved ones—from receiving support from the rest of society. As the task force review clearly states, that type of assessment does not identify the actual level of care required or the level of care provided. Rather, it assumes that a particular condition or circumstance implies a level of care and need that is being met by the applicant. I and this government do not consider such an assessment scheme to be appropriate, effective or fair. Put simply, the results of such an assessment scheme are incredibly inequitable to both the carers and the cared. Such a scheme does not consider any qualitative assessment of the real needs of the child being cared for.
The bill before us today changes that and delivers a new, fairer set of criteria that are much more similar to the carer payment (adult) criteria. They are based on the care required and reflect the functional ability of the care receiver rather than rigid medical standards. In addition to introducing flexibility and fairness to the assessment method, this bill provides for access to the carer payment for short-term or episodic needs—a key recommendation of the task force review.
Currently, both carer payment (child) and carer allowance (child) provide for situations where it is anticipated that the need for care will be ongoing. Neither is designed to meet a sudden need for financial assistance to cope with emergencies. This bill changes that. I know that this will be widely welcomed by constituents who may not have experienced this but may experience it in the future and benefit from it. Similarly, there will now be more generous arrangements for carers who have children in hospital, and the qualification rules for the tragic situation of a person caring for a child with a terminal illness will also be relaxed.
The implementation of the task force review recommendations represents just one part of this government’s commitment to supporting carers. In 2008 the Rudd government delivered a $1,000 carer payment recipient bonus, and carer allowance recipients also received $600 for each person in their care. This was followed by the Economic Security Strategy, which recognised that the role of carers provided $1,400 of support for carer payment recipients and $1,000 for carer allowance recipients—for each person in their care. In the budget that was announced last night, once again we have seen financial payments to further help those who are caring in our community. The government realises that supporting carers means providing infrastructure support for Australians with different needs, and so it has also set aside $100 million for supported accommodation facilities.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Autism SA, which has recently opened a respite service in my electorate for children with autism. Autism is a growing issue that parents come to talk to me about, and the respite facility will be a very welcome addition to respite services in the area. I was very pleased to see that, and I know that a lot of parents in my electorate were also pleased to see that.
The facilities that the government will be contributing to will be available to people whose ageing parents can no longer care for them at home. This point is very important, because a lot of parents have come to me and said that they are concerned that they are ageing and they are not sure what is going to happen to their children once they are no longer there to care for them. Hopefully, this will give parents some sense of security that their children will be cared for when they are no longer able to care for them.
All of the measures that I have mentioned represent the Rudd government’s commitment to supporting carers and their families. The $273 million of measures included in the bill before the House today are just one part of the government’s plan, but they are a very important part. By changing the eligibility criteria for the carer payment, this government is clearly saying that support for carers must be realistic, flexible and fair. In providing short-term access to the carer payment, we are saying that we understand the real-world situation that parents can find themselves in. By considering the needs of parents with special needs children in hospital or those with terminally ill children, we are displaying the quintessential Australian value of compassion for those who are doing it tough but are still holding their heads up high. I commend the bill to the House.
As a member of this parliament, it is a privilege to meet Australians from all walks of life, and I am sure that we would all agree that the courage that we see in the faces and in the lives of carers is no exception. It is often said in this place that whatever we do, it will never be enough. In the case of carers, that will always be true. Sometimes we use that phrase thinking that those groups that we seek to support will never be satisfied; but, in the case of carers, the need for satisfaction is so great that I hope at some stage our parliament will be able to meet that need. Measures like those contained in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009 go down the path towards meeting it. I think that any time we talk about these measures, or any measures for carers, it is important to recognise the plight of carers and the fact that the measures go only a very small way towards relieving their burden. It is a burden that they bear out of love. Some will sometimes unkindly say that governments will unfairly take advantage of that affection. But the truth is that these carers who care for those they love will always do it, and we should seek to relieve their burden in any way we can. We should never seek to take advantage of the affection and love that they have for those whom they care for and, in doing so, we should never seek to diminish it.
This bill represents the government’s response to the recommendations of the carer payment task force. I am pleased to say that this task force was set up under the previous government, in March 2007, to conduct an investigation into eligibility criteria for the carer payment (child). The report of the task force was given to the Rudd government on 30 November 2007. The carer payment provides income support to people who are unable to support themselves through employment, due to the demands of their carer responsibilities—which is a very common circumstance for people in these situations. In addition to the carer payment, there is also the carer allowance, which is an income supplement that is available to people who provide daily care to an adult or a child who has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability which is permanent and is likely to affect the person for an extended period.
It should be recognised that the carer payment and the carer allowance are not intended to compensate carers for providing care. Nor are they designed to cover the costs of caring for someone with a disability. If we suggested they did, I think that would be an insult to those who seek to provide that care. It is, however—and it is acknowledged by carers—an important acknowledgement of the sacrifice they make and the care that they provide.
Currently the eligibility criteria for the carer payment (child) requires demonstrating that the child requires continuous care for six months or more because of a disability or medical condition, and the care receiver must meet the legislated definition of ‘profoundly disabled child’. This determination is normally made by a medical practitioner who must certify the disability and the level of care required by the child.
A carer may also be eligible to receive the carer payment if they provide care to two or more children with severe disabilities whose combined care needs are equivalent to those of a profoundly disabled child. The task force received many submissions, which does not surprise me, having been a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth which has recently been involved in an inquiry into carers. There were more than 4,000 submissions received, many of which came from individual carers. More than 20 organisations made submissions to the task force, and a major issue that was raised was the inflexible eligibility criteria that unfairly denied financial assistance to a number of carers because certain criteria were not met. For a considerable period of time, the carer payment (child) eligibility criteria was regarded as being too restrictive, and the task force report found that in 2005-06 only 12 per cent of applications for the payment were successful. Eighty-seven per cent of applications for the payment were rejected because they did not meet the stringent criteria.
Let us pause and reflect on those 87 per cent who were told they were not eligible. For them a lot of it would not have been about the money. The money would have been gratefully received—and that was one reason why they applied—but for 87 per cent we considered their cases not worthy of acknowledgement or support. Many cases will fall into that category even with this legislation. I think we should think of these rejections not as simply a cross marked on a form but rather as sending a message to someone who is involved 24/7 in living this experience—whether that is in direct caring responsibilities or in otherwise carrying the burden of that care throughout their normal day. It is an emotional message, not just an administrative message, that is sent. I would encourage those who serve in the front line of our Public Service to continue to be very sensitive in the way that they deal with these matters. This is not just about saying no on a form; it is in many cases a form of acknowledgement of the circumstances these carers face every day.
Many carers were denied access to the carer payment even though their caring responsibilities were similar to those of carers who did qualify for the payment. In the opinion of the task force the current eligibility criteria were too restrictive and as a consequence the payment was not effective in achieving its intended purpose. The task force was requested to determine the most appropriate mechanism for accessing the care requirements of children aged 16 years and under with severe illness and/or disability. At no point did the current assessment system identify the actual level of care required by the child. The task force took the view that a new approach to the assessment of claims for the carer payment (child) was urgently needed and should be based on an assessment of the actual care needs of the child.
The task force recommended changes to the current eligibility criteria to recognise the level of care required by and provided to children with severe disability or medical condition. In 2003 a bulletin published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that there were an estimated 317,900 children with a disability aged under 15 years. That represented about 8.3 per cent of all children under 15 years. Within that group 220,300 children or 5.7 per cent had a core activity limitation. Of that group about 165,300 children or 4.3 per cent had a severe or profound core activity limitation. Figures of that order suggest and demonstrate the all-pervasive presence of this situation in our community. We all either directly or through our relationships and friendships know and are touched by people in this situation.
As a parent, I know that those of us who are blessed with children who do not suffer from these conditions and are not in this situation read those statistics can only thank God. This highlights the need for us to have profound compassion for those who do deal with this situation. We all know of the love that comes when your child is born. I can only imagine the extra love that comes to a parent of a child with a disability. We see it demonstrated. The greatest thing about love is when you see it demonstrated in these acts of care. These parents are blessed in their ability to show what I would call superhuman forms of love to their children.
In 2003 the most prevalent disabilities among children were intellectual and learning disabilities. There were around 166,000. There were 162,000 children with physical disabilities, around 130,000 children with sensory or speech disabilities and around 81,000 children with psychiatric disabilities. Much of the recent data available in relation to disabilities and carers comes from the ABS publication Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings, 2003. It found that in 2003 there were 2.5 million carers in Australia, of which 475,000 were primary carers. The report also stated that 57,800 people were classed as the primary carers of people with disabilities—that is, 12 per cent of Australia’s carers were the carers of children. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare said that most carers of children with a severe or profound disability were the mothers of these children. As of June 2007 there were 3,570 recipients of the carer payment. This figure represents just 3.1 per cent of all recipients of the carer payment (adult) and (child). In the same year there were 109,100 recipients of the carer allowance (child), which accounted for 28 per cent of all recipients of the carers allowance. Some 91 per cent of recipients of the carer payment (child) also received the carer allowance (child).
The bill currently before the House proposes to provide a new, fairer set of criteria to be applied to qualify for the carer payment. We should all be very pleased to support a bill that does this. It is proposed that a further 19,000 carers—19,000 families are affected—will become eligible for the payment after the changes are introduced on 1 July this year. The proposed assessment process for the carer payment will be known as the disability care load assessment (child). Section 38E of the amended act will provide that the disability care load assessment (child) will be contained within a legislative instrument to be made by the secretary of the department. The purpose of this instrument will be to devise a test for assessing the functionality, behaviour and special care needs of a person aged under 16. That includes an assessment that must be completed by a treating health professional. It must provide a method for rating the care needs of the child and provide a method for giving a qualifying rating to the carer who is caring for the child that takes into account the care provided for the child by the carer and the assessment completed by the treating health professional.
Other changes include expanding the circumstances under which the carer payment is payable to include the short-term or episodic care of children. In this instance, short-term care includes care that is provided to a child following a one-off incident, such as an accident, when the care is required for a period ranging between three and six months. More relaxed qualification criteria are proposed in relation to children who have a terminal condition. Unlike the current situation, in which a medical practitioner must certify that a child has a terminal condition and will not live for substantially longer than 12 months, the proposed changes take a less intrusive approach. That is welcome. A medical practitioner must still certify that the child has a terminal condition. Payment to the carer will be based on the average life expectancy of children with the same or a similar condition.
This bill also provides reforms that will address circumstances in which a carer shares the caring responsibility for a child with a disability. It will apply to a child who normally spends some time with one parent and some time with another parent under a registered parenting plan or parenting order. A second disabled child requiring care from the carer will mean that the carer continues to receive the carer payment while the first child is with the other parent.
Other important aspects of this bill are the changes that will streamline the transition between carer payments made in respect of a child with a disability to payments in respect of an adult with a disability. The new section 197K2 of the legislation will provide an existing recipient of the carer payment (child) with a period not exceeding three months in which to make the arrangements for the care receiver to undergo an assessment and a rating under the adult disability assessment tool. This will make the transition between two carer payments less stressful and less complex, which I believe is also welcome.
This is a bill which enjoys the support of the coalition. It is one of those matters which I believe unites both sides of the parliament in our appreciation as parliamentarians of the plight of and the role played by carers. The price of their work, if we had to replace it, would be a bill which we could never pay. We know that it will never come to that. But let us not presume upon that. Let us continue to make efforts to improve the plight of carers. The recent Who cares? report released by the House of Representatives committee contains some excellent recommendations, which I hope will receive very favourable treatment from the government. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill.
I am very pleased to rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This bill is to implement the government’s commitment, following the report of the task force, to reviewing the carer payment. The review task force was established in March 2007 to examine the eligibility criteria for the carer payment. It considered the effectiveness of the payment in providing a safety net for children with a profound disability or severe medical condition.
Carer payment is an income support payment for people who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves through substantial participation in the workforce. For example, in the electorate that I represent, Hindmarsh in Adelaide’s western suburbs, there are about 12,500 carers of people with a disability. I have met many of them when they have come to see me with issues that need attention. From my discussion with them I must say that they have an enormously hard job in caring for disabled members of their families.
Carers shoulder an enormous responsibility for their loved ones and they deserve every single bit of support government can provide. In fact, it is our duty to provide them with every bit of support that we possibly can. The Australian government recognises this and it values their incredible devotion and the incredible hard work that they do. Australia as a whole has about 2.6 million carers and nearly 500,000 of them are primary carers—in other words, those who provide the majority of the care required by another person.
Caring responsibilities can include many things: bathing, toileting, administering medication, providing nutrition and meals, dressing wounds and managing many other things as part of their responsibilities. Emotional support is also important and a very significant part of caring work. According to Carers Australia, currently 79 per cent of assistance required by Australians due to disability or illness is provided by family carers—that is, someone within the family household.
Every year carers provide over 1.2 billion hours of care. At some stage in our lives all of us will receive care and we will all probably provide care in one form or another. It may not only involve caring for aged parents; it may, for example, be because of sheer twists of fate, such as finding yourself in the situation of having a child born with a disability or having a loved one who acquires a disability later on in life through an accident or some other means. You can imagine how the world would suddenly be turned upside down.
In 2007 the review into the effectiveness of carer payment found that the overly restrictive and complex eligibility requirements meant that thousands and thousands of parents who were providing intensive care for their children were ineligible for the payment. At the time of the review, only 3,500 carers received that particular payment. With the introduction of this legislation, it is estimated that up to 19,000 carers will now be eligible for carer payment from 1 July this year. Following the passage of this legislation, the eligibility for the payment will depend on the level of care required rather than on a narrow set of medical and behavioural criteria. The bill will introduce a much fairer assessment process based on the level of care required by the child and provided by the carer rather than a strict medical definition of ‘profound disability’.
The government is also cutting red tape—and we have seen so much red tape in this area previously—so that parents who qualify for carer payment will automatically qualify for carer allowance. That will remove the requirement for more forms and medical examinations. Believe me, those of us in this place who deal with parents of children with profound disabilities have seen the enormous onus on the parents to be constantly producing paperwork to qualify for carer allowance. While carer payment is an income support payment that is paid at pension rates, carer allowance is a supplementary payment of $98.50 each fortnight, which is described as being paid in recognition of the caring role.
The changes will also allow a range of health professionals—including physiotherapists, registered nurses and Aboriginal health workers in remote areas—to provide assessments, not just doctors and specialists. There will also be support available for parents at those times when their child needs intensive care—for example, when a child is undergoing treatment for a condition such as cancer or for trauma.
The response to the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce was overwhelming. It received over 4,000 submissions, and over 25 focus groups were held with stakeholders and self-selected carers over an eight-week period. The task force recognised the vitally important role of carers, and it also acknowledged that the willingness and ability of carers to provide care are integral components of the broader care system. Their contribution, as I said, is essential to sustain the current system of community based person-centred care. The evidence available to the task force established that carers faced particular challenges in the form of financial hardship and severely reduced educational and employment prospects. As we said, their primary task is looking after their loved one who is profoundly disabled. Carers have lower levels of health and wellbeing, chronic grief, and limited opportunities to participate in community life and build and maintain the social networks that all of us take for granted.
The amendments in this bill will deliver a new, fairer set of qualification criteria for carer payments in respect of a child based on the level of care required rather than on the rigid medical criteria that is currently being used to assess qualification for the payment. I will give you a very brief example of a phone call I received in the office a couple of years ago from the family of a very profoundly disabled child. The child was not going to get better, yet the red tape and the requirements placed on these people to qualify for the payment were enormous, to the point where my office had to ask the then minister in the former government to intervene and ensure that the family did receive this payment, which was so important to them. Seeing the family go through that process was extremely disheartening. This was all information that Centrelink actually had. This child was born with a profound disability, and the information was with them. Every so often the family would face more red tape and get more forms to fill in. I am glad that we were able to assist them. I am sure this particular bill will deliver a new and fairer set of qualification criteria for the carer payment. Administration of claims will also be improved, with better claims processing and capacity for more complex claims to be handled by a dedicated complex claims assessment team.
The recent report of the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs also recommended that this bill be passed. The committee recognised that these arrangements will ensure that more carers who are unable to support themselves because of the demands of caring for children with a disability or a medical condition will receive the financial support that they require to ensure that they can carry on supporting themselves.
The government is very aware that we need to address the needs of those who care for others within our society. I have met, as many have in this place, with many carers in my electorate and have seen the significant work that they undertake. This government has an absolute commitment to assist those in need and to support them in their very important role of caring. We need to simplify access to government support without making carers jump through hoops to access support. As I said, there was the example of that particular family in my electorate who were made to jump through hoops constantly to ensure that they received their carer payments. It was so disheartening and depressing to see this family, who for years have been continuously looking after a child with a profound disability, with all the stresses of having a disabled child, on top of that facing the added burden of getting calls from Centrelink, getting forms to fill in and being told that they had to go through more hoops before they could actually give the support that was much needed. It is very important that we support this bill. We certainly need to simplify this process so that carers are not made to jump through hoops. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to record my support for this important legislation, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. I want to add my voice today by way of some short remarks. This is an important area of endeavour for Australians and it is important that as a government we take measures to ensure that caring is recognised and that carers get the support they deserve with minimum fuss and trouble from government.
Within my own electorate I have become aware, anecdotally, of the important work that carers do. It is work that the government could never do or fund people to do in their place. In recognition of that it is very important that we understand that we could never afford to replace the effort and endeavour of this core of people who are looking after their family members and profoundly disabled people within our society. Therefore as a parliament we need to examine ways that we can improve carers’ access to benefits and provide them with the relief that they need to continue their vital work. Carers are often stretched to the limit or to breaking point. By its nature, the work involved in helping a person with a disability can be quite profound in its emotional intensity and it can take its toll. We need to find mechanisms to help carers to get some relief and to have time off. That is a particularly important government endeavour. Where we cannot afford to subsidise or provide an income for carers because of the enormous cost involved, we ought to be able to ensure they get adequate relief and that they are supported in their work.
It is good to note from the provisions of this legislation and from many of the amendments that some of the rigid medical criteria will be abolished. I think that is a recognition of the very real, human circumstances that people find themselves in, which cannot be defined by government legislation or by criteria. This is an area where common sense needs to be applied. Red tape and bureaucracy have their place in various areas of federal government endeavour, but in these very real, human situations we do need to take a step down and consider the impact upon the carer and the profoundly disabled people and others in need of care. I think this legislation is an improvement on the current arrangements.
The committee is to be congratulated on its endeavours in conducting its inquiry and handing down its report. There is much more that could be said about this legislation. The simplification of access to support is a particularly worthwhile endeavour which I think all members in this place would support.
We have heard many speakers here today record their overwhelming recognition of the fact that carers do so much important work in our community. We recognise that carers provide the Commonwealth and our society with a service that government could not provide, and we need to assist them and make things easier for them. No government could afford to pay for the work that is done by these carers.
I conclude by saying that as a member in this place I am very grateful that all governments are taking measures to ensure that the work of carers is recognised. For many years in this country this area of endeavour either was not recognised or saw little active consideration, and this is a major improvement. We now understand the work that carers do, we understand its importance, we understand the cost implications for the Commonwealth and we are taking active measures to make it simpler for carers to access support. This legislation has the full support of the opposition. We look forward to seeing a simpler and better system in place for carers to access support from the government.
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. I am pleased to say that this is a bill in which we are more united by our joint concerns. In fact, carers payment was introduced by a Labor government in 1983 as a new welfare measure, but I note that carers payment (child) was introduced by a former coalition government in 1998 and that that same coalition government put in place the review that has led to the amendments that are being made here today. I think it is important that we recognise that not one side of politics has a mortgage on caring for people in this situation. The changes that we are making to this legislation were recommended in a report Carer payment (child): a new approach by the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce, which was, as I said, set up in 2007 by the coalition government. I think we would agree that they are important changes.
Each of us as a member of this parliament does have interaction with families who are in this situation. Each of us understands that the difficulties that are faced by these families vary. I, for example, have had very close contact with one family caring, for over 20 years, for a young man with a disability. I have watched as his parents have worked hard to create for him an independent adult life. I also know of one teenage girl who was essentially abandoned by her mother at a day respite centre because her mother had been unable to adequately care for her whilst working. Whilst this was a very distressing circumstance for them both it was the only way in which she could see that her daughter would be well catered for in the future. It is the future of many of these people that is very much at the forefront of the minds of those providing care: their parents, who wonder what will become of their child once they themselves have passed on, and you see this situation a lot in later life. It is a substantial worry and we need to continually look at it into the future.
The report of the task force threw up, at least to me, one odd imbalance—that is, the percentage of recipients of carers payment (child) was about three per cent, or 3,600 recipients, of the total 116,600 recipients of carers payment overall, yet the lesser sum, the carers allowance (child), actually accounted for 28 per cent of all of those on carers allowance. This has an interesting implication in relation to the changes we are talking about making today in that the carers allowance (child) was paid to people based on the amount of care that the child needed. The carers payment was, in these circumstances that we are seeking to change, based on the actual disability or illness suffered by the child.
It could be said, I think with some veracity, that a number of people whose children needed care, for which they were being paid carer allowance, ought to have been receiving the carer payment. The change that we are making, as I have said and as was pointed out in a document issued by the Parliamentary Library, is now consistent with the application of the requirements for the carer allowance. The Parliamentary Library document went on to say—and we should be aware of this—that one of the problems with the assessment tool which we used in the past was that no two care situations are the same and that the same medical condition or disability affects individuals differently. The capacity of a person to cope with a disability or a medical condition varies between individuals and, therefore, the care needs vary. I could say, too, that there has been some discussion on taking the assessment tool that is about to be used for children and transferring it directly to assess people of 16 and above for the carer payment for adults. One of the points that is made quite strongly is that a child requires a degree of care from a parent simply by being a child. The disability degree will add to that level of care. It may or may not be a degree of disability or illness that will entitle them to have a carer in adult life. With a number of these things, adults are better able to cope.
I think that there have been some suggestions emanating from the Greens that an amendment to this legislation might be moved to reflect that transition, but I would say that, in a genuine consideration of the issue, we would need to take into account the parental care that is given to a child anyway and that the new arrangements, which we do introduce through this legislation, should be determined based on the additional care that is required.
There are a number of changes in the legislation. Obviously, the methodology of determining who is eligible is the centrepiece of the legislation. As a number of speakers have said, it adds 19,000 people to those who are likely to receive the carer allowance. I think that is a wonderful thing we as a parliament do. If there are people who deserve our help, it is those who are struggling to raise children with serious illness or disability and particularly—and I have not seen much written about it in relation to this bill, although there were some examples given in the task force review—families where there is one child with a severe or profound disability and other children in the household as well, recognising the actual difficulties of treating all your children fairly when one requires so much of your time.
These are difficult jobs and for people to be required, as they were simply by the fact that their payment was in the area of $52 per week as a carer, to go out and find work to raise children—one or more with a disability—is I think really flying in the face of what we are about as a country that does have a welfare system in place to assist people in difficult circumstances.
The clause relating to episodic care will, for the first time, enable people to be paid a carers payment for a short period while a child for whom they care receives treatment. The example given in the explanatory memorandum is of somebody receiving periodic treatment for leukaemia. It is very important that there is an adult carer available if there is a child in that circumstance—I suppose it is also important that an adult in that circumstance has support available—and this legislation allows for adult carers to receive carers payment for the period of that treatment if it is from three to six months. During the inquiry into the legislation by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs there was some discussion about whether that should not need to be renewed for each period of treatment but remain open for two years. There may be some merit in that but there is also some merit in the answer that was given by FaHCSIA, which suggested that an application for a second round of treatment would be a very simple matter. I do not know but I think it could be as simple as a phone call, given that the parameters have been met for the first round of treatment.
The exchanged care provisions will be welcomed. The previous speaker raised a view I share with him with respect to modern family circumstances where families separate and where increasingly—and thankfully—rather than there being a lot of fights there is shared care of children. If the care of a child with a disability were being shared 50 per cent by each parent then neither of them would qualify for an allowance, yet each of them would have been restricted in the income that they could earn. I think that as we progress this legislation we will be able to look at making arrangements to assist those kinds of people.
I have spoken a little about transitional arrangements. We have improved those to a three-month time frame in which the assessment for transitioning from carer payment (child) to carer payment (adult) can be done. That has been welcomed by the organisations involved. Apart from the idea that if you qualify for a carer payment (child) then you should automatically qualify for a carer payment (adult), which I think is problematic, these provisions have been well received.
There are also changes to provisions regarding hospitalisation. Previously, if a child in someone’s care spent more than 63 days in hospital then that person lost their entitlement to carer payment (child). They will now retain that, subject to a 12-weekly review. The person would need to submit, through Centrelink, to FaHCSIA the need for ongoing care for their child. Any of us who, for any reason, have had a child in hospital for an extended period know that it is very important that the adult be available to the child through that time.
With the Disability Care Load Assessment (Child) Determination, the new document that people will fill out is one that, I understand, has been developed in association with the University of Wollongong. It was only made available in recent days. I would indicate that I have discussed with the minister’s office the matter of concerns about the document being discussed with organisations that are active in this area, whether it be Carers Australia or the association that was established for parents of children with disabilities, prior to the document’s implementation. I have been told that those discussions are actually taking place and that some recommendations have been made to government. It is a bit early in the decision-making process to decide whether or not we take them on board. What needs to happen here is, of course, for there to be a document that simplifies the process as much as possible.
I imagine that other members of the parliament have had occurrences of a situation that has happened a number of times in my office, namely, instances of medical practitioners, for example, ticking the wrong box when they are doing an assessment of a constituent who is seeking to apply for the disability support pension and, as a consequence of the mistake on the form—rather than it being a matter of the person not qualifying for the disability support pension—the pension has not been provided to the person concerned. This particular document is enormously important in relation to what we are trying to do. Never let it be said of course that what is happening is a simplification. This is still a very complex area of welfare legislation but the interaction with people and the issue of their entitlements need to be simplified as much as possible.
I want to deal with a couple of the issues that were raised by the Australian Greens in the minority report to the Senate committee inquiry. Five changes were suggested. I have already dealt with the first of those—that is, aligning the carer payment (adult) assessment with the carer payment (child) assessment. I do not think that that is a reasonable thing to do. The second and the fifth of the issues raised in this context by the Greens were to do with the extension of provisions of this legislation to adults. Whilst I would not say that the Greens were wrong, I would say that this is the wrong piece of legislation in which to do that. This legislation does not deal with that; maybe they should seek another vehicle. Two years for episodic care, something I mentioned earlier, could reasonably happen.
This government is serious about making sure that there are adequate provisions for carers as we move our society forward to become much more caring for the people within it. In the recently delivered federal budget there are provisions in relation to extra support for carers. Through the mechanism we are debating today it will open up to 19,000 additional recipients of carer payment (child). That is 19,000 additional people receiving the equivalent of the pension. They will of course be pleased by the additional amount of pension but also by the carer supplement and the carer payment. The carer supplement will go to people who receive both carer payment and carer allowance. It is set at $600 per annum. A person on carer payment (child) will automatically qualify for the carer allowance because of the alignment of the two qualifications and also the annual child disability assistance payment of $1,000. So on top of the carer payment (child) there is an amount of about $2,200 a year that will be paid to them. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. It struck me as I was preparing to make this speech that it was more than eight decades after the Australian Federation that we eventually brought in a payment that we called the carers payment. It was first introduced in December 1983. What struck me when I thought about the history of the Australian Federation is that we had World War I, where we had many people who fought on the Western Front, Gallipoli and other places in defence of this country and more people died or were injured in that war than in World War II. We had the travails of what was happening for widows and those men—mainly men—who sadly came back from the Great War and were greatly injured and were not able to care for themselves because of their disability—mental, physical, psychological and psychiatric.
Then we had the Great Depression and all the challenges that brought to us as a country and the millions of people who were affected by it. Then we had World War II with our involvement in North Africa, in Europe and in the Pacific in the defence of our country and then in subsequent wars. And still as a country—a country that really believes in a fair go and being fair dinkum—we had not really thought enough to provide a payment which we would call the carers payment or the carers allowance. It struck me that, as a country which has venerated—and rightly so—the heroic deeds of our Anzacs and other men and women who have fought valiantly to protect the liberties and the democracy which we take for granted so often, we have not thought of the heroes in our society. That word ‘heroes’ is bandied around with abandon in relation to all kinds of sporting heroes, many of whom really do not deserve the accolade. Our real heroes are those who care for those with disabilities, those who care for people who are vulnerable and who are challenged in terms of their physical activities and those who are suffering, not just young but middle-aged and older, from mental problems and difficulties. It would be rare that a family represented here would not have been touched by people who have suffered from a disability. I am sure many of us have had friends who are suffering from a disability, and we look at the lives of the carers and marvel at what they do and wonder just how they get by 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, year after year caring for those whom they love.
I will provide a bit of history in relation to the carer payment. It was extended from a very narrow base for people caring for adults after July 1998. It was extended to people to a category of those people who were caring for profoundly disabled children under the age of 16 years. Eligibility and was broadened in July 2006 to carers of children with severe intellectual, psychiatric or behavioural disabilities. But even then there were only about 7,000 children being cared for, as many people have said, by carer payment recipients.
It really is quite extraordinary that we say we are a humane and compassionate society but we have not had the will and the wisdom to do what we are doing in relation to the carer payment supplement and also this improved support for carers in this particular legislation. It is quite astonishing that we have not had the determination and the fortitude to do what we needed to do—to display the courage politically that is displayed every day in the homes, in the community centres, in the schools and in the workplaces of those who are carers in our community.
The changes in this bill are a legislative response and commitment to a report by the review task force headed by Anthony Blunn. It was established in March 2007 to establish the effectiveness of the carer payment as a safety net for carers of children with profound disabilities and severe medical disabilities. As a result of that report and the review, which was released in early 2008, there was the conclusion—and I had a look at it—that the carer payment did not fulfil everything that it was aspiring to do. The safety net just was not adequate and there needed to be some changes. I am sure that every member of this House has had people come into their offices and talk with them about the fact that there have been problems in relation to this sort of thing.
The legislative changes that are proposed here broaden the qualification definition and base them on the level of care required. The new disability care load assessment introduced in this bill will provide an objective tool for determining the requirements of care recipients. I think it is a sensible proposal in the circumstances and I am amazed it has not been done earlier. An objective basis is important to ensure that there are no people who rort the system but also to ensure that we have the kind of questionnaire that carers can actually understand, that is in readable English and simple language that people can come to grips with. Treating professionals and doctors also need to be able to assess the functionality, behaviour and special care needs of children under 16 years of age and provide in clear, simple and easy to understand terms the level of care which is necessary to be provided by carers.
The process will accommodate a relaxation of the entitlement and also an assessment of eligibility across a range of households across the country. It will provide a better method to determine the qualifications in all the circumstances. As has been said before, provision of payment to a child on a short-term or episodic basis is a necessary reform and I think welcomed in all the circumstances.
I commend the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for what she has done. I said this morning in a speech in relation to carers that 23,500 people will benefit in this budget in terms of the pension increase and the care payment supplement as well. That builds on the 43,701 people who received payments, many of them carers, in the Economic Security Strategy we handed down last year. Many of them receive the $1,400 increase or the $2,100 increase for couples. We are providing substantial assistance in the budget and also through the two pieces of social security legislation that are before the House today in relation to these matters.
In all the circumstances this is a bold initiative, a timely initiative that is really long overdue. It is really quite amazing in the circumstances that we have not done it before. I am very much appreciative of the federal government’s assistance and of the minister’s commitment to those who are carers—the real unsung heroes in our community. My community will benefit enormously. I am sure across the whole country carers will also benefit as well. I am very happy that we have done what we have done in this initiative. For us it is political but for many it is personal. In my own family, my great-uncle and great-aunty cared for their profoundly mentally disabled son for many years—well into their senior years. I think of them and I think of the physical challenges and the intellectual and financial challenges they faced. I honour them today. I think we should do that every day. Politics is difficult but this legislation shows our compassion to those sorts of people.
Order! It being 1 pm, the debate is interrupted. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
Sitting suspended from 1.00 pm to 4.01 pm
I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This bill provides part of the government’s response to a report of an inquiry initiated by the former Howard government into the carer payment for those who care for children, and gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers from 1 July 2009. The main measures include relaxing child disability and care requirements for the child, to allow more carers of children to access carer payments; allowing carer payment where the care required is short term; allowing continued payment of carer payments where the child goes into hospital; allowing carer payments where the child has a terminal illness and the anticipated life expectancy is short; and allowing automatic qualification for the carer allowance where the carer is qualified for carer payment.
Obviously, carers are amazing Australians. Often through no fault or predisposition on their part a carer, whether it is a parent, an older sibling, a foster parent or some other person in the community, when they have a very sick or disabled child they often dedicate their lives to making sure that that dependent child or person being cared for has a good life, a life that is as far as possible comfortable, pain free and loving, despite their particular condition.
There are carers in Australia, however, who are most concerned that as they grow older they may not be able to care for their children, who may still only be teenagers, in the future in the way they have always wanted to. It is extremely important that, as a caring nation and as a nation that, despite its troubles, still has resources, we put proper support into the carers’ pockets to make sure that, at least financially, they are given some reimbursement for the often 24-hour, seven-day-a-week support they give to their loved ones. The carer payment is an income support payment for carers who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves through substantial participation in the workforce. This bill will cost some $271 million over four years.
The report entitled Carer payment (child): a new approach was released last year. It found that the qualification criteria for carer payment in respect of a child were too restrictive and the assessment process overly rigid, often producing inequitable outcomes. The coalition is pleased that the reports and the Howard government emphasis on solving this problem are being followed through with this bill. Due to the narrow set of medical and behavioural criteria currently determining eligibility for the payment, it is currently received by the parents of just under 7,000 children. There is an expectation that this bill will increase the number of carers eligible for carer payment to around 19,000. This bill is about a very important sector of our community—that is, the carers of children who have a serious short-term or longer-term condition.
But there are still real gaps in what is delivered as an equitable outcome to carers who, for example, might be from an ethnic minority non-English-speaking background. Those carers often are not familiar with all of the resources that are available in the community. They may not have a driving licence, particularly if they are women from cultural backgrounds where women traditionally are not expected to drive or be independent outside the home. Often these carers do not know where to go and they are not contacted or even sought out by agencies that should be making it their business to make sure that carers of children across our society are fully resourced and understand what support there is in the community for them. I have had representation from ethnic minorities—particularly from non-English speaking background ethnic minorities—that material is not translated into enough of the home languages of parents with responsibilities for care. They are unfamiliar with how to go about contacting Centrelink, and very often our medical system is a mystery to them. I urge this government to look very carefully at the needs of carers from ethnic minorities—whether they are responsible for children or adults—and to take special measures including translating information and making sure carers understand what support there is in the Australian community, have respite that is culturally appropriate and are given a great deal more support than they currently are.
Let me also say that there is a real problem with carers in rural and regional communities. We are quite often talking about bigger distances for carers to travel to take children to medical appointments or to hospitals. There is often a real difficulty if a child is hospitalised. I know of a family in my electorate of Murray who literally had to sleep in their car while their child was attended to in a hospital in Melbourne. There was not enough income in the family to pay for accommodation and they were not aware of or were not told about the hospital’s family accommodation or it was not available to help them at a time when it was very much needed. I think it is quite disgraceful that parents should have to sleep in a car in order to be with their children at a time of extreme stress, when a child is hospitalised.
There are also real issues associated with when a chronically disabled child reaches the official age of adulthood. They transfer then from the responsibility of one program to another or from state to federal government funding. Often, by the time the very disabled child reaches the age of 17 or 18, they are physically very big and their parent requires a lot of skill to lift them and help them to be mobile. Sometimes these children are bedridden and have been since birth. I heard recently about a very sad case. It really brought home to me the significant gap in our caring for disabled Australians, particularly those who have been disabled in a very significant and serious way. This young man, whose name is Zac, was severely injured a few days after his birth when he was thrown against a wall by his parent. As a tiny baby he was not expected to survive the injuries, particularly the head injuries, but in fact the child has grown up into a very loving young man. He has been in the care of a foster family who have dedicated their lives to making sure this young man has all the love and care that he needs. But he is bedridden. He requires feeding and every other sort of physical support that a young baby might need.
When Zac had his 18th birthday and had to move out of the state supported system, which was giving him some daily activities in Shepparton, his foster parents came to realise that they could not continue to care for and love Zac in their home 24 hours, seven days a week. It was physically beyond their ability to continue to do that, especially given they were also fostering other children in their family. So we looked around for accommodation for this young man. Of course, it will be no surprise to many people, particularly my rural colleagues, that there was absolutely no accommodation available for this young man, with his disabilities requiring 24-hour care.
The state system and, unfortunately, the federal system said, ‘We acknowledge the problem, but we can do nothing for you. You’ll just have to wait until perhaps a bed becomes available, but we don’t know when that might be. We don’t anticipate a vacancy soon.’ So we went to our local aged-care facilities. Of course, we are very fortunate, after 11 years of the coalition government, to have good aged-care facilities in many of our very small country towns, including in towns close to where this young man was living. We approached some of those aged-care facilities, which were more than pleased to look after Zac and have him make a new home in their facilities with 24-hour care, seven days a week. The agency assessed him as appropriate for that sort of support but said, ‘You can’t have a young man in an aged-care facility; it would not be fair to him or to the other residents.’ The young man in fact was perfectly happy to be in a facility where he had his music, where he was close to his foster family and their home, where all of his physical and emotional needs would be met. We had to fight and argue and, finally, the federal authorities relented and allowed this young man to take up a bed in a local aged-care facility where, I am very happy to say, he lives very peacefully and happily and is loved and cared for.
This is a very serious situation for small rural communities, for country communities, where often there are not a large number of people needing this sort of care, but those who do need the attention are chronically in need. We have to be more flexible in the way we determine who may live where in state funded, private sector funded or even not-for-profit homes. In this case it was extremely stressful and it took nearly six months for that foster family to be assured that we had found a home for young Zac. I do not think that sort of stress should be visited upon any family who have done their best for a young person but who, are physically beyond being able to care for a person 24 hours, seven days a week in the way they were able to many years before.
We have to address this problem most urgently. This is an ongoing issue, particularly as more of our disabled young people can look forward to a longer life, who will survive their early childhood.
This extra carers support is also very important for our Indigenous communities. Very often they are not informed and not engaged in the sort of support that is available. Again, I urge this government to reach out into Indigenous communities to ensure that, whether it is the grandparent, which it often is, looking after a disabled younger person, or someone who is chronically ill, they are very aware of the support that is available from government agencies and these payments, which will help them meet their day-to-day costs.
My remarks are to do with equity, social inclusion, the rights of individuals to live their lives as best they can and to share in the good things of this country, despite circumstances which are often not of their choosing but which make them have to live from day to day in ways where they themselves are denied time to relax, to work and to visit others in the community. This is a very important area of concern for an Australian population that prides itself on being caring.
I believe this bill is important but it is unfinished business. We have to make sure that it is not simply a case of those who are already familiar with the system being better remunerated, which is very important, we must reach out and ensure that people from all communities—whether they are from rural or regional areas, are non-English-speaking ethnic minorities or Indigenous Australian—get the same level of support. We must then look very carefully at what sort of residential accommodation is available for disabled Australians when the caring task literally gets beyond their carers in terms of their physical capacity or age or when their exhaustion is such that they cannot continue in the way they have done for 15 or 20 years.
It is great to see the former Howard government’s report move towards implementation, but we look forward to seeing this particular area of support for carers in Australia continue to be a focus of attention for this government. Certainly the coalition will support any moves to make the lives of carers better and which acknowledges the huge amount of care that they give to their loved ones and, indeed, the amazing contribution they make to broader Australian society by teaching all of us what it is like to love unconditionally. I commend the bill to the House.
I rise to support this very important legislation. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009 is primarily focused on increasing support and recognising the vital role of carers in society. Specifically, it aims to improve assistance to carers of children with profound disabilities. I want to start my remarks by making some general comments about carers and the need for us to provide support for them. Whether it is caring for elderly parents, children with illnesses or someone with a disability—whether that is psychological or physical—carers work behind the scenes. They do not always get the credit they deserve and they make incredible sacrifices.
As somebody who has only in the last couple of years had a child and has learnt the unconditional love that is involved in that relationship and as someone who has friends with children, including children with disabilities, I know the efforts and the unconditional love that is involved in providing that support in that relationship. This legislation is particularly important in providing support to families and parents who are carers for young children with profound disabilities. It is particularly important legislation because those people are very much the unsung heroes of this community. They not only provide the love and support to their children that we all give our children; they also, well beyond the time when their children are babies, in many instances have to help them with bodily functions and other things that are not so pretty, but that is a normal part of their lives. They are tremendous Australians; they are tremendous citizens. It is great to be here in parliament to support legislation that is hopefully going to improve their lives.
The Rudd government recognise the important role that carers play. We have sought, including with this legislation, to support them where we can. In the first stimulus package that we brought down last year we delivered stimulus payments to carers. The economic stimulus package provided $1,400 to carer payment recipients in general and $1,000 to carer allowance recipients for each person cared for under that program. The carer payment provides income support to people who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves through substantial workforce participation. Carer payment is subject to an income and assets test and is paid at the same rate as the social security pension. Carer allowance is an income supplement available to people who provide daily care and attention to an adult or a child who has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability which is permanent and likely to affect the person for an extended period. Both of those groups, whether they give full-time support or receive an allowance, received support through the first stimulus package.
Last year we also extended the utilities allowance for the first time to all recipients of carer payment and the disability support pension. In addition, the government has increased the telephone allowance to $132 a year for carer payment recipients with a home internet connection. The 2008 budget also contained an $822 million package to support and recognise carers. Last night in the budget we made specific commitments for carers.
It is really important in a First World country like Australia that we do provide support to the most disadvantaged in the community and also to those who are providing support to those people who need support, whether they are young children, elderly or other people who need that support. We can only do that, though, if we run a responsible budget and we keep the economy strong, because in the end we need to make sure that the funds are there to pay these bonuses, pensions and other things. In last night’s budget we recognised that and we brought forward some important payments for pensioners.
The government is committed to supporting carers. They do one of the most difficult jobs day in, day out—there is no doubt about that. As the Treasurer stated last night, good carers are among the unsung heroes of our community. Because of the financial difficulties they face, this budget introduces a $600 a year carers supplement for all carer payment recipients on top of an increase in their pensions—increases for singles of $32.50 approximately per week and for couples of $10.14 per week. I know they will be welcomed. Recipients of the carers allowance will also receive an additional $600 a year for each eligible person in their care. They do the hard work and they need the support. I am proud to be part of a government that is providing some additional support to carers. They need more and we always need to do more, but it is good to be able to continue to make an effort to provide them with support.
This legislation is particularly focused on increasing support and recognising the vital role of carers with young children. The bill provides part of the government’s response to the report of the Carer Payment (Child) Review Taskforce. The task force was established in March 2007 to examine the qualification criteria for carer payment and to consider the effectiveness of the payment in providing a safety net for children with a profound disability or severe medical condition. The task force recommendations are set out in the report entitled Carer payment (child): a new approach. The measures contained in this bill implement recommendations of that task force. The amendments will deliver a new, fairer set of qualification criteria for carer payments paid in respect of the child.
Whether you are on the opposition side or on the government side of the House, you will have had carers visit you in your offices. One of our jobs is to represent people and at times take up issues that they have with government departments. I am sure members would have had people in their offices who have sought to receive a carer payment and to get their child recognised as somebody that needs support. They need to provide that care and have been caught up in a bureaucratic system that does not recognise the difficulties that they are facing. They want to simplify it down to what they see effectively as a tick-a-box system. An important outcome of this review was recognising that we need to make improvements, particularly around how we look at assessing the ability of people to access carer payments. It is really good to be able to see this legislation come before the parliament.
The legislation ensures that in the future the decisions are based on the level of care required rather than the rigid medical criteria currently used to assess qualification for the payment. There are important and substantive changes that will give carers a fair go. For the first time there will be access to carer payment paid in respect of a child on a short-term or episodic basis. Sometimes you need to have carer payments paid on a short-term basis. We see people go through referrals and they make an application to receive carer payment or the carer allowance and they are knocked back. They have to appeal and they go through that process. Often it can be for a short period of time. This legislation allows for them to access payment in respect of a child on a short-term or episodic basis.
There will be more generous arrangements for carers of children who are in hospital so that carers can keep their carer payment and carer allowance when the child is in hospital. I have had constituents come to me when somebody has gone into hospital and their payments were then under threat. Their child is in hospital and they need to continue to get the income support that they have been receiving. It is very important that that is continued. This legislation deals with that issue.
The qualification rules will also be relaxed in the tragic situation of a person caring for a child with a terminal illness. It is a tragic situation for somebody to see their child die before them. What a terrible thing to happen to anybody. Your heart goes out to those people. We need to make life fairer and recognise those difficult situations. A person in receipt of a carer payment in respect of a child will also become automatically eligible for carer allowance. This is going to provide additional support to many families.
Administration of these claims will be improved, with better claims processing and the capacity for more complex claims to be handled by a dedicated complex claims assessment team. When people make a claim and get knocked back and they are struggling at home because they have to care for somebody, they have to deal with a bureaucracy. When it is not working out for them, they come to see members of parliament and we struggle to work through the issues with them. This legislation, building on the review process, is going to assist us in helping those people. Hopefully, not too many more will end up in the offices of members of parliament needing that support.
In conclusion, this legislation is very important. I am very proud to be here supporting this legislation. Carers are a valued and important sector of our communities. They sure are in my electorate of Leichhardt, as I know they are all across the nation. I therefore commend this bill to the House and salute the carers all across the nation.
I am very pleased to be associated with the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009 in this place, because it will effectively provide financial support to carers of children with a disability or an illness who require high levels of care. While the carer payment (child) has been available for some time, the eligibility requirements have been prescriptive and inflexible, resulting in many carers missing out on this vitally needed assistance. By reformulating qualification so that it is based on the level of care needed by a child rather than based on medical criteria it is hoped that the application of this policy will be fairer and less perturbing for those families who carry a heavy load. It is a good step in the direction of caring for Australian carers and those who depend on them for quality of life.
The measure contained in this bill to expand the eligibility for the carer payment follows the report of the Carer Payment (Child) Review Taskforce and the recommendations made therein. The task force was set up by the Howard government in March 2007, having recognised the need for a review into the eligibility provisions for the payment. The report was handed down in February 2008 and recommended the immediate reassessment of qualifications for the carer payment. In May 2008, as part of last year’s budget, $293.6 million was set aside to facilitate these recommendations. It is very pleasing to see the high level of bipartisan support for this measure.
Caring for children is a joy that parents anticipate at the birth of a child and embrace for a lifetime. When children are sick, parents fret and worry and attend to them with love and devotion. But for many Australian families their children’s special needs are enduring and require that devotion 24 hours a day, seven days a week over an entire lifetime. The needs of these children and those of their carers are inextricably linked. In many cases, the parents cannot ever hope for their child to enjoy the milestones in life that most of us celebrate as our children go to adulthood and independence. Neither can they expect much relief from the unrelenting need for care, which eventually and inevitably takes its toll on the carer or carers.
While for many parents caring for a child with a disability there is a sense of personal growth and a deeper understanding of what is truly important in life, there can also be stress and anguish caused by a child’s illness or disability. It is often the case both for parents and for other family members. The repercussions are felt throughout every facet of family life. For parent carers, meeting the daily needs of their children is more than a full-time job. It often becomes a way of life.
This bill is also timely because the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth has just completed and released a report following an inquiry into better support for carers titled Who Cares? There will be an opportunity to discuss that report when it is tabled in the House on 25 May 2009, so I do not propose to do that on this occasion.
During the course of receiving evidence, we heard from witnesses that the coordination of care and the level of support are unsatisfactory. One of the most confronting aspects of the inquiry was the honest and caring accounts of carers of the financial, emotional and social isolation that they felt or feel. Financial stress that arises from not being able to engage in the workforce serves to further compound the feelings of social isolation and desperation that carers reported. The carer payment recognises that because of the needs of their children carers have a limited opportunity to work. It is not designed to compensate carers for the costs associated with caring or to replace the wages or salary foregone. The income support mirrors the payment of other social security pensions, which currently stand at $569.80 a fortnight for singles and $475.90 per fortnight for couples.
Even with these payments, more generous than some of the others, I ask everyone in this House to reflect on whether they could actually live on that sum of money. I remind the House that we have just seen an increase in that as a result of the budget announcement last night, and we seek increases in September 2009 to $594.59 and $479.99 respectively. I also remind the House that our former leader, the Hon. Brendan Nelson, the member for Bradfield, was largely responsible for seeing these changes come to fruition through his untiring and unwavering support for an increase in the pension rate.
Both inquiries have encountered deeply moving and very personal accounts of a system that failed and fails to provide an adequate safety net for all of those parents caring for children with severe disability or medical conditions requiring income support. Sometimes responses to community needs evolve over time. In this respect we have seen major changes to the way in which children with a profound disability are cared for in our communities. The end of institutional care was widely supported, but despite the expansion of more personal assistance the system has left parents to take full responsibility without satisfactory community based support. Notwithstanding some of the shortcomings in response to the plight of carers, positive steps were taken in 2006, when measures were introduced to extend the carer payment to carers of children with severe intellectual, psychiatric and behavioural disabilities such as autistic disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities and Asperger’s disorder. This saw a growth in the number of carers receiving the carer payment from 3,750 to around 7,000.
The key changes recommended by the task force and implemented in this legislation before the House today will further expand eligibility for the payment, making an additional 12,000 carers eligible to receive a higher level of support, and this is a very welcome measure. The payment is currently available to parents of profoundly disabled children under 16 who require constant care which is administered within the family home. These definitions are prescriptive and have little to do with the actual level of care a child may require. This systematic inflexibility will to some extent be corrected through this bill. The functional ability, behaviour and special care needs of the child will be considered to determine qualification for the carer payment. The expanded payment will also be available to parental carers where their child’s illness or disability is episodic or short term or where the child is in hospital. This means that, where parents need to provide care to a child with a condition that is unlikely to be ongoing but nevertheless necessitates constant care, they may then be eligible for the payment. For children in hospital the payment will undergo a 12-week review cycle which, it is hoped, will be responsive to the changing need of the child.
It is an utterly tragic and devastating circumstance when a child is diagnosed with a terminal illness. The doctor will no longer be required to provide an individual estimate of life expectancy for the child; the payment will be made according to the average life expectancy of a child in a similar position. It is expected that the system will be far more understanding of the sensitivities involved in these particular situations.
In addition, all parental carers who are eligible for the carer payment will also become automatically eligible for the carer allowance to ensure that the expenses associated with their child’s illness or disability do not place further financial strain on the family budget. For many carers, there has been uncertainty as to the difference between these payments. Unlike the carer payment, which is subject to an asset and income test, the carer’s allowance is not subject to that test. The current rate is $105.10 per fortnight. Additional measures are proposed to enable a less bureaucratic and more individualised administrative system that can better handle complex care arrangements, such as where separated parents each offer care or where there are multiple care recipients. All of these changes will no doubt be greatly welcomed by the community of carers, given the lengthy period over which they have advocated for this change.
Both the report of the carer payment (child) review and the recent inquiry of the Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth not surprisingly identified financial hardships, the variability of care arrangements, limited employability, transition from child to adult care and, above all, the sheer complexity of accessing support as key as issues for them as carers. For me, this is driven home in a very personal way, because I have a family who is attached to me through the Politician Adoption Scheme in Western Australia. The mother has a profoundly disabled daughter and a son who has some learning difficulties. I asked her about the level of assistance she gets. She said that she just cannot go through the trauma of filling out endless forms to get a very small amount of money. This is not untypical. We heard much evidence in our inquiry of parents who both found this demeaning and felt defeated by the sheer complexity.
As I said, all of these changes will be greatly welcomed. Both the report on the carer payment and the committee report highlighted the difficulties. As I said, one of those difficulties was the lack of or limited employability. Much more needs to be done to address the systemic problems and, in part, encourage flexible working arrangements so that carers are able to also participate in the workforce—not just for financial gain but also as an important part of self-identity and of overcoming the social exclusion that many carers feel in their community. All parents would associate with the need for some occasional respite, but for parent carers who are caring for profoundly disabled children this need is greatly amplified. Without adequate care for respite, carers have little opportunity to engage in community activities, to spend time with their other children or to spend time with their partner. We know that caring for profoundly disabled children often has a high toll and can lead to relationship breakdowns.
The parliament, therefore, must continue to work to address the physical, financial, social and psychological impact of caring. Addressing these needs in a holistic manner is vital to caring for carers and is in the interests of the children that they care for. Clearly there is still considerable work that needs to be done. The needs are complex and they are individual. As a result, we desperately need a system that is flexible and coordinated. It became apparent to me in the course of our inquiry that for too long the welfare of carers has been compartmentalised and departmentalised, with carers finding themselves in the middle of bureaucratic maze. For parental carers, dealing with a complex system of assistance is surely the last thing they need. We need a system for carers that is adequately funded, that is responsive to the changing needs of individuals and that offers a one-stop-shop service. It is only through a whole-of-government approach that this can be achieved.
The passage of this legislation will remove one layer of complexity but, to achieve best practice in service delivery, a greater emphasis on training and awareness of the complex needs of carers and those they care for must be central to government policy. An education and awareness program needs to be extended to healthcare services and other external service providers so that carers can be directed to appropriate support services in the first instance. I understand Centrelink is trialling specialised officers to assist those on income support and similar payments and that staff are actively looking for ways to better respond to issues that have been raised by carers. I applaud and support the work that Centrelink people are doing and I sincerely hope that Centrelink staff are properly and adequately supported and funded by the government so as to achieve the high level of support our nation’s carers deserve.
This bill addresses the financial needs of parental carers that have not previously been eligible for the carer payment (child) and, by extending the qualification to these families, the parliament is not just recognising the contribution and sacrifices that carers make but also recognising that a flexible system is essential for caring for our carers. This is indeed a promising first step but, as I said, the parliament must accept that considerable ongoing work is needed to fully address the complex needs of carers, and the cared for, throughout our society. The next step will be to fully examine the recommendations of the report into better support for carers titled Who cares…? and, as a matter of priority, implement those recommendations. I can only hope that this next step will not take another 14 months to implement. I look forward to speaking further to that report when it is tabled and debated in this place during the next sitting week. In the meantime, I am very pleased to join with colleagues on both sides of the House in fully supporting carers through the passage of this bill.
Before going to the actual substance of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009, I would like to start where the member for Pearce finished by referring to the fine report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth entitled Who cares...? and the recommendations that were brought down by that committee. I acknowledge the role that the member for Pearce, as the deputy chair of the committee, played in that report and I join with her in emphasising how important it is that these recommendations become more than just recommendations and are reflected in legislation.
There is no member in this parliament that has not been faced with the plight that carers have to contend with each and every day. I am very pleased that there is bipartisan support for this legislation. In saying that, I did not for a moment doubt that there would not be bipartisan support. No matter what our political philosophy is and no matter what our political disagreements may be, when it comes to an issue where we are providing support to some of the most vulnerable people—some of the people in our communities and electorates who need support more than anyone else—it is important we all join together, support legislation like this and call for recommendations like those in this report to be implemented. Like the member for Pearce, I will be speaking when the report is tabled and brought on for debate here in the Main Committee.
This legislation provides part of the Commonwealth government’s response to the recommendations of the carer payment review task force, and it gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers of children with profound disabilities. These measures take effect from 1 July this year. The qualification criteria and assessment processes for carer payment for care provided to children with a disability or a medical condition will be changed to provide a fairer, more equitable process based on the level of care required rather than the rigid medical criteria that are currently used. I will talk a little bit more about that in a moment.
A person who qualifies for carer payment under the new provisions in this bill will automatically qualify for a carer allowance, and that removes the problem of having to fill out two sets of forms and relieves a little bit of the pressure that is on those carers whose every minute of every waking hour is spent caring for their children. A parent of a child who is in hospital and who receives a carer allowance will continue to receive that allowance for a limited time. This will remove the current limit on the number of days in each calendar year that can be paid while a child is in hospital. The limit sometimes leads to the loss of the carer payment or carer allowance.
Since I have been in this parliament, I have been approached by numerous parents of children who have a disability, and I can say that I have always been moved by their plight. I have always been convinced that, as a government and as a society, we should be providing more support to these parents. In doing so, we are providing more support to their children. When a person becomes a parent, they have their beautiful little baby that they have dreamed about for nine months, or maybe for a lesser period of time where a child has a disability. They have got plans and aspirations for the child, and then they find that the child has a disability, or they may find a little further down the track that the child has a disability. All of a sudden, they need to re-evaluate those plans. They need to re-evaluate their entire lives. I think that, as members of this parliament, we need to be very mindful of the impact that that has on a person’s life and of the years of dedication that those parents give to their children.
As well as meeting with individual parents of children with disabilities, in my time as a member of parliament many lobby groups for parents with children with disabilities have come to this parliament to ask for more support. There is a Western Australian organisation that has for its theme ‘walk a mile in my shoes’ and they have lobbied very strongly for greater support for parents of children with disabilities. I am sure that they will be pleased that this small step has been taken towards helping them.
One occasion that had the biggest impact on me, as a member of parliament, was back in 2002. I visited Camp Breakaway in the Shortland electorate, where parents of children with disabilities from the Central Coast had gathered. These children had rare and serious genetic disorders. They were severely disabled children with very high support needs and very high care needs. I had previously visited the mother of one of the children at her home. She had a little girl called Tori. Tori had developed a type of muscular dystrophy that meant that she moved from being a normal child with normal muscle tone to a child who was unable to breathe without assistance. She had what was called spinal muscular atrophy. She had very limited movement. Karen, her mother, had a little bit—a very little bit—of respite and she averaged about three hours sleep a night. She was under enormous pressure and there was an enormous draw upon her time, but she did it with great dedication and great love and did not question for a moment. She organised for me to go along to Camp Breakaway to meet with the other parents.
There I met Sonya, who had four children. Her son Alex had a disability. Alex had had to have a ‘trachie’ inserted so he could breathe, and her situation was exacerbated because her husband was a quadriplegic. But she was happy to do everything that she could. The reason I want to share with the House today Sonya’s story is that she had applied for disability payment for young Alex and had been rejected. She reapplied and was rejected again. This child was severely disabled. She said to me that she got so sick of completing the forms, submitting them to Centrelink and being rejected that she finally took Alex into the Centrelink office. The staff there were so overwhelmed by the level of disability of this young boy that she was granted carer allowance for Alex. I see this relates directly to the legislation before us today. This legislation makes this simpler. This legislation removes the arbitrary nature of having to prove the level of disability. It is much more flexible. It will get away from those rigid criteria that have for years prevented parents of children who suffer from autism or other profound disabilities being granted carer allowance or carer payment.
I pick on autism because I have spent many hours with constituents within my electorate working through these rigid criteria, having the applications rejected and then quite often going to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and helping the parents through that. These are parents who spend each and every waking hour of their day caring for their children. They have dedicated their lives to their children, and their lives have been made even harder by the rigid nature of legislation that has been in place. We on this side of the House—and, I would have to say, those on the other side of the House too—recognise that it has been very difficult for carers.
In this budget, we particularly acknowledge with the payments that we have made to them the fact that carers have a very hard job. Some of the real answers lie in this report here. I put to the House that if these dedicated parents and carers within our community were not prepared to give all of their life to their children then governments throughout Australia would have to spend a lot more money on caring for those children. And the quality of life of those children would be a lot poorer. They are nurtured in a loving and caring environment by parents who have had to change their plans, goals and expectations for that child. They now have different plans and expectations for those children. These parents are totally dedicating their lives to caring for their children. It is beholden on governments and each and every member of this parliament—members of the government and members of the opposition—to do everything in their power to make the lives of carers just that little bit better. I see this legislation as doing just that. It puts in place a number of the recommendations of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce. That is welcome.
I place on the record here in this parliament today that I will continue to fight and work for carers to get a better deal. I feel that no matter what age the child is, the parent is still locked into caring for their child until the day that they die or the day the child dies. One of the big issues that carers approach me about is what happens to their child once they are not longer here, once they die.
I have a fantastic young woman come to my office two afternoons a week. Her name is Tracy. She has represented Australia at the Paralympics. She was at university. She was a high achiever. She is a beautiful young girl. She developed brain tumours. She had those brain tumours removed and now she spends her life in a wheelchair. It has affected her speech and her fine motor skills, but she is still a very intelligent person who has a lot to offer.
Her parents are currently conducting a campaign to try and have a facility built in the Hunter area for younger people with disabilities. This is another issue that members of this parliament have come across from numerous Australians. Tracy’s parents are worried about what will happen to Tracy when they die. They do not want her to go into an aged-care facility with older people. Rather, they want to ensure that there is a place where Tracy can go where there are other young people with disabilities. It is all about quality of life. This is something that as a parliament and as a society we have to get our heads around as well. I intend to work with her family and with others in my region to try and bring this to fruition. I would encourage all members to think about this and look at ways of bringing about change to ensure that young people with disabilities have a good quality of life.
In conclusion, I would like to once again give my wholehearted support to the legislation that we are debating here today. The parents of children with disabilities deserve every bit of support that we can give them. The legislation that is before us today is a very strong step in that direction.
I rise in this chamber to support all of those carers and parents in Australia and in my electorate of Forrest. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009 provides part of the government’s response to a report initiated by the former Howard government into the carer payment paid in respect of a child and gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers from 1 July 2009. Any assistance to carers is certainly important. The main ones include: relaxed child disability and care requirements for the child to allow more carers of children to access carer payments; to allow carer payments where the care required is short-term—quite important; to allow continued payment of carer payments where the child goes into hospital; to allow carer payments where the child has a terminal illness and the anticipated life expectancy is short term; and to allow automatic qualification for carer allowance where the carer is qualified for carer payments.
The previous review was conducted by an independent task force from March to November 2007. The review examined the eligibility criteria for criteria payments and their effectiveness in providing a safety net for carers of children with a severe disability or medical condition. The report entitled Carer Payment (Child): A New Approach was released last year and found that the qualification criteria for carer payment paid in respect of a child are too restrictive and the assessment process overly rigid, often producing inequitable outcomes. This bill makes amendments to the carer payment paid in respect of a child. Carer payment is an income support payment for carers who, because of the demands of their caring role, whether they are parents or other carers, are unable to support themselves through substantial participation in the workforce.
The current set of medical and behavioural criteria that determines eligibility for the payment has resulted in the payment being received by the parents of just under 7,000 children. The proposed amendments seek to delete the existing method of determining eligibility for carer payment, which is based on medical criteria relating to the child’s disability or medical condition. The new method bases eligibility on the level of care required. As a result, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs estimates around 19,000 more carers will have access to carer payment from 1 July 2009. This is a very good result. The new assessment will be known as the Disability Care Load Assessment (Child) and it will improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of assessments even in complex cases such as where children have multiple carers, where carers have multiple care receivers and where there is care required for an adult with a disability at the same time as a child with a disability.
Administration will be improved, with better processing of claims and capacity for the more complex claims to be handled by a dedicated complex claims assessment team. We have heard from several speakers why and how that is so important. The Disability Care Load Assessment (Child)will be established by a legislative instrument. The instrument will allow a test, comprising a carer questionnaire and a treating health practitioner questionnaire, that will be used to assess the functional ability, behaviour and special care needs of children under 16 and the level of care provided by their carers. The process will accommodate assessment of eligibility for carer payment across a wide range of household situations, the situations that are encountered on a daily basis, including situations where there is more than one child or more than one carer involved in the qualification process. This test will provide a method for determining a qualifying rating for the carer based on the level of care associated with caring for the child or children with severe disability or a severe medical condition.
For the first time there will be access to carer payment paid in respect of a child on a short-term or episodic basis. Episodic care will cover care required for recurring conditions where the care recipient is aged under 16 years and each episode is expected to last at least three months and less than six months. Episodic care will cover care required for recurring conditions where the care recipient is aged under 16 years and each episode is expected to last at least three months and less than six months. This could include, for example, treatments for medical conditions such as cancer, brain injury or mental illness. Short-term care will apply if the care recipient is aged under 16 years and has a condition that is expected to be short term from a one-off incident. Some short and intensive treatments for childhood cancer may also fit this category. There will be more generous arrangements for carers of children who are in hospital so the carers can keep their carer payment, and if payable their carer allowance, while the child is in hospital. This means that the current limit on payment in these circumstances of 63 days in a calendar year will no longer apply and will be replaced by a 12-week review cycle.
The qualification rules will also be relaxed in the tragic situation of a person caring for a child with a terminal illness. The current criteria require a medical professional to certify that the child has a terminal condition and will not live for substantially longer than 12 months. This will be replaced with a process that assesses the average life expectancy for a child with the same or a similar condition and provides for payment on that less intrusive basis. The basic qualification conditions for carer payment within the amendments remain much the same as in the existing legislation. Basically, the carer must provide constant care to a care receiver who has high-care needs, provide that care in the home of the care receiver and be an Australian resident. However, there is a new feature included in the proposed new amendments: the constant care provided by the carer must severely restrict the carer’s capacity to undertake paid employment.
The bill also amends some of the carer allowance provisions in the social security law. Carer allowance is an income supplement for people who provide daily at-home care and attention to an adult or child who has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability that is permanent and likely to affect the person for an extended period. Carer allowance is not means tested and may be paid in addition to an income support payment. A person in receipt of carer payment in respect of a child will become automatically eligible for carer allowance. These measures provide a more flexible and accessible income support payment for Australians facing some of the toughest circumstances, and certainly those of a very emotional basis—caring for a child with severe disability or a severe medical condition. As has been said by previous speakers, there would be very few of us who have not been touched by those either in our families or close to us who are caring for a child in these circumstances. This bill is the inevitable legislative response to an initiative that was commenced previously. It is part of a 2008 budget measure and will cost $271 million over four years broken down into: 2008-09.
As we all know, carers take on a huge role in caring for their loved ones, frail or disabled. The emotional pressure of this care is often cumulative. Care is often required for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and the demands on carers are so great that carers often end up needing care themselves, or at least access to regular respite. I am hopeful that the amendments to this bill will further assist the many carers in my electorate of Forrest to access the help they require to continue their very dedicated and diligent work. One such deserving person in my electorate is Susan Keddie from Gelorup, who cares for her mother who lives in Allanson, a 110-kilometre round trip. Ms Keddie still needs further financial assistance with travel and petrol costs as she makes the round trip each day to care for her mother. As we have heard here, we all know that carers are the unsung heroes in all of our communities. Their contribution cannot be measured or quantified, but it is an extensive contribution.
Michelle Snitch of Cookernup also cares for her 21-year-old daughter with Asperger’s syndrome, spina bifida and a mild intellectual handicap. She has cared for her daughter all her life in their family situation. She has also, up until November last year, been the sole carer of another adult daughter who has a mental illness. You can only imagine the pressure on Michelle. During this time, she has also received the carer allowance and carer payment, which has been the only income she has been able to bring into the house for many years.
Four years ago, her husband retired from work to be able to help with the caring of both daughters, as she found she was struggling. You can imagine that that is exactly what she would be doing. At this time, her husband also started to receive the carer payment. Michelle has not been able to understand why the carers pension was not recognised when it comes to support for things such as glasses, when anyone in receipt of a disability support pension, age pension or veterans’ affairs payment can receive a $50 cashback from the government when purchasing new glasses. Then there is the travel issue. Anyone in receipt of a DSP, age pension or veterans’ affairs payment can receive free public transport at certain times and days, and also discounts at stores. There are a lot of stores that offer a 10 per cent discount to aged or senior citizens.
Michelle wanted to know why she was not able to access those, as she believes the family, as we have heard earlier, saves the government many thousands of dollars by not placing their children in care and by caring for them themselves. That, of course, is exactly what they want to do and they would not have it any other way. But she does believe she should receive the same privileges as other pensioners. Having just purchased new glasses at considerable cost, she was shocked when her husband—now an age pensioner—could receive the $50 rebate but she could not. She also travels to Perth regularly with her daughter for appointments and it is hard for her to understand why she has to pay for public transport and her daughter does not, because the daughter has the disability pension card.
I just wanted to touch briefly on a group in my electorate called the South West Family Support Association. I went to the opening of their new facility recently, and I note that their mission is to be a provider for families and individuals with a disability who want to be included in their community. Their program is to develop methods to include people with disabilities in community life. It is a wonderful facility. It is one that offers assistance not only to the people with a disability but to those who care for them. I think any support that we can provide for carers is one that we should be pursuing.
I look forward, as other members do, to the House of Representatives report that is due in the next sitting in May. I look forward to reading the recommendations and the further amount of support that this House will recommend as a result. I support our carers and I support those, like one of my neighbours, for whom it is basically their life’s work to care for their child. It certainly precludes the family from doing a range of other things that we all take for granted. I think we should do our very best to encourage and support anything that we can do to assist people like those and the many others across Australia in a bipartisan way.
Just before I call on the next member, I would to acknowledge the presence in the Main Committee of a former minister, the Hon. Allan Morris.
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This bill provides part of the government’s response to the report of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce and gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers from 1 July 2009. The qualification criteria and assessment process for carer payment for care provided to children with disability or a medical condition will be changed to provide a fairer and more equitable process based on the level of care required, rather than the rigid medical criteria used currently. A person who qualifies for a carer payment under the new provisions inserted by this bill will automatically qualify for carer allowance.
The provisions in the Social Security Act 1991 that provide for qualification for carer payment and carer allowance while a care receiver is in hospital, or continued qualification if a care receiver enters hospital, will be amended to allow a person to qualify or remain qualified for carer payment while a care receiver who is a child is in hospital for an unlimited number of days per calendar year.
The Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce was established in March 2007 to examine eligibility criteria for the carer payment (child) and to consider the effectiveness of the payment in providing a safety net for children with a profound disability or severe medical condition. In identifying the challenges and critical role for carers, the task force recognised the vitally important role of carers and acknowledged that the willingness and ability of carers to provide care is an integral component of the broader care system. Their contribution is central to sustaining the current system of community based, person centred care.
The major challenges faced by carers identified in the consultation process were the impact of the caring role on carers and their families and the level of care required beyond that of a usual parenting role; the eligibility criteria and assessment processes for access to carer payment (child) and the fact that these processes did not measure care load; the complexity of the application process and the role of health professionals in verifying claims for payment; the inadequacies in the service delivery system in helping carers to access information and assistance; the lack of recognition of different care arrangements, such as shared, short-term and episodic care and multiple caring responsibilities; the financial costs of disability and the costs of caring; workforce participation; the relationship between carer payments and other social security payments; and the lack of a smooth transition between child and adult carer payments.
Throughout the review process, issues with the way the carer payment (child) is structured and administered were identified as major sources of concern. Not surprisingly, as the public face of payment service delivery, Centrelink received some critical comments. In dealing with the eligibility for carer payment, the task force was asked to compare the circumstances of carers in receipt of carer payment (child) to those who in recent cases have not qualified. In doing this, the task force assumed that the recent cases referred to were those where alternative assistance was provided. Through the review process, the task force identified that the perceived inequity of the current eligibility requirements, particularly the need to meet arbitrary and, in the view of many, irrelevant specific circumstances, was a major issue. Many carers were precluded from receiving the payment even though their caring responsibilities may have been as great as those of carers who qualified for the payment. We have certainly heard examples of that from our speakers today. The prescription of a small number of very specific circumstances in which the payment may be granted is inflexible and does not accommodate advances in medicines and in medically applied technology.
That is why this legislation is so important. The proposed changes provide a fairer and more equitable process, based on the level of care required rather than on the rigid medical criteria used currently. For the first time, there will also be access to the carer payment in respect of a child whose requires care on a short-term or episodic basis. I hear of these examples time and time again when I talk to parents at special schools in my electorate. They face difficulties in trying to provide an education and quality of life for their children, quite often having to pull their child out of the schooling system to care for them full time or while their child is hospitalised for a lengthy period of time. Carers need support through those episodes. It would, of course, be remiss of me to not use this opportunity to also acknowledge the great work of all carers, not just those who care for children. We have carers who care for both the young and the old. I have personal experience in my family; my mother needed full-time care for a period of time and then specialised care before her passing. I appreciate the hard work that carers do and the difficulty for those carers who are not of retirement age and who still need to balance work and financial obligations—such as a mortgage—with being a full-time carer.
The work of carers generally goes unrecognised by the broader community. We do not acknowledge the absolute commitment that comes from making the difficult decision to become a carer, even though most carers would tell you that it was not a difficult choice, that it probably was not a choice at all; it was just something that they needed to do and wanted to do. It was the right thing to do. But such decisions are not made any easier. It is not just the commitment; it is also the sacrifices. Those sacrifices are not just in relation to the carer’s social life but also in relation to things such as work opportunities and, when they are no longer a carer, the ability to retrain and get back into the workforce. It is very important that we provide support to carers to ensure that during the time of being a carer they do not feel isolated in that role.
That is why these people, the carers in our society, should be given support not just from the government but from the community. As we heard from many speakers today, it is about quality of life and, unfortunately, in many circumstances the life that the carers are caring for may be cut unfairly short. That is why the time they do have as carers is so important and why we should do absolutely everything to provide them with the support needed in the role. I was pleased to recently meet with my local carers at one of their regular meeting groups through Carers Queensland, to hear their stories and to empathise with their needs. It was heartening to meet two lovely elderly ladies who had previously been carers but were no longer carers as their husbands had passed away, who continued to come to these meetings to provide support for other carers and younger carers. It is wonderful to see them voluntarily coming along and providing that support.
This is why the initiatives the Rudd Labor government have already taken and continue to take are so important. The changes in this bill are the latest in a series of recent support initiatives that have extended to carers—such as the 2008 one-off payment legislation, which delivered $1,000 to carer payment recipients and certain other pensioners with a caring role. The carer allowance recipients were generally paid $600 for each person cared for. Then the economic security strategy legislation of late 2008 provided $1,400 to carer payment recipients and, generally, $1,000 to carer allowance recipients for each person cared for. The new measures in this legislation are part of an $822 million package from the 2008 budget to support and recognise carers. As well as the 2008 one-off payments, and the amendments to the carer legislation included in this bill—worth about $273 million over five years—the government set aside $100 million for support accommodation facilities for people with disability whose ageing parents can no longer care for them at home and $20 million for carers who have experienced a catastrophic event involving a young child.
I know that all carers, especially those with children, are permanently aware of the future. It is forever on their minds as to what quality of life their children are going to have into the future. It is one of the biggest concerns that parents have. One of my local families has a son called Christopher who has cerebral palsy. He is now a young man and is very much involved with Cascade Place, with their art and their music—which is fantastic. This is a respite centre which focuses on people with disabilities—but on their skills and their abilities. They are artists and musicians first; they are not known for their disability. I congratulate them for the amazing work they do.
Having spoken to Christopher’s parents on a number of occasions, I know that they have struggled to care for Christopher. They are trying to manage their own business; the two of them are running their own business as well as raising a teenage son with cerebral palsy. The one thing that they talk to me about—other than, like all parents who are carers, the need to have respite care and every now and then have time to themselves—is what the future holds for Christopher. One of the issues that they have been tackling is the limited number of small, personal and friendly home environments where Christopher can have a good quality of life, live with other young men like him and go out on social outings—a place where Christopher can live in a household, not an institution. That is the sort of life that they want for him. They had the pleasure of meeting me at a place known as Narin at Aspley in my electorate that has that very focus. It has four wonderful people living there. They looked at that place and said, ‘That is what we want for Christopher.’ But there are not enough of these sorts of places around. This initiative is fantastic, but we need to continue to do more and to focus on the issue of places and homes that provide a good quality of life as carers get older.
In addition to the announcements and initiatives of the Rudd Labor government that I have just highlighted, it is appropriate that I also acknowledge the fantastic commitment made by the Rudd Labor government in the budget announced last night by the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, which provides further relief for carers. Around 500,000 carers across Australia will receive, as part of the government’s sustainable pension reform, a new permanent carers supplement to help meet the significant financial challenges that they face.
In addition to that carer supplement, carers in receipt of the carer payment will also get an increase equal to the increase being given to single and couple pensioners. I know that carers in my electorate will welcome this increase and the carer supplement. I understand that people who receive the carer payment and the carer allowance will receive at least two payments every year in addition to increases to their pension. More than 95 per cent of carer payment recipients also receive the carer allowance, so this is a welcome initiative by this government to support carers. These are measures that are recognised in my electorate. Those recipients are certainly deserving.
As the previous speakers have said, I will continue to recognise the needs of carers in my electorate and argue strongly that we not only need to provide financial support to these people but also need to ensure that we are providing the social support and that we are looking at how we can provide a good quality of life for all these people into the future. For all those reasons, I commend this bill to the House.
I rise to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. It is an opportunity to celebrate carers within our community. It is an opportunity to hear the stories of carers in the various electorates around Australia. This is a fantastic debate. There is no better example of that than the wonderful contribution we have just heard from the member for Petrie, which was an eloquent description of the role that carers have played in her life and indeed in her electorate. This bill is part of the Rudd government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations which have been announced by the task force for the carer payment (child) review. Those recommendations were contained in the report of that task force, which was entitled The carer payment (child) review: a new approach.
This bill will improve the access to carer payments for people who are caring for a disabled child, and it will do that by changing the method of the assessment of the criteria which provide for eligibility for the carer payment. It is part of a broader suite of measures that the Rudd government is putting in place to support the role of carers within our community. It is estimated that, as a result of this legislation, an additional 19,000 carers within our community who are looking after children with disabilities will be entitled to the carer payment.
The carer payment is a form of income support for people who are performing one of the most challenging roles in our community—that is, the role of looking after a profoundly ill or disabled child, a child who may have a physical, intellectual, psychiatric or behavioural disability. This is a highly demanding role but it is in fact a common role. Indeed, whilst it goes a little unnoticed in our community, if each of us looks to our circle of friends then it will not be long before we find somebody that we know who is in the position of looking after a disabled child. In their task, in their lot in life, there is tragedy, but there is also a heart-warming aspect to their role and their existence.
I was speaking with one of the carer groups in my electorate and with those who support parents who look after disabled children. They made the comment that often, for these parents, the arrival of a disabled child provides a life for them which they certainly did not anticipate and a very different life from what they imagined for themselves. It is a life that requires constant attention for the disabled child that they are caring for. What is common amongst all of those who find themselves in that position and who in a sense, as the member for Petrie described, make a choice—although they themselves would never see it as a choice—is that you will never hear a complaint. You will never hear a complaint about the circumstances that they find themselves in. You will never hear a complaint about the cards that life has dealt them. There is an obvious tragedy associated with that circumstance, but there is a wonder in it as well. There is a wonder associated with looking after a child in that circumstance with that complete devotion. These people are, without exception, ordinary people when they find themselves in this situation, or when this situation is thrust upon them, but they emerge through this experience, again without exception, as extraordinary people who are very special in our community. In the experience of the life that they lead, they come the closest to touching pure and unadulterated love—the love that they provide for their disabled children. So it is a wonderful thing that we talk about these people in this place today in a bipartisan way, with support from both the opposition and the government not only for the roles that they play but for an important measure that is aimed at trying to support them in those roles.
One of the first sacrifices that are made by people in these circumstances is that they forgo their own work opportunities and perhaps the ambitions that they may have had for their professional lives. Full-time caring simply limits the ability of people to fully participate in the workforce. So the carer’s payment is about recognition of the valuable role that carers of disabled children play in our society, but it is also recognition of the consequence of that role for their own lives. Currently, 7,000 carers in Australia are receiving the carer payment for looking after disabled children, but there is clearly a much greater need within our community than is described by that number.
Indeed in June of last year more than 113,000 carers of disabled children were receiving the less-rigorously assessed carers allowance, which is a supplementary payment received by carers every fortnight. While it is not the case that every one of those 113,000 ought to appropriately be in receipt of the carers payment, that figure does give a sense of the number in our community who are caring for disabled children. What came out very clearly in the review undertaken by the task force was that there was a significant number of people in addition to those 7,000 who ought to have been in receipt of the carers payment and who needed that payment in order to perform the very important role that they did within our community. That is what this bill is ultimately all about. This bill will change the assessment of the eligibility criteria for receipt of the carer payment from 1 July this year.
As I stated, the aim of the bill is to broaden the eligibility requirements for receipt of the carer payment. The legislation does this by creating the disability care load assessment (child) determination, which is an objective assessment tool. Eligibility for the carer payment is currently determined by looking at a medical assessment of the condition that the particular child has. It is a rigid assessment and it misses many people who ought, deservedly, be in receipt of the carer payment. The new method of assessing the eligibility looks at the problem from a different perspective—that is, the level of care that a child needs. It looks not necessarily at the condition that the child has but rather at the level of care the particular child needs. It is an assessment based on the child’s functional ability, on their behaviour and on their special care needs. Indeed, looking at the issue from that point of view is consistent with the way in which the carer allowance, albeit with a lower threshold, is currently assessed.
For the first time, as a result of this bill, there will be access to the carer payment on a short-term basis or on an episodic basis. For example, it may be needed on a short-term basis if a child has been the victim of a tragic accident which has put them in hospital for an extensive rehabilitation period but which may ultimately lead to a recovery. An example of an episodic basis may be for a child suffering from cancer. This bill will improve the arrangements for the carers of children who spend extensive periods in hospital so that for more of those people their payments can continue while their child is in hospital. The bill will provide for an automatic qualification for the carers allowance for all those who are in receipt of the carers payment. Importantly, in the most tragic situations of all—that is, where a child is terminally ill—the assessment of eligibility for the carers payment will be much less intrusive and more compassionate.
Currently to qualify for the carers payment carers need a certification from a medical professional that the child is unlikely to live much beyond 12 months. That assessment and certification process is obviously very traumatic for parents, who are experiencing the most unimaginable sadness in dealing with the condition of a child. Under this bill the assessment will look at the condition the child has and at the average life expectancy for a child in those circumstances. That will be used as the basis for assessing the eligibility for the carer payment. As I say, that is a much less invasive, much less intrusive and far more compassionate means by which to make the assessment. All of these measures are a commitment on the part of the Rudd government to providing greater support for carers in our community.
There was an $822 million package to support and recognise carers within our communities in last year’s budget. The amendments to the carers legislation which are contained in this bill will be worth about $273 million over a five-year period. Last year we saw two one-off payments which delivered $2,400 to those in receipt of carer payments and $1,600 to most people who were receiving the carer allowance. Yesterday’s budget delivered a $600 per year carer supplement as well as, very importantly, a $33 increase in the pension to people who are receiving the carer payment. All this is long overdue and all of it is much needed. It provides support and acknowledgement on the part of the Rudd government for those who are caring in our community. It provides financial relief for those who are in receipt of these payments and it provides a sense of peace of mind for the thousands of carers within our community who do it tough, but who also provide an invaluable service to our community and who are really an inspiration for us all. This is the Rudd government’s recognition of the valuable role that they play, and I very much commend this bill to the House.
I rise proudly to give my support also to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This is significant and welcome legislation because at its core are the Labor values of standing up for the vulnerable, the desperate and the marginalised.
This bill implements part of the 2008 budget measures to improve assistance to the carers of children with profound disability. As a federal member of parliament I have had the privilege of meeting a number of parents and carers of children with profound disability. At the outset I stress that they are much braver people than me. It is all my wife and I can do to make it through each day with two healthy children. My chief of staff, Matthew Jutsum and his lionhearted wife, Susan, have four children, Harry, Levi, Reuben and Maisey, and I cannot imagine how they do it. Four children, and Matthew turns just 30 today. Happy birthday Matthew, you old man!
Returning to parents and carers of children with profound disability; these are remarkable people who walk a very tough road. These people’s lives have been turned upside down by adversity, and every single day can be a struggle. They face significant pressure on their relationships and on their finances, and they are asked to make sacrifices to care for our most vulnerable. They do so selflessly and, as the two previous speakers mentioned, they usually make such sacrifices quietly. In our Australian community people use the word ‘hero’ quite loosely on occasion. Whilst not taking anything from the heroes of military engagements, it takes a lot of courage to get up every single day to face these challenges. It is not the same sort of courage as storming a machine gun nest or driving into a fire, but it is an incredible type of courage and a type that I really respect.
Because of the constant demands on their time, many carers are unable to work. But these carers and parents would do anything for their children to give them the best life possible. The government provides a carer payment to people who, because of their caring responsibilities, are unable to support themselves through work. The government also provides carer allowance as an income supplement to people who provide daily care to an adult or a child who has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability. There are currently around 7,000 children being cared for by carer payment recipients, and 113,549 carers receive carer allowance to assist them with the costs of caring for a child with a disability. The difference is accounted for by the far less rigorous care requirements for carer allowance than for the carer payment.
This bill before the chamber was foreshadowed in the 2008 budget and implements recommendations of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce, which examined the criteria and effectiveness of the carer payment. This bill will make many more carers of children under 16 eligible for the carer payment. In fact, I understand it will almost quadruple the number of recipients from 7,000 to more than 26,000 carers. This will provide an additional $271 million over four years for carers. It changes the qualification criteria and assessment process for the carer payment for care provided to children with a disability or medical condition. The new process will be based on the level of care required instead of the current rigid medical criteria that are used. The bill will establish a test for assessing functional ability, behaviour and special care needs of a child, a method for rating a child’s care needs and a method for providing a qualifying rating for the carer.
The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1991 to ensure that carers continue to qualify for and receive the carer payment and carer allowance while the child they are caring for is in hospital. For the first time carers will be eligible for the carer payment for the short-term care that they provide. And a person in receipt of carer payment will also be automatically eligible for carer allowance. This bill also relaxes the qualification rules for a person caring for a child with a terminal illness.
In closing, I am thrilled with the measures in the budget last night to improve the assessment process for eligibility for the disability support pension and deliver a new payment for carers. The government will fast track a simpler and more dignified process for people with severe disabilities and those who are clearly eligible, ensuring that they are not asked to provide costly and time-consuming information and to enable them to receive financial support much more quickly. A number of carers and people with a disability have raised this very issue with me over the 18 months I have been the member for Moreton, and I am sure other members have had a similar experience. People are sick and tired of constantly filling out forms and providing the same information over and over again. I know we have to safeguard the public purse, but there comes a time when you also need to consider how onerous such requirements can be for people with a disability.
Also, around 500,000 carers will receive a new carer supplement to help them meet the significant financial challenges that they face. As well as an increase to the carer payment, carers will also receive an annual $600 payment. I am proud to be part of a government that is listening to the needs of carers and people with a disability and doing what it can to stand beside them. We judge a society by how it treats those who are most vulnerable. Australia, unfortunately, does not have an unblemished record when it comes to such judgements. This legislation is a small step back towards dignity and justice and I commend the bill to the House.
I stand here today to also show my support for this important bill that provides improved support for carers and I want to begin by commending the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for introducing this bill for debate. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009 provides part of the government’s response to the report of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce and gives effect to a number of measures aimed at improving assistance to carers of children with a profound disability.
The carer payment (child) is an income support payment for people who provide constant care to a profoundly disabled child. It is targeted at those who cannot work due to the demands of their caring role and it is means tested. This bill will improve support for families of the children with a profound disability by providing access to carer payment based on the level of care required. This will be a more equitable process about assessing needs and about assessing the caring role rather than relying on just the medical criteria as we do now. This is a really important step forward. The bill will also ensure a person who qualifies for a carer payment will automatically qualify for a carer allowance. The bill also seeks to allow a person to qualify or remain qualified for carer payment while the child they are caring for is in hospital for an unlimited number of days per calendar year.
During the review, the task force accepted that payment of carer payment (child) is recognition that caring for a profoundly disabled child is a full-time, multiskilled, very demanding job that leaves little or no time for any other activities. In fact I want to quote from a parent who put a submission in to that review. She said:
You are constantly on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This role will continue until the child dies, or if I predecease my daughter. Most intensive parenting duties decline as the child grows and matures, [but] this is not the case for a child with a severe disability. I will have to be on call 24/7 until the day I die.
We all know that carers provide a lot of support. We know that they are spouses, parents, grandparents, children, siblings and sometimes friends and neighbours. The most recent ABS statistics estimate that 2.5 million Australians aged 15 years or over care for someone at home because of a disability. That is around 13 per cent of Australia’s population who are carers. Around half a million Australians were identified as a primary carer. That is the person who is the main provider of care to someone. In my home state of Tasmania we have significantly more carers than the rest of Australia. In fact, it is estimated there are 69,500 carers aged 15 years or older, 14,600 of which are primary carers, representing around 15 per cent of the total population of Tasmania. That is higher than the national average, as I said.
I also want to talk about a recent report. I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Housing, Community and Youth, which recently handed down its report titled Who cares … ? This report was about how to provide better support for carers. It included many public hearings around the country and took almost a year to complete. The committee received 1,300 submissions—1,200 of which were from individual submissions.
The lives of carers are at the heart of this report. The carers report was a human analysis, not a cost analysis, of people caring for others. It is an honest and truthful account of people’s lives. During the inquiry, we heard from many parents caring for children with multiple disabilities, requiring much care. Their stories were heartbreaking and many times in the roundtables with carers there were tears in the eyes of all those in the room. The emotion was raw and their hurt was profound. They were never asked to be a carer; all of them struggle to meet the costs of caring for their child. They are isolated by the lack of support and the financial impact of their caring role. They receive no holiday pay, no sick pay, no annual leave loading, no long service leave and no superannuation. They are frightened about the future of their children should they predecease them.
The inquiry’s body of evidence clearly illustrated the profound physical, emotional and financial effect that providing care has on carers and also their families. The amount of paperwork and assessments was one their concerns. We all know that a child born with profound disability does not get better; their care only continues. I am pleased that part of this bill addresses some of the assessments and paperwork.
Some of the other things that the committee looked at that were high on the list of what people really wanted us to deal with were things like respite care, in-home care, financial assistance and also the maze that carers get lost in as they try to access services. Obviously, if you are busy caring for somebody with a profound disability, trying to work out that maze of where you go to get things done and where you get support is time consuming and difficult. It is just an added stress that you really do not need. This report really is a starting point and an impetus for action and I really look forward to hearing our government’s response to that report.
The changes in this bill are the latest in a series of recent support initiatives that the Rudd government has already extended to carers. There was a one-off payment delivered in the 2008-09 budget of $1,000 to carer payment recipients and certain other pensioners with a caring role, and carer allowance recipients were paid $600 for each person cared for. We all know that the first stimulus package, the Economic Security Strategy, provided $1,400 to carer payment recipients and $1,000 to carer allowance recipients for each person cared for.
Even last night we had further support for carers announced in the budget, with the Treasurer announcing a significant measure to help and support Australian carers. The Treasurer last night described Australian carers as ‘the unsung heroes of our community’. In some way in the budget last night we acknowledged the financial difficulties and provided some additional support. The budget introduces a $600 a year carer supplement for all carer payment recipients, on top of the increase in their pension. Recipients of a carer allowance will also receive an additional $600 a year for each eligible person in their care. With this bill those eligible for carer payment (child) will now also receive both of these payments each and every year. I think that is fantastic support for those people who are really doing it tough.
In closing, I would like to say that this bill will mean that the number of carers caring for children with a disability entitled to this payment will rise from around 7,000 to an estimated 20,000. There are many people in my electorate of Franklin who will get support from this change in the legislation. I am pleased to support it. It shows the Rudd government is really serious about trying to provide some support for carers.
It is my pleasure to rise today to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This bill is aimed at making the lives of carers easier and goes some way towards acknowledging and recognising the integral role of carers who, because of their child’s disability or medical condition, commit themselves to the support of their child. The people who will benefit from this amendment are unable to maintain employment because the caring role they have is constant and continuous and therefore renders them unable to participate in most parts of the workforce. The individuals in this community who provide this type of care for their children have a role that is essentially the difference between life and death for their child. They often talk about the impact of their role on their lives. Parents in my electorate of Deakin have spoken about the highs and lows of caring for a disabled or seriously unwell child, especially the unremitting, exhausting nature of their responsibilities. My heart goes out in thanks to the many parents who find themselves in this situation.
I am proud of the added respect and recognition afforded to carers as demonstrated by this bill and other initiatives so far put in place by the Rudd Labor government. In 2008 the government paid a one-off $1,000 to all eligible carers and $600 for each person they cared for. Then, in late 2008, as part of the Economic Security Strategy, there was an additional $1,400 to carer payment recipients and generally $1,000 to carer allowance recipients for each person in their care. I know the extension of the utilities allowance to carer payment recipients, valued at $518 a year, was a welcome relief to those struggling with the bills that seem to be inundating us all. These payments came at a time when people were feeling the brunt of the rising cost of living and were having trouble making ends meet. I have had many letters from constituents in a caring role for which these payments made a huge difference to their daily lives.
This year’s budget has, through the secure and sustainable pension reforms, delivered increases to the carer payment of $32.49 a week for singles and over $10 a week combined for couples on the full rate. Further, the new annual supplement of $600 will be paid to recipients of the carer payment, carer allowance, DVA carer service pension and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs partner service pension and carer allowance. Carers who receive carer payments and carer allowance will receive at least two supplementary payments per year in addition to the increase in their pension. A single person who receives both the full-rate carer payment and carer allowance will get two supplementary payments totalling $1,200, plus an annual increase of $1,689, bringing additional permanent increases in this budget to $2,889 a year.
These reforms provide certainty for carers as the bonuses will now be legislated annual supplements and not subject to the whims of governments as they decide whether or not bonuses will be paid on an ad hoc basis from one year to the next. This guarantee is recognition of the need for carers to have certainty and better financial security. This improved support for carers bill before us today takes further the recognition of the caring role of parents whose children are disabled or suffer from a severe medical condition. It streamlines the process people must go through at a time that is already tremendously stressful. This recognition comes from the recommendation of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce, whose role was to analyse the operation of the carer support system.
The taskforce undertook an extensive consultation phase and received over 4,000 submissions. I would like to particularly thank the many people who took the time to respond to the government’s request for feedback. The sentiments expressed and articulated in the report mirror the concerns that I hear from carers when I speak to them in my electorate office or when they ring up and just need to have a talk.
Those concerns are so common. A short list of them includes the following. The care of the severely ill or disabled child means being on call for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Not only is the role of a carer an intensive one, but it also affects other relationships and family members. In many cases, it is all-consuming. People who are carers sometimes feel they are locked in their homes and hidden from view because the task is so great. They feel the lack of recognition, and some battle chronic grief and anger because of the role that they have taken up. Carers themselves often suffer lower levels of health and wellbeing whilst performing their task. Apart from the emotional aspect of the caring role, the taskforce also sought to examine the eligibility criteria and assessment processes for access to carer payments, and the complexity of the application process.
While there are two streams of carer payment, an adult stream and a child stream, the bill before us is related to the carer payment (child) segment of the social security legislation. In the past, there was an inflexible criterion for the qualification for carer payment (child). Eligibility is determined by the need for a person to care for a child with a profound disability or severe illness and is therefore unable to work. It is paid at the same rate as the age pension and is available to parents unable to participate in the workforce because of their caring role. By way of clarification, this payment is different to the carer allowance, which also recognises the role of carers. However, the carer allowance is an income supplement that is often paid in addition to the carer payment. It is also for people who have responsibility for the daily care and attention of a person with a disability or serious medical condition.
The substantive changes outlined in this bill are to be implemented from 1 July 2009, and it is just one of several measures recognising and dignifying carers with an improvement to the system under which they must qualify. This measure is part of a raft of measures that have formed the $822 million package from the 2008 federal budget to support and recognise carers. The previous rigid medical criteria used to assess eligibility for the carer payment will be replaced with a disability care load assessment (child). This assessment will employ a test comprising a questionnaire for the carer and the treating health practitioner, focusing on functional ability, behaviour and the special needs of the child or children with a disability or severe medical condition and the level of care provided by their carers.
This change focuses on what actually happens in the home and the work undertaken by the carer. This is recognition that the carer is the person who knows best about what their child needs, and it is in contrast to the previous concentration on rigid medical criteria. This change recognises the unique knowledge of the carer, whose role is focused on their child. This change is recognition of the complexity of this most intensive parenting role, which is unique to every family.
As a further response to the feedback from the report of the taskforce, the carer payment will now be available to people on a short-term or episodic basis. This element of the amendment relates to care of a child where the recipient has an episode expected to last between three months and six months. There is a recognition that, in these instances, parents may be unable to sustain full-time work whilst simultaneously providing the care needed by their child. This change is designed for times when a child is receiving medical treatment for conditions such as cancer, brain injury or a mental illness. It is during these periods of extreme stress that parents need a more flexible system of payments to see them through these tremendously difficult circumstances.
Another improvement to the carer payment (child) system is the elimination of the 63-day limit where a child is in hospital. This will be replaced by a more manageable 12-week review cycle, hence making it easier for parents to maintain their carer payment and care allowance whilst their child is in hospital. At this time, a family’s focus is rightly on their child’s wellbeing. The thought that parents were somehow expected to look for work or sustain employment while the child is in hospital does not recognise the central role of parents in their child’s life.
When carers come to see me in my electorate office they often highlight the onerous administrative burden before them as they struggle with all the emotional and physical challenges unique to the care of a disabled or very sick child. I am particularly pleased to see that the qualification for carer payment will now automatically render a person eligible for a carer allowance. This measure provides one less task for the carer and is intrinsically a cost-effective saving for the Centrelink system.
When a child is diagnosed with a terminal illness we need to limit the burden placed on families at this most difficult and stressful time. In the past the criteria for eligibility was the life expectancy of the particular child being assessed. Furthermore, there was a need for a clinician to certify that the child was not likely to live substantially longer than 12 months. This has been replaced with a simpler, less intrusive process that assesses the life expectancy of a child with the same or similar condition.
These new fairer sets of criteria that make up the amendment before us and that come from the recommendations of the report of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce are expected to make life easier, not just for the 7,000 or so parents who are currently on carer payments but also the 19,000 more carers whom the government estimates will have access to this payment. This change is one of many measures already introduced that recognises the unique role of carers in our community and their need for a safety-net payment. It moves away from rigid medical criteria toward recognition that the home where the child is being cared for should be the focus. It seeks to redress the onerous and overly rigid assessment processes that carers must undertake. These substantive changes will make life easier for those amazing individuals who take on the role of caring for their sick or disabled children. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise this evening to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. In these tough times we have to acknowledge the enormous contribution and sacrifice that carers make to our society and acknowledge that it is amplified by these times. In tough times the vulnerable often do it the toughest. In Australia we are most fortunate to have an army of carers and everyday heroes who dedicate their lives to caring for a loved one. This care is often extremely demanding, and the stories that many of my constituents have told me are often very moving. The value of carers to our society cannot be described in simple economic terms; it is a testament to the power of people’s love and compassion for one another. Caring is often the result of unconditional love and that love, by its nature, often involves great sacrifice on behalf of the carer. That is why the government is committed to this legislative response to the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce recommendations, and the bill before the House today will see many of these recommendations implemented in time for the new financial year. This review was commissioned by the previous government, and they are to be commended for doing so. We hope that all those opposite will endorse its findings and support this bill.
It is important to consider how the carer payment system currently works. At the moment, eligibility for the carer payment is determined by reference to a very strict criteria, including that the child cared for must meet the very restrictive legislative definition of a profoundly disabled child, the care provided must be constant and must be provided in a private residence in the home of the care receiver, and the carer must not be participating in employment or other specified activities for more than 25 hours a week. The effect of those restrictions often means that many carers can access only the carer allowance, which is used by some families as an income supplement but does not cover the real costs of caring for a disabled child. Strict criteria basically means excessive bureaucracy, excessive red tape, in people’s lives and it often means that many deserving people miss out, are overlooked or simply do not apply.
My office, like those of many MPs, has assisted many such people to get through the process. One of those was a lady named Chris who lives and works in my electorate. She cares for her severely intellectually and physically disabled child. Because of those administrative difficulties in the current system, she contacted my office to get assistance with Centrelink to ensure that she continued to get the carer payment for caring for her child with special needs. Centrelink had determined that her daughter’s hearing impairment had improved to the point that Chris no longer qualified for the carer payment, and with the assistance of my office she was able to go through the appeals process and get re-entitled to it. The fact that the system gave it to her, took it away from her and then gave it to her again only after a lot of toing and froing shows how the inflexibility and restrictiveness of the system puts people through a bureaucratic mill. I do not think that that is particularly fair or particularly reasonable or even particularly economically efficient.
These amendments will help mothers like Chris and will prevent these sorts of situations from occurring. The department estimates that around 19,000 more carers will have access to the carer payment from 1 July 2009. That is 19,000 people who are really deserving of these payments, who did not get them in the past because the previous assessment scheme was unfair, made peoples lives unnecessarily difficult and put them through the bureaucratic wringer. The bill before the House today changes all that. It puts in place a new and fairer set of criteria, which are much more similar to the carer payment (adult) criteria based on the care required, and reflect the functional ability of the care receiver rather than on rigid medical standards.
Another key recommendation of the review was in regard to access to the carer payment for short-term or episodic needs. Currently, both the carer payment (child) and the carer allowance (child) provide for situations where it is anticipated that the need for care will be ongoing. But, with life being difficult and complex and a bit of a mosaic, care is not always ongoing and the costs of care are not always constant. This bill designs a system of financial assistance to cope with emergencies that will prove invaluable to parents across the country. There will be much more generous arrangements for carers who have children in hospital, and the qualification rules for the tragic situation of people caring for children with terminal illnesses will also be relaxed. That is a very important thing. We do not want to make people’s lives any more difficult or stressful in those sorts of situations. We want to make the government a great help and great enabler so that people can assist their children when they are in hospital. There is nothing, I think, more distressing than a child in hospital.
Under this new system a person in receipt of a carer payment in respect of a child will also become automatically eligible for the carer allowance. Administration of these claims will be improved, with better claims processing and a capacity for the more complex claims to be handled by a claims assessment team. That is a really important thing. One of the constant complaints to my office about Centrelink is that people end up lost in a bureaucratic maze. Often the complexity of many of the forms and procedures of Centrelink can be somewhat confusing for members of parliament, so they could tend to be pretty confusing for citizens as well. Having a dedicated team to help people in this situation, to help get assessment quickly and efficiently, is a really good thing.
These changes, of course, come on the back of the government’s extended support last year for carers. In 2008 we provided $1,000 to carer payment recipients, and carer allowance recipients also received $600 for every person in their care. That was followed by the Economic Security Strategy that provided $1,400 for carer payment recipients and $1,000 for carer allowance recipients for each person cared for. There are, of course, the budget announcements on top of that. That is a really good record of the government for supporting carers and their children over the last 18 months.
Of course supporting carers and their children in their home environment is only one part of a policy that truly recognises the importance of carers. The government realises that supporting carers means providing infrastructure support for Australians with different needs and so has also set aside some $100 million for supported accommodation facilities. These facilities will be able to care for people whose ageing parents can no longer care for them at home. This issue was raised with me in Smithfield Plains. I had a concerned father talk to me at a street corner meeting. His No. 1 concern was that he was frightened about what would happen to his adult disabled child when he and his wife passed away. If people are prepared to get up early on a Saturday morning in winter to come and see a local political candidate about this issue, you know it is important to them; and it is important that their view and concern is presented in this parliament and in this bill. So I think these measures are a measure of this parliament’s commitment to supporting carers and their families. The bill includes $273 million worth of measures. That is just one part of the government’s plan—but a very important part of that plan.
We want to make sure that these reforms are passed by the parliament. They reflect the community’s expectation that we should have compassion and should support those people like Chris and like that father who came to see me on that cold winter morning. They do an amazing job, work very hard, keep smiling and do what all good parents do—which is to love their children unconditionally. This bill is about acknowledging that unconditional love and sacrifice in a small way by removing some of the unnecessary administrative injustices from the system. I commend the bill to the House.
I also am pleased to rise in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009, along with the many members who have spoken on this bill in the parliament today. As many have said, the primary purpose of this legislation is to broaden the eligibility criteria for access to the carer payment for people caring for disabled children. I am pleased with this change and I know that the emphasis for the new test which will be applied for eligibility will depend far more on the question of the level of care required by the child and not on the actual medical condition. I think this shift in policy is a good thing, not only at a practical level in terms of the numerous forms that parents are required to complete but also in terms of ensuring greater consistency between the test for eligibility for carers payment and the test for eligibility for carers allowance.
As the minister indicated in her second reading speech, only 7,000 children are presently being cared for by carer payment recipients; and yet we are aware that at least 113,549 carers are receiving the carer allowance. It is estimated that the bill will make carer payments available to another 19,000 carers of children with a disability. As at June 2008 in my electorate of Hasluck there were some 570 recipients of the carers payment and 2,355 recipients of the carers allowance. I trust that more carers will be eligible for those following the passage of this bill.
I must say that I am extremely fortunate to have terrific relationships with many carers and carer representatives in my electorate, especially Carol Franklin and her family, who are constituents of mine from Huntingdale. I first met her when I was doorknocking in the 2001 election campaign. Carol has given me an introduction to two wonderful organisations: firstly, CASA, which stands for Caring About Supported Accommodation—an organisation of the families of children with a disability who advocate for and support other families with disabled children—and, secondly, DDC, the Developmental Disability Council of Western Australia. They are terrific advocates for families who care for people with disabilities.
I, along with a number of other Western Australian politicians, also participate in something called the Politician Adoption Scheme in Western Australia. I have spoken of my adopted family, the Harris family, before in the House. My involvement with them gives me a unique and valuable insight into the day-to-day issues they confront with Lisa’s care. I was also privileged at one time to be the chief of staff to the Hon. Bob Kucera, who was the Western Australian Minister for Disability Services. That experience also gave me a unique and valuable insight into disability services in Western Australia and into the wonderful job undertaken by many carers. We were also fortunate to be involved in the establishment of the Western Australian carers council and to finally see them given a voice to directly advise government and also to advocate on behalf of carers in Western Australia.
One thing I have to say is that there have been numerous reports and inquiries into the issues affecting carers and those they care for. Indeed, the reform in this legislation was recommended by the Anthony Blunn task force report, Carer Payment (child)—a new approach: report of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce , which was released in 2008. Most recently—and I know other speakers have addressed this—the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth released its report on the inquiry into better support for carers, entitled Who Cares ...?: report on the inquiry into better support for carers . It is a good report and I commend the committee for their work. I support its recommendations, but I am sad to say that in many ways the report confirms what we already knew. Carers do it tough. Their health suffers more, both emotionally and physically, as they work 24/7 with the only end in sight sometimes being the death of the person they care for or, indeed, their own death. Many suffer great anxiety wondering what, if something happens to them, will happen to the person that they care for. Will they be adequately catered for? Will they have appropriate accommodation, support and care?
Carers are also under enormous financial stress. Carer payments and various disability subsidies are still, in my opinion, woefully inadequate and often misconceived. Carers are not the same as those who are, for example, unemployed or on Newstart. They perform a very different function in our society. Not only is their capacity to earn an income restricted during their lifetime of care, they also incur additional expenses to accommodate the disability or to provide higher quality care to the person with the disability. They are, frankly, at a lifelong disadvantage. Even if their care requirements ease, their education and careers are interrupted and they have no superannuation for the time spent caring. Not only that, many of them report that there are a multiplicity of services usually out there to assist them, services provided by all three levels of government—federal, state and local. They are community services, not-for-profit services and, of course, services in the private sector. Many of these services are insufficiently funded or have large lists of unmet needs in their local area, especially, I have to say, in the area of respite.
They tell me that sometimes the sheer number of agencies and different service eligibility requirements are in themselves a problem for tired and distressed carers to navigate. Some carers cry out for case managers or individual local-area coordinators to assist them with their myriad concerns. Others just seem to be concerned at the amount of money that so-called middlemen divert from limited and scarce funding in the disability services and care sectors. What we do know is that no two care situations are the same. There is no one solution that fits all. Carers want different types of support and respite, for some a weekend or a couple of months off, for others help with the housework or some sort of in-home care. I guess the one thing we still know and should often recognise is that we owe them a great debt.
The legislation before the House takes another small step towards easing the burden on and simplifying the system for carers. I know these amendments are being well received by carers. I was fortunate to have the Hon. Jenny Macklin in my electorate last month at a lovely afternoon tea where she met with a number of local carers and people from carer organisations, as well as representatives of the local council. Not only did these individuals get the chance to raise their issues directly with the minister; it was also an opportunity for the minister to give them some feedback on the steps being taken by the Rudd Labor government to address their concerns. I did say they raised a number of issues with the minister, but I am pleased to report that they certainly were very glad about the changes proposed in this legislation. I know that group of carers will also applaud the announcements regarding carers in last night’s budget. I can say that I was delighted.
There are some 500,000 carers across Australia and they will receive a new, permanent carer supplement to help them meet the significant financial challenges they face as part of the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform. Around 140,000 carers who receive a carer payment or a related income support payment will also receive pension increases as part of the budget reforms. It is well known that from 20 September 2009 there will be increases in the carer payment of $32.49 per week for singles on the full rate and $10.14 per week combined for couples on the full rate. The government will also provide carers with better financial security by replacing previous ad hoc bonuses with a legislated annual supplement. I believe that supplement payment will certainly assist and help carers manage their own financial circumstances and allow them to plan their household budgets and expenditures just a little bit more easily. The new supplement will also provide some 450,000 recipients of carer allowance with $600 for each person that they care for.
It is not only me surmising how well these payments were received. I mentioned my constituent Carol Franklin earlier in my address. Let me read an email I received this morning from Carol:
Hi Sharryn,
Great news for Carers and People with a disability in the Budget. Now we have to work on the 68 recommendations in the Better Support for Carers report. (HA!!! HA!!!)
Now you can congratulate your government in the fact that they included Carers and People with Disabilities in the Pension increases, they usually get forgotten.
Regards, Carol Franklin
The government’s secure and sustainable pension reform builds upon the government’s 2008 extension of the utilities allowance to carer payment recipients, now valued at $518 a year. It also builds upon the government’s reforms in this legislation to the carer payment which will, as I say, expand the payments for parents of children with severe disabilities from 1 July 2009. I congratulate the government on these small steps to provide better support for carers and I look forward to dealing with the recommendations from the House standing committee’s report. I commend the legislation to the House.
I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. This bill follows the report of the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce and it amends the criteria for assessment for carer payment in respect of a child to allow more Australians access to carer payments. It will take effect from 1 July 2009. This bill puts over $270 million in the pockets of Australian carers to support them when they need it most.
I would like to start by outlining the support that this government has provided to carers since being elected. Last year we announced one-off payments to the tune of $1,000 to carer payment recipients and others, along with $600 to eligible carer allowance recipients. In December 2008, as part of our first economic stimulus package, we delivered a further $1,400 to carer payment recipients and $1,000 to many carer allowance recipients. Aside from one-off payments, the Rudd government also committed $100 million for supported accommodation facilities for people with a disability, on top of $20 million for carers who have experienced a significant event involving a young child.
We saw in yesterday’s budget that we have further support for carers and for people with a disability. Yesterday, we announced some $9.3 million over four years for an additional 250 outside school hours care places for teenagers with a disability or serious medical condition. We also committed $3 million to the introduction of a new national disability parking permit scheme, on top of $1.8 million for a national companion card scheme for people with a disability and their carers.
As part of the budget, we announced that the new annual carer supplement of $600 will be paid to people who receive carer payment. This payment will be provided to around 450,000 recipients of carer allowance and an extra $600 for each person that they care for. This supplement is legislated, so it ends carers having to relay the largesse of governments at each budget time and hoping that there might be some one-off payment. This is a legislated carer payment supplement. That is an important difference from what happened previously.
Today we add to this support with the introduction of this bill. When the task force released their report late last year, entitled Carer payment (child): a new approach, they found that the qualification criteria for carer payment (child) were not reflective of the aim and purpose of the actual payment. The report found that the criteria for who was eligible for carer payments needed to be expanded. The report found that the current system was resulting in inequitable outcomes. This bill responds to these concerns. This bill changes the qualification criteria and assessment process to create a fairer system for carers of children with a profound disability.
This bill will deliver a new, fairer set of criteria to be applied in assessing eligibility for carer payment in respect of a child. The bill will introduce a system that will integrate the amount of care provided as an assessment measure. Qualification criteria will now be based on the level of care needed, not on the previously inflexible medical criteria. The bill will now provide a carer payment to all eligible carers providing support to a child with a profound disability. These are carers who do not currently receive carer benefits but who carry out a role as a carer.
This bill recognises those who previously were not acknowledged for their hard work in caring for others. The expansion of these criteria acknowledges the critical efforts of our carers. Under this bill, carers who are in receipt of carer payment (child) will now automatically receive a carers allowance. This bill will allow for carer payment (child) to be granted on a short-term or episodic basis. This has never previously been considered.
Administration of claims also needed improving. Under this bill, a new processing assessment claims team will be set up to specifically handle complicated claims. More careful assessment needs to be done on those complicated cases to take into account all of the circumstances facing families who care for a child with a profound disability or medical condition.
Many constituents in not only my electorate of Ballarat but all electorates across Australia are struggling to survive financially while caring for someone. These changes will direct dedicated funding to carers who simply cannot participate in paid employment because their role does not allow them to do so. Under this bill, qualification rules will also be relaxed where a person is caring for a child with a terminal illness. This will assist families when they are most in need. Finally, this bill will deliver improved arrangements for carers of children in a hospital. Carers will be entitled to their carer payment and allowance while the child is in hospital. This package of changes will create some ease for families who are, I have to say, in absolutely desperate circumstances. I am very pleased to be here to add my support to this bill.
In October 2008, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released data that there are 2.5 million Australians who report caring for someone at home because of a disability or old age. Of this 2.5 million, many are combining their caring responsibilities with raising children. When we look at the rate of people who receive a carer payment or a carer allowance it is well below that 2.5 million figure reported in the ABS statistics. At the moment, there are around 7,000 current recipients of carer payment (child) but with the changes it is estimated that an additional 19,000 payments of this kind will be delivered to carers.
This bill is working to ensure that the hard work of all carers is recognised. With a focus on the level of care provided, those requiring this financial assistance the most will now be eligible to receive payments. The level of care aspect will highlight functional ability, behaviour and special care needs rather than stringent technical, medical criteria that have seen many families in absolute desperate circumstances unable to access the carer payment under the previous system. A medical diagnosis does not always reflect what is involved in each particular situation. That is why we have made these changes, to accommodate for situations that do not fit the standard mould. The people benefiting from these changes are people who cannot work and who cannot earn an income to support their family because of their caring role.
These are families who are challenged by the additional needs of disability, medical conditions and illness and who need this extra assistance to help cope with the financial and emotional strain they are faced with. These changes are for people who spend their lives caring for others, often under difficult and unpredictable circumstances. Carer payments are a safety net for these families and these children with a profound disability or medical condition. Their parents, families and carers cannot go out and seek secure paid employment to support them; they are at home caring for them.
The new assessment, established through a legislative instrument entitled the Disability Care Load Assessment (Child), will improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of assessments. This will occur particularly in complex cases where there are multiple carers for a care receiver and where there is care required for an adult with a disability at the same time as for a child with a disability.
We know that many carers are doing it tough and that is why Labor have introduced a number of measures under this budget and the previous budget to assist carers. This amending legislation will address the difficulties faced by many families to meet the day-to-day needs of caring for a child with a profound disability or a medical condition. Basing the eligibility criteria for caring for a child on the level of care provided will result in a fairer assessment of the role that a carer possesses and demonstrates. The role of caring for a child with a profound disability or a medical condition is one that requires great strength. The last thing that many parents need is to have to argue their case, when it is absolutely bleedingly obvious why they should be receiving a carer payment, when they should be spending all their energy and time and, in fact, are not only expending all their energy and time in caring for their child but also trying to access—and at times very difficult to access—much-needed disability services. With the introduction of this bill we will help carers and their families to overcome the extra challenges they are faced with, not to mention applauding them for their effort and support.
Carer payments being granted on a short-term or episodic basis will acknowledge illnesses, such as cancer that is non-terminal or unpredictable, brain injury and mental health conditions. Mental health is an issue that is clearly evident in Australia and must be more fully integrated into our social security system. It affects more and more people in our country every day. With this bill we are recognising that mental health conditions are serious and must be incorporated into the welfare system. This amending legislation will also take into consideration severe circumstances which are not necessarily long term but which profoundly affect a family.
I have had the privilege of speaking to carers and carers groups across my electorate and they have shared their personal experiences with me. In fact, I will be addressing a new carers group established in the town of Creswick next week and, in advance, can I congratulate Mary Loyer on what is a terrific initiative in her local community, where she has seen a need for carers to not only join together to support each other but also provide much needed advocacy for services and access to services in their local area.
Carers really are amazing people and selflessly spend their days supporting others. This government recognises this. That is why I am here to offer my support for this bill and I urge those members opposite to do the same. The Rudd government knows how important this amending legislation is to the families it will affect, and we cannot continue to watch them struggle the way that they are. It is often a very desperate struggle. I commend this bill to the House.
I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009, which will make life better for one of the most invisible and marginalised groups in Australia today. I speak of parents who are living a life devoted to the care of a child, or in some cases children, with a severe or profound disability. These people perform irreplaceable and largely unsung work, work which comes at a financial and emotional cost that those who are not doing it are unable to understand.
This bill, led by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, will make long overdue changes to make it easier for these parents to get the financial support that they deserve and remove some of the worst features of the bureaucratic maze that confronts parents of children with disabilities.
For those who have a child diagnosed with a disability or whose child suffers an accident or illness, there is often a period similar to grief—a kind of mourning for what might have been. However, this period is joined with and followed by love and acceptance and the desire to do whatever it takes to make their child’s life as painless and as fulfilling as possible. These children are loved as other children are loved. But the sacrifices that are demanded of their parents and the pressures placed upon them are greater than those placed on other parents. Their lives are not their own. Each hour of sleep can be interrupted by the deeply-rooted instinct to help, and the vigilance and attention needs to be constant. Every day can bring a new crisis or new joy, and every change in their child’s situation—from starting school to leaving school—brings a new set of challenges. As well as dealing with their child’s condition, they deal with the community’s lack of understanding of disability and with the sense of internal exile that our nation places upon people with a disability or their carers in too many circumstances. They have to deal with the mix of unease and pity that is a common reaction from those who are strangers yet fellow members of the same community.
It is a common and slightly patronising reaction to describe the parents of children with disability or carers generally as saints or to say, ‘I don’t know how they do it.’ Whilst I understand that reaction, I wish to state that these parents—as they explained to me—are not saints. They are ordinary people with ordinary people’s flaws and limitations. But they are doing the DNA-hardwired mission of loving and caring for their loved one. They are carers because that is what they know they should be. A carer is a parent, a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a brother, a sister. A carer is any one of us. Anyone in the disabilities sector is aware of the efforts involved in making sure children with disability get a fair go and also of the sad toll it can take upon families and marriages.
In general, carers are poorer simply because they have greater expenses and fewer opportunities to earn money. This is despite the fact that many parents with adult children are required to earn enough money for two lifetimes instead of one. For many, the task of caring for their child does not get easier as the child gets older. The gradual gaining of independence does not happen and the child remains dependent on an ageing parent or parents into their adulthood. The bill we are debating today will make it easier for parents who need and deserve our support to care for children with profound disabilities. The carers payment is designed for parents who are unable to work due to their responsibilities as a carer. It is a payment that is a recognition of the difficulties that they face and the unpaid work they do to support their child.
However, the system we inherited from the previous government was too harsh, too rigid and simply too unfair in its assessments. It used a narrow set of medical criteria which left many deserving carers without access to the payment. The plight of these carers was revealed by the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce, which received 4,000 submissions on the payment. In one of the most extreme cases, a child diagnosed with severe multiple disabilities likely to be life long—unable to sit or walk without support, unable to feed himself and suffering hearing loss—was found to be ineligible for the payment because he met only one of the three required criteria. In another case, the parents of a child who was deaf, blind and unable to use his hands or legs were denied access to the payment. Such judgments go against common sense and common humanity. They are a kick in the teeth for parents who are coping day to day.
At the heart of our changes will be a new, fairer and less restrictive assessment process based on the level of care required, and the level provided by the carer, rather than a strict medical definition of ‘profoundly disabled’. Instead of having to meet complex medical criteria, access to the carer payment (child) will depend on how much care is needed by the child. In another change, any parent who qualifies for a carer payment will also automatically qualify for the carer allowance, which is an income supplement paid to people who care for an adult or a child with a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability. This will limit the amount of assessments families will need to get through in order to get the payments that they deserve.
In another reform, parents with a child in hospital will be eligible for the payment regardless of how long the child remains in hospital. This recognises a simple human truth—that having a child in hospital is not a holiday. Parents do not stop being carers when their children go to hospital and, in many cases, their workload and stress increases. Under our changes, parents will not be disadvantaged by sitting by a hospital bed and providing support for their sick children. The Rudd government has a strong record of support for carers, which has continued with the announcement of the rise in the carer payment in this year’s budget and the announcement of the $600 per year carer supplement.
I am proud that we have recognised the sacrifices that carers make. I do not pretend that the challenges for carers will cease with this legislation but I do believe that the work done by Minister Macklin—and, indeed, by the member for Canberra in her committee work, which has helped inform much of the debate about carers in the current parliament—recognises the efforts that carers make. Carers cop it, and cop it sweet, more than almost anyone in the Australian community. Somehow they cop it invisibly; unheralded and unsung. They are the ones we never see, or never see separately from their charge—the loved one who has become nearly always by accident, by an unplanned shaft of fate, their cause and reason for being. They get no medals or monuments.
People with disability in Australia and their carers do deserve a better go and I believe this bill, along with a range of other measures that the Rudd government is putting in place, is trying to remedy the longstanding disadvantage that people with disability and their carers have experienced in Australian society. The fact that carers get no medals or monuments is a fact of life, but if there was a George Cross that we could award them, they would get it. If there was an honorary Olympic gold medal for love beyond love, and beyond the call of duty, carers would get it. That is what we should also do, perhaps, along with this bill.
I too rise to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Improved Support for Carers) Bill 2009. I do so for two reasons. Firstly, I wish to acknowledge and thank both the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services—who has just spoken on this bill—for their effort in bringing a much fairer deal for carers throughout Australia. I was just listening to the parliamentary secretary, and I have also spoken with him on other occasions in respect to this very issue, and I have to say that there is no question in my mind as to his sincerity and commitment towards supporting carers throughout Australia. I think that was eloquently reflected in his closing remarks.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge my personal appreciation and admiration for carers throughout the country. I say that having now spent several years being associated with carers, in different capacities, across a whole range of fronts. What I see them do, and what they have to endure day in and day out, is truly amazing. I do not wish to repeat the accolades just made by the parliamentary secretary but I certainly endorse the remarks he made about them. What he said is absolutely true.
I want to make another couple of points in respect of this bill. Firstly, the bill arose from a review by the Carer Payment (child) Review Taskforce, under Anthony Blunn, which was instigated by the previous government in March 2007. The Rudd government has looked at that review and has certainly accepted that carers need to be given a greater level of support. There is a secondary aspect to it, which is changing the focus of the definition of a carer. With respect to this, the qualification criteria for carer payment under this bill are, I believe, a lot fairer when it comes to whether or not a person is considered a carer. The qualification criteria will now be based on the level of care required rather than on rigid medical criteria. This has quite often been the subject of grievances in a whole range of cases where strict medical criteria are applied, whether it is to do with carers or in other medical situations where government support is provided.
The carer payment for a child can also now be accessed on a short-term or episodic basis. Again, this is something that needed to be changed and, I am pleased to see, is being changed. The bill contains more generous arrangements for carers of children who are in hospital. Carers can keep their carer payment or carer allowance while the child is in hospital. I heard the parliamentary secretary make reference to that very issue and he quite rightly makes the point that caring does not stop just because a person is in hospital, where they are getting additional care from the hospital that they are in. There will be a relaxation of qualification rules for a person caring for a child with a terminal illness. It is heartbreaking enough to be with a child who has a terminal illness without having to put up with bureaucratic red tape as to what your entitlements should or should not be. I also see that a person receiving the carer payment for a child will now automatically be eligible for a carer allowance. These are all necessary changes and I certainly welcome them.
I want to make an additional point with respect to carers. One thing that is not recognised well enough is that many of the carers within our community are what you would call ‘young carers’—people who themselves are only children. The latest available statistics suggest that one in six carers throughout the country is under 18 years of age. In my state of South Australia, there are some 14,800 carers under the age of 18. Another statistic is that 10,200 of them are under 15 years. Perhaps the most concerning statistic of all is that 600 of them are under nine years of age. These are children who are caring for other family members. I have been to some of these children’s homes and seen the level of care they have to provide to one of, and in some cases both, their parents. It is incredible to think that in a country like Australia we have nine-year-olds taking on such a huge responsibility. I am sure that they do it because they love their parents; nevertheless I think it is a somewhat sad reflection on our society that that level of responsibility has been placed on such young people.
The additional concern that arises from that is that only about four per cent of young carers aged between 15 and 25 are in some form of education. That compares with a figure of some 23 per cent for non-carers. This highlights that, whilst these young people are in fact caring for a parent, or maybe both parents, they are missing out on their own education. Essentially, they are missing out on preparing a future for their own lives.
I will make two other points with respect to this bill. The first is that, about two months ago, the parliamentary secretary came to my electorate of Makin and, with me, visited a number of high schools where there were children with disabilities. We visited Golden Grove High School, Tyndale high school and Modbury Special School. We also held a forum, which people with disabilities from all over the region came to. The thing that struck me was this: when you see people with a disability you start to empathise with their disability in a way that you could not if you had not heard their personal stories.
But what is often neglected and forgotten is that, along with those people with disabilities, there is at least one family member, and sometimes more, who is equally in a situation where their own life has to be drastically changed because of their total commitment to the person with a disability. So for every person with a disability someone else’s life is quite often equally affected, and affected 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And so you start to appreciate and understand exactly what it must be like to be a carer.
Only last week I visited Ross Smith Secondary School because at the forum there were a number of students in wheelchairs who studied there. I promised them I would visit them in their classrooms at the school, and so I did. While I was there speaking with the children—these are children in their teens—I also got to see firsthand the carers who are based at the school and the work that they do to support and assist these young people in wheelchairs. All I can say is that I have the utmost admiration for them, having seen what they do for them not only in the learning environment but also in supporting them in every other facet of their life, whether it is feeding them, helping them with their recreation or washing and bathing them and so on. You start to understand these people need this kind of care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Who is doing it in most cases? A family member or, when they are at school, one of the carers. So you start to truly appreciate why we as a society need to do a lot more to support carers throughout our community and why measures such as these are so welcome.
The other matter I want to raise also relates to the plight of carers. Some six months ago a young lady by the name of Allison Dix came to see me in my electorate office. Allison is a mum of a couple of children who have autism. She came to see me because she too was in a situation where she had to care for her children 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But she was not concerned about herself; she was concerned about so many other parents who were in a similar situation to hers, who had to go through all of the experiences that she had to go through. She wanted to do something about personally reaching out and helping the other parents who found themselves in a similar situation to hers. Off her own bat she formed a group called the Rainbow Land Playtime Group. They went to the local council at Tea Tree Gully and found a community facility, the Sunnybrook Community House, and set up a playgroup where other parents of children with autism could come along and at least there would be a shared sense of understanding of what they were going through, but more importantly it would be some recreation and an escape for a few hours each week for those parents. Again this is a classic example of the admiration I have for carers. Here is a carer who has her own children to care for, but she is just as concerned about other parents in a similar situation. It is people like her who deserve the support of this parliament and our community broadly. That is all I wanted to say on this matter. I reiterate that I raise it purely to highlight my respect for carers. I also want to thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary for their work in taking the government a step forward in assisting carers throughout Australia. I commend this bill to the House.
First of all I thank all of the members for their contributions to what is a very important debate, and an area where I think across the parliament we have a shared view about providing increased support to carers. As all members would know, last night the Treasurer announced the government’s secure and sustainable pension reform to deliver a simpler, fairer and sustainable pension system to prepare Australia for the future, and making sure that we provide security and certainty to carers is central to our reform agenda.
As we have just heard, every day of their lives carers make sacrifices looking after the people that they love. The contribution that they make to the individuals and to the community is invaluable. Recognising that carers often live under significant financial pressure, this budget, which was delivered just last night, delivers pension increases for carer payment recipients as part of our reform package. It also delivers a new permanent carer supplement to replace the ad hoc one-off payments of the past. The carer’s supplement of $600 will be paid every year to carers receiving the carer payment, with an additional $600 a year for carer allowance recipients for each eligible person in their care. The existing child disability assistance payment of $1,000 a year for carers who are paid Carer Allowance (child) will continue. These significant benefits build on the government’s reform of what can only be described as a very restrictive eligibility requirement for Carer Payment (child), and it is all about making those arrangements fairer. Over the years, carers looking after children with severe disability or medical conditions have endured overly complex and restrictive eligibility criteria, denying many of them appropriate financial support.
The bill that we are finalising here in the House tonight delivers on our commitment to replace the narrow set of medical and behavioural criteria that are currently imposed on families seeking support through Carer Payment (child) with requirements based on how much care each child needs. The new measures contained in this bill are part of an $822 million package from the 2008 budget to support and recognise carers. This bill is the government’s legislative commitment following the report of the task force for the Carer Payment (child) Review, which found that the restrictive and overly rigid assessment process created inequitable outcomes.
Carer payment is an income support payment for carers who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves through substantial participation in the workforce. Due to the narrow set of medical and behavioural criteria that have existed up until now, the payment is currently received by around 7,400 carers of children with a severe disability. The amendments, which will hopefully go through the parliament very soon, will deliver a new, fairer set of qualification criteria for carer payment, meaning that an estimated 19,000 more carers will have access to the carer payment from 1 July 2009. The new assessment will be known as the Disability Care Load Assessment (child) and it will improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of assessments even in complex cases. These could include circumstances where children have multiple carers, where carers have multiple care receivers and where care is required for an adult with a disability at the same time as a child with disability.
Administration procedures will also be improved with better claims processing and the capacity for more complex claims to be handled by a dedicated complex claims assessment team. The Disability Care Load Assessment (child) will be established by a legislative instrument. The instrument will allow a test, comprising a carer questionnaire, and a treating health practitioner questionnaire, which will be used to assess the functional ability, behaviour and special care needs of children under 16, and the level of care provided by their carers. It will also include the assessment of eligibility for carer payment across a wide range of household situations, including where there is more than one child or more than one carer. The test will provide a method for determining a qualifying rating for the carer based on the level of care associated with caring for a child or children with severe disability or a severe medical condition.
The draft of this legislative instrument has been provided to stakeholders, who have in turn provided feedback which is now being considered by my department. As a result of this legislation, there will be access to carer payment paid on a short-term or episodic basis for the first time. Episodic care will cover care required for recurring conditions where the care recipient is aged under 16 years and where each episode is expected to last at least three months but less than six months. This could, for example, include treatments for medical conditions such as cancer, brain injury or mental illness. Short-term care will apply if the care recipient is aged under 16 years and has a condition that is expected to be short term—at least three months and less than six months—from a one-off incident. For example, an accident, a serious illness or a surgical intervention may mean a child needs constant care over the short term. Some short and intensive treatments for childhood cancer may also fall into this category.
We are also providing more generous arrangements for carers of children who are in hospital so that carers can keep their carer payment and, if payable, their carer allowance. Currently, the limit on payment in these circumstances is 63 days in a calendar year. This will be replaced by a 12-week review cycle. The qualification rules will also be relaxed in the tragic circumstances where a person is caring for a child with a terminal illness. The current criteria require a medical professional to certify that the child has a terminal condition and will not live for substantially longer than 12 months. This will be replaced by a more sensitive and less intrusive approach that assesses the average life expectancy for a child with the same or similar condition.
The bill also amends some of the carer allowance provisions in the social security law. The carer allowance is an income supplement for people who provide daily, at-home care and attention for an adult or child who has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability that is permanent and likely to affect the person for an extended period. Carer allowance is not means tested and may be paid in addition to an income support payment. The person in receipt of carer payment (child) will become automatically eligible for carer allowance.
The measures contained in this bill reflect the government’s determination to support carers in the most demanding and difficult circumstances—caring for a child with a severe disability or a severe medical condition. I commend the bill to the House and very much look forward to seeing this legislation implemented very shortly.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Mr Garrett:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009 addresses four issues which flow on from the work which the coalition did whilst in government in laying down the original legislation, the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. Those four issues relate not only to our independence and fuel security but also to the quality of our air and our environment. The first is about fuel security and independence. The original act which we put in place, the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000, contained measures which would ensure that we were able to make rapid decisions in times of shortfall to improve, protect and enhance the flow of vital fuel to Australia. Secondly, it was also about local air quality. Local air quality is about the quality of fuel, the particulate emissions and the impact on people if they have heavy transport or light transport near where they live. Thirdly, it is about energy efficiency and the quality of our fuels in delivering more efficient vehicles—the way in which that fits in with more efficient engines. Fourthly, it is about broader emissions and the contribution of that to Australia’s overall emissions profile.
At that time, we introduced a bill which became the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000. In 2005 we completed an independent inquiry. That inquiry made a series of recommendations. This bill, at this time, implements the coalition’s recommendations in relation to what was originally the coalition’s bill. It was a bill about Australia’s energy independence, Australia’s automotive and transport security and, in particular, the quality of our air and environment. Against that background we are very happy to see the recommendations which were tendered during the latter period of our time in government being brought forward and we are happy to offer our support.
Essentially the background is this. The Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill standardises the quality and improvements of fuel being distributed in Australia in order to regulate fuel quality for environmental improvement, adoption of better engine and emission control technologies and more effective engine operation. In particular, though, the bill also puts in place a furtherance of those measures which were established in 2000 to allow for emergency fuel supplies to be expedited where there is a blockage of flow or a breakdown in Australia’s fuel and energy security. That is a good thing. We proposed it and we endorse it. We wish it had come in somewhat earlier in the life of the government but we will not be critical of that.
Our record is exceptionally strong in this space. The Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 was introduced by the previous government and passed by the previous government. It was a quite profound change in the approvals process for developing national standards, improving our energy efficiency, improving the particular quality of our fuels and improving the way in which they operated, and therefore it had a real impact on the quality of life of those people, our energy efficiency and our independence as a country. That is a pretty good background. Against that, today fuel quality standards are determined under the act, with reference to the Fuel Standard (Petrol) Determination 2001, the Fuel Standard (Automotive Diesel) Determination 2001, the Fuel Standard (Biodiesel) Determination 2003 and the Fuel Standard (Autogas) Determination 2003. All of these set down a mixture of both standards and labelling so that there is clear, evident and obvious consumer choice. Those things are positive elements in the step forward to provide consumers with as broad a range of fuel options as possible and as safe and environmentally sound fuel options as possible.
Whilst the coalition supports the amendments contained within the bill—which are amendments to an act which was originally proposed, propounded and developed by us—we note that the emergency provisions are desirable, if not somewhat overdue. A year and a half into the life of the new government, we see what was ready to be implemented immediately prior to the election finally being brought forward. Having said that, for all the above reasons we support the bill. However, I note that this bill comes at a time of a broader debate. The political debate is also about consumers, fuel and pricing. We saw last night in the budget papers a confirmation that consumers would be hit with a new tax on petrol under the government’s proposed emissions trading scheme. That new tax will reach into the pocket of every consumer in Australia and will be a new petrol tax.
It is very interesting to put this proposition to members of the government because there is a certain denial. What they do is say that it will be reviewed. But the budget papers are predicting the adoption of a fuel tax, an additional, new, over-and-above-that-which-is-in-place fuel tax after the new scheme has begun. That is something which has been kept largely from the knowledge of the Australian public. It is another little sleight of hand—there will be a new petrol tax but not until after the next election. That is a very important thing to understand. Whilst we endorse the measures in this bill and think that they take forward that which we supported in government and that which is desirable for air quality, for energy efficiency and for fuel security in Australia, we note that there is a deep concern about a new petrol tax which will come, but only after the next election. With that reservation I wholeheartedly support the bill.
I rise to support the Fuel Quality Standards Amendment Bill 2009 as has the opposition spokesman before me. I say at the outset that I think he is being just a little bit disingenuous in his concern that the government have waited 18 months to bring this legislation before the House, given that the review which formed the foundation of this legislation was delivered to the former government more than two years before the last election. In two years they had not done anything, but they are having a shot at us for taking 18 months to get around to what is one of many things to do in a rather packed legislative program that we came to government hoping to pursue, some of which has been, of course, hijacked by matters that have occurred elsewhere in the world and the requirements of having to deal with those. The next review of this act is due to commence this year. I would hope that our government would not wait two years before acting on any of the recommendations that may come through from that review.
This bill, which of course will be important to people watching its passage through the House, of itself should not impact in any way on fuel prices. The impact on fuel prices from the introduction of fuel standards would already have appeared as a result of those standards, which commenced in 2002. I am sure that many of us understand that some of the increases relative to the price of unleaded petrol that occurred with diesel arose as a result of the need to reduce the sulphur in the emissions from diesel, therefore reducing the sulphur content of the fuel itself.
In relation to emissions trading that the shadow minister discussed in relation to this bill, I am confident that the majority of Australians—and certainly all the polling that has been undertaken in the last eight or 10 months shows that—actually understand the need for emissions trading. They understand the need for us to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They understand that there will be costs associated with that and they also understand that our government is telling them truthfully that there will be measures to help offset additional costs for family budgets. I do not believe that, in the context of the debate today, we should have been mentioning emissions trading, but if the shadow minister wants to bring it into the debate I am quite happy to offer him an alternative view.
I think that the introduction of this legislation by the former government was a very good thing. If we are talking about sulphur content in diesel fuels we are looking at a really good example of how people can change their activities to change their environment. Those of us who remember the tragedies of acid rain will understand that in the last couple of decades we have removed sulphur emissions from so many of the smoke stacks and exhaust pipes of vehicles that acid rain is no longer a problem. I believe that we can continue along the lines of removing from emissions what we need to take for the benefit of the world.
Particularly in cities, where there are large numbers of motor cars—for example in Los Angeles—we frequently see the exhaust fumes creating a sort of air of their own. Anything we can do to reduce particulates in the air and to reduce those emissions is going to have a great deal of health benefit for our community. Such reductions are something that, I believe, have been brought about as a consequence of this legislation. Better engine efficiency leads to lower transport costs for households, and that particular advantage is one that is quite welcome.
The main objects of the 2000 act—the reduction of the level of pollutants and emissions, the adoption of better engine technology and emission control technology and allowing for the more effective operation of engines—have really come through. There were, of course, a number of exemptions which could be applied, some of which we are changing in this amendment bill today. The minister had capacity to make some exemptions—generally with reference to the Fuel Standards Consultative Committee, which is a reasonably broadly based group of people covering the interests of most of the groups involved—and we are going to expand that capacity in this legislation here before us today.
For example, as also mentioned by the shadow minister, the minister has the ability to act when there is a necessity to avoid an impending shortfall in supply of fuel. So we can do that. But there are some other very interesting circumstances in which there some changes can be made and those go to the end use of the product. For example, whilst this legislation was not, essentially, set up to capture leaded fuels used in aircraft, they do not fit into the standards that exist. These amendments will allow the end use of the fuel to be taken into consideration when establishing the standard for that fuel. That would also apply, I guess, to biodiesels or other fuels.
While I talk about biodiesel for a moment, I should mention the unfortunate situation that is occurring in my own electorate, where a company which has overproduced biodiesel from a tallow source—a secondary source not in competition with food—is unable to sell what it has produced. It has a stockpile which it needs to get rid of and, in consequence, has ceased production, with the loss of, I think, seven jobs.
This bill is not going to affect that. But it would be really nice if we could, as a group of people, work towards a situation where biodiesel, for example, was considered as a much better proposition by the consumers of diesel products. I note that our own Moreton Bay Regional Council is using biodiesel in its yellow fleet but not in its road transport fleet—for example, the bulldozers and the graders are using biodiesel, but not the utilities. It would be nice if that could come through.
I am mindful of the time and the fact that there are places that people need to be this evening, given the circumstances of the last couple of days. I think I will restrict my remarks to that. These amendments all make sense. They all improve what was a good idea in the first instance, and I am sure that a future review will enable further amendments to be made to make this act more responsive to the circumstances of the future. I commend the bill to the House.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.