Mr Speaker, on indulgence, as members of the House would by now know, overnight in Afghanistan we lost an Australian commando, Sergeant Brett Wood. On another occasion we will have a formal condolence motion for Sergeant Wood, but it does seem appropriate, as the House sits today, to say a few words about him and also about his brothers who were injured. Overnight, we have had five Australian soldiers injured—two in the same incident in which Sergeant Wood lost his life, three in a separate engagement. This is a very tough day for our nation. As we speak, our soldiers continue in action, so there is a limit to what can be said about the operational circumstances in which Sergeant Wood was killed and in which other soldiers were injured. But nothing stops us paying tribute to Sergeant Wood in this place today.
Sergeant Wood was a 15-year veteran of our army. He was a genuine professional. He had been deployed overseas on a number of occasions—in Bougainville, in East Timor, in Iraq and on more than one occasion in Afghanistan. Sergeant Wood was a decorated man. He had won the Medal for Gallantry in action in Afghanistan. The Chief of the Defence Force today described him as a magnificent soldier, an inspirational leader with incredible operational experience. Sergeant Wood was a son and a husband, and our heart goes out today to his family, who would be grieving and still very much trying to absorb this devastating news. I am sure that our thoughts will be with them today and will continue to be with them.
With the five soldiers who are wounded, our thoughts are with them as we trust that they make a full recovery. Two of them are described as seriously ill. For their families this is a dreadful time of waiting and uncertainty. Of course our thoughts are with those families as well.
As I said earlier today, on days like this there can be some members of our nation who despair and who wonder at the losses in Afghanistan and the brutal nature of the engagement there. To those Australians who perhaps today might be despairing about our deployment in Afghanistan, I reaffirm that we are making progress, that it is difficult. But through the eyes of those who have regularly gone to Afghanistan—for example, Ben Roberts-Smith, our most recent VC winner—there can be no doubt: we are making progress. We make that progress because of the sacrifice and dedication of people like Sergeant Wood.
Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I rise to support the remarks of the Prime Minister. Australia has lost another fine soldier in Sergeant Brett Wood, who is the 24th Australian to be killed in action in Afghanistan. We remember him. We also think of the five others wounded on the same day. What we have is yet another reminder of the risks our soldiers run on our behalf, the tragedy that can befall our country's servants carrying out the decisions of this government and this parliament, and the high price that some people pay for our freedom and for our security. Like the Prime Minister, I reiterate my conviction that this is anything but a pointless death in a pointless war. Our soldiers are there to protect the Afghan people from religiously inspired barbarism, to help the Afghan state and the Afghan Army to ultimately protect themselves, to contribute to the stability of the region, and as far as we can to make the world safe from Islamic terrorism. This is the cause for which Sergeant Wood has given his life. This is the cause which our military are doing their best to uphold in Afghanistan. We salute Sergeant Wood and we extend our condolences to his family and to his comrades.
As a mark of respect to the memory of Sergeant Wood and to support the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
I thank the House.
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his comments just last Friday on ABC Radio regarding the Western Australian government's plan to lift royalties on iron ore fines when he said:
… Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us … what Mr Barnett has done here is just very strange. He didn't communicate with us … He didn't get our tick. He didn't discuss it with us.
Does the Treasurer stand by his own words?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question, because we have had a humiliating backdown from the Western Australian Premier today—he has been forced to admit that he knew that if he took this decision to increase royalties then it would be withdrawn by the independent Grants Commission. He has finally admitted that today. He has also put some correspondence in circulation which goes back almost 13 months—13 months ago he did raise the question of fines but in the 13 months since then he has not discussed the matter with me. It is a matter he has not discussed, but he did put that in a letter—no doubt about that. But he did not say that he was moving to put it in that budget then or in a subsequent budget, because he made that announcement before the budget before last.
So what the Western Australian Premier has conceded today is that he went ahead with a royalty increase knowing that that would most probably result in less revenue for the people of Western Australia. And what that demonstrates is that he is all about politics, not about the benefit to Western Australians, not about investing in infrastructure in Western Australia. So the Western Australian Premier has kicked an own goal. He has increased his royalties but the money is going to be withdrawn, as he knew—as he indicated in that letter—it would be withdrawn. The proof of all of this is an article by Michael Pascoe that appeared in the press on the weekend. He talks about going to Western Australia about a year ago and he says he was talking to Norman Moore, the longest serving MP in that government, and Mr Moore looked him straight in the eye and said to him there was little point lifting royalties as the Commonwealth Grants Commission process would immediately take the revenue away. So the whole time they knew that if they lifted their royalties it would be withdrawn by the independent Grants Commission. They knew that and despite that they went ahead and lifted royalties in this budget—not in the budget before this, not one year ago. So he knew, as is shown by correspondence that was sent in his own name to the Treasury.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order that goes to relevance: I ask the Treasurer whether he stands by his own words.
The Treasurer will directly relate his remarks to the question.
I certainly do; I do stand by what I have said about this matter. The fact is this: the Western Australian Premier has kicked an own goal. He has increased his royalties knowing that they would be withdrawn, knowing that was the case, having mentioned that in correspondence and having had his ministers going around telling journalists that that would be the case—and he did not proceed in the budget before last. But suddenly out of the blue he comes forward last week and increases his royalties and then goes out and pretends that that revenue would not be withdrawn despite having admitted that in correspondence and despite having his ministers travel around telling journalists it would be withdrawn—despite all of that.
This is the Premier of Western Australia who this time last year was claiming that mining companies were being taxed too heavily. And, of course, what does he do this year? He increases the taxation of mining companies and he does it in such a way that it makes it difficult for further investment to take place in infrastructure in Western Australia. So what we have is an own goal from the Western Australian Premier and he is also carrying on about this because he knows his budget figures are bodgy, based on exchange rate assumptions which mean that his budget figures are wrong—not just this year but for the rest of the forward estimates.
My question is to the Prime Minister. How is the government investing to deliver more jobs, more apprentices and more skills for the Australian workforce and how will the budget keep our economy strong?
I thank the member for Deakin for his question, and, of course, the member for Deakin comes to this place with a good knowledge about what it is like to get a trade education, having been an electrician before he came into this parliament. The budget was about jobs and opportunities and making sure that Australians can fairly share the opportunities that a strong economy brings, particularly that they can have access to the skills they need in the workforce of today to get ahead. We want Australians to be able to have the benefits of work and we want Australians to be able to have the benefits of opportunity, and that means that people need to be able to get access to the education opportunities which will transform their life chances. Yesterday I spoke about the transformation that is happening in Australian universities as more people get the benefit of a university education and more of those students come from poorer backgrounds and from rural and regional areas.
The budget is about jobs. It is about creating half a million jobs in the next couple of years on top of the 750,000 jobs created under this government to date. And it means that our unemployment rate will fall to 4.5 per cent. We know that our economy will be running near full capacity and that means that it will be hungry for infrastructure, hungry for working people and hungry for skills—and we want to feed that hunger. More than 95,000 Australians started a trade in the last 12 months. That is more Australians starting a trade than at any time in the last decade. I think that is good news. New figures released today by the National Centre for Vocational Educational Research show that there has been a 6.3 per cent increase in the number of Australians in apprenticeships and traineeships in the year to 31 December 2010. Trade training commencements for the 12 months to December 2010 increased by more than 20 per cent. Completions are also rising—not just commencements but completions—making sure people stay the course, stay the journey and get through. They have been growing every quarter since March 2009.
This is good news. We acted quickly to save our skills base and save opportunity in our economy when the global financial crisis hit. Now we want to build on that with a $560 million fund to train up to 130,000 workers, that being a direct partnership with industry so the training will be right for the jobs that industry has going. We will invest $200 million over four years in smarter ways of completing an apprenticeship, and we will devote $100 million of that to support apprentices to progress through training at their pace, so that when they have got the skills they can move through to the next stage.
We will also be investing in mentors. We know that even with increasing completion rates too many young people start an apprenticeship and do not see the journey through. We know good mentoring can make a difference to that and we will be funding 300 experienced mentors to provide much needed support to apprentices. This is all part of making sure our economy stays strong, making sure Australians have got the benefits of work and making sure, too, that Australians can share opportunities by having a chance at a great education.
My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall receiving this brief from the Treasury on 17 May last year advising him, at page 8, that Western Australia was proposing to raise the royalty on iron ore fines? I therefore again ask the Treasurer: in light of this, does he still stand by his statement last Friday that he did not know Western Australia would increase its iron ore royalty on fines?
I thank the shadow Treasurer for his question because it is very welcome. This is a very important topic for the national parliament to talk about. I wonder whether the shadow Treasurer stands by his statements that the mining industry has been taxed too high, or does he stand by all of his statements of last year that there should not be more taxation on the mining industry? Those on that side of the House have egg all over their faces, for one very simple reason: they have argued in this House that the mining companies pay too much tax, and now that the Western Australian Liberals want to increase their royalties they say that is just fine and dandy. The fact is that we on this side of the House stand for putting in place a decent resource taxation system which will provide funding to reduce taxes for companies—
Government members interjecting—
The parliamentary secretary—the Deane's buses timetable awaits.
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Treasurer was asked a very serious question which contained no argument or debate. He has completely refused to even attempt to answer it. He is obfuscating and sliding around. I ask you to draw him back to the question.
The Treasurer must be directly relevant to the question.
An opposition member: Hear, hear.
I appreciate the support, but one of the difficulties in adjudicating is that everybody wants to talk at once. Whilst the characteristic of the response would have been in order under the previous relevancy rule, it is stretching it that this is directly relevant. I ask the Treasurer to directly relate his material to the question.
I was asked about royalties, I was asked about the taxation of iron ore fines compared to the lumps in Western Australia. I stand by all the statements I have made on this matter. The fact that we have got here is the acute embarrassment of both the Western Australian Premier and all of those on that side of the House who one year ago were arguing that we were taxing companies too much, and when the Western Australian Premier puts up his royalties they say that is just fine and dandy. When he does it in a way which is going to deprive Western Australians—
The Treasurer will bring his response to a close.
of vital infrastructure money, they say that is fine and dandy as well. They have deserted the people of Western Australia and the people of Australia.
The Treasurer will conclude.
An opposition member: Sat down by the Speaker!
There will be plenty of people sat down when I get the chance to sit them down but if they could sit here quietly it would help and improve things a lot.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the current state of the Australian economy and the importance of sound policies to support growth and jobs?
I thank the member for Parramatta for a very fine question. It is a source of tremendous pride for the Australian people that our economy has come through the global recession in better shape than just about any other developed economy. We have avoided recession, unlike most other advanced economies. The thing that we are most proud of is that we have seen the creation in Australia of over 700,000 jobs since Labor came to office. That is while the rest of the developed world has shed something like 30 million jobs over the same period. We have an unemployment rate with a 'four' in front of it, and that stands in very stark contrast to what is going on in other developed economies. We will get the budget back in the black by 2012-13. What this really shows is that we on this side of the House have got all the big economic calls right. If we had listened to those on the other side of the House, our country would have gone into recession, unemployment would have been far higher and of course without the bank guarantees we would have seen many small businesses hit the fence. The outcomes of these decisions prove that we on this side of the House have got the big economic calls right. If those on that side of the House had had their way, where would we be right now? There would be no savings to bring the budget back to surplus, there would be no plan to keep the economy strong, there would be no plan to tackle climate change and there would be no plan for clean energy jobs for the future.
Those opposite think it is a smart political tactic to be negative all the time. But when you are negative all the time you cannot focus on a clear plan for the future. If they had their way, there would be clear consequences for jobs and for price pressures in the Australian economy. They can go around and peddle their negative approach but people out there in the fish and chip shops and the butcher shops, in retail, want someone with a clear plan for the future—a clear plan and a government that will stick up for jobs and for business investment; a government that will stick by them in the tough times, particularly during floods and global recessions. What do we get during all of this from those on that side of the House? Those on that side of the House just want to side with the big polluters and with big tobacco. We on this side of the House will stand up for the national interest.
My question is to the Treasurer. Was the Treasurer or his office given notice last week by the Western Australian government that Western Australia would be publicly announcing the iron ore fines royalty increase in the Western Australian budget?
What I have been given notice of are the words of Premier Barnett today. This is what he had to say:
We know if we get more mining royalty income under the current arrangement, our GST falls, we do know that
That is what the Western Australian Premier has said today.
Order! The Treasurer will come back to the question.
He has maintained the fiction for the past five days that that was not the case. For the past five days he has gone around pretending that he knew nothing about the consequences of his decision to increase royalties.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was asked whether he or his office were given notice by the Western Australian Premier last week of the intention to raise the royalties on iron ore fines. That was the question, and the Treasurer is not even attempting to answer it. I ask you to draw him back to the question.
The Treasurer is required by the standing orders to directly relate his response to the question. This is not the same as the standing order in the last parliament. The Treasurer has the call and he will directly relate his response to the question.
Mrs Mirabella interjecting—
Mr Speaker, the member for Indi has made quite unparliamentary comments and I ask that you request her to withdraw.
The member for Indi?
I withdraw.
For five days the Western Australian Premier has maintained that he had no knowledge that this would occur if he increased royalties and that he would lose the money. Today he has admitted that they knew they would get less funding by raising their royalties—game, set and match.
Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. How does the Treasurer reconcile his answer with the fact that his own chief of staff was given notice of the iron ore fines increase by the Western Australian Premier's chief of staff last Wednesday, two days before he said on ABC radio he had not been warned of the royalty increases?
The only advice that my office received was that they would be in the budget.
My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Page 18 of the budget overview uses words in relation to the Regional Infrastructure Fund such as 'reinvesting the proceeds of the resources boom in mining communities', 'delivering a fair return to resource communities' and, most importantly, 'the RIF will provide $6 billion over the eleven years to 2020-21 for investment in infrastructure in regional Australia'. How can you justify the $480 million this government will spend on upgrading highways, freeways and bridges around Perth Airport as a regional Australia project?
I thank the member for his question and for his genuine concern about infrastructure issues in his electorate. I will be visiting his electorate with him next month to look at issues around Kalgoorlie and then Meekatharra. The member's question goes to the government funding of the Gateway project. Yes, we will fund the Gateway project. The Gateway project needs funding because it is the most important infrastructure project for Western Australia. We know that, because of the fly-in fly-out workforce and because of the massive expansion of the resources industry in the west, there is enormous pressure on the roads, the freight system and the intermodal system around the airport and also across through Fremantle port. We know that because it has been identified as an absolute priority project, which is why we make no apologies for the commitment we made during the election campaign and we make no apologies for making provision in the budget to deliver on our commitments. Last week, when I was in Western Australia selling the budget message, the member for Canning was out there supporting this government's investment in the Gateway WA project. Perhaps he could have a word with the WA Libs and the WA Nats who seem to have a difference of opinion on this.
The fact of the matter is that every single major infrastructure project under way in Western Australia has a Commonwealth commitment to it—every single one of them. They include, in the next year, a record $920 million in infrastructure in the transport sector to Western Australia alone, including, in the honourable member's electorate, the upgrade of the road and rail infrastructure into Port Esperance where $60 million worth of work will commence in the following year, the Great Northern Highway at Port Hedland, the Bunbury Port access road, Perth Urban Transport and Freight Corridor upgrade and the Great Eastern Highway. Work will commence on all those projects in the coming year, as well as the very important project to bring Perth together, the Northbridge rail link project through Perth's CBD. We make no apologies for the record investment we are delivering to the West, some $3.7 billion over the Nation Building Program, almost double what the previous mob committed when they were in office.
My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Will the minister outline the recent work of the Climate Commission and why it is important to have a clear, fact based debate about climate change? How have the findings of the commission been received and what is the government's response?
I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. As members of the House would be aware, the Climate Commission has today held a forum in Parliament House as part of a series of forums the commission has been conducting around Australia to help deepen the understanding of the climate science. It follows the publication of the commission's report yesterday, which provides an important update on the climate science and outlines the risks we confront from climate change. There is nothing like this issue to bring out the extent of misrepresentation that the Leader of the Opposition will engage in. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the Climate Commission's report vindicated the coalition's so-called 'direct action policy', but when you look at what the report says about direct action measures, which rely almost entirely on carbon offsets through tree planting and soil management to store carbon, quite a different story emerges. The report has this to say:
It cannot substitute in the long term for the reduction of an equivalent amount of CO2 emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. In fact, the offset approach, if poorly implemented, has the potential to lock in more severe climate change for the future.
As if that was not clear enough, the author of the report, Professor Will Steffen, had this to say yesterday in relation to this approach:
There's a very good case for getting carbon back into the land, but if that's all you do, or if you use that to delay action on fossil fuel emissions, you will have gone backwards a long way.
This is another example of the way in which the Leader of the Opposition continually misrepresents the facts and the science in this debate . The point is that we can look to methods for storage of carbon but at the end of the day we must cut pollution levels in our economy to tackle this issue and we must drive investment in cleaner energy sources.
Given that the Leader of the Opposition previously attended the rally outside Parliament House organised by a number of interesting organisations and individuals, including the League of Rights and Pauline Hanson, it is particularly disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition would not attend the forum today in Parliament House run by well-respected scientists and economists on the issue of the climate science. A couple of his colleagues were there today, including the shadow minister, the member for Flinders. At least we should acknowledge that the member for Flinders has been trying to provide the Liberal Party some respectability on the climate science, but he is up against a pretty powerful group, within his own side of politics, of deniers on this issue. Senator Minchin, Senator Abetz, Senator Joyce, Senator Boswell, the member for Indi and the member for Tangney have all, over the last 24 hours, trashed his claim that the coalition has bipartisan support over the climate science. In fact, they have walked all over him and the Leader of the Opposition does nothing to stand up for his shadow minister on this important issue. On this side of the House, we respect the climate science and accept the responsibility to act upon it. On that side of the House, they do nothing but deny the evidence and they will not take responsibility. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer's last answer where he confirmed that he was told of the increase in royalties in the Western Australian budget the following day and I ask the Treasurer how he reconciles that statement with his statement two days later to the Australian people:
… Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us … what Mr Barnett has done here is just very strange. He didn't communicate with us about this move in this budget. He didn't get our tick. He didn't discuss it with us. And Mr Barnett I think is simply playing a political game.
Treasurer, do you still stand by your words?
This is very sloppy, Joe.
Order! The Treasurer will refer to members by their parliamentary titles.
I quote from the West Australian
Answer the question!
It absolutely answers the question. On 21 October 2010, the West Australian, in an article by Shane Wright, quoted the Western Australian Premier, who said:
The State has no intention of increasing royalties—
Answer the question!
I am going to work my way through it. The quote was:
The State has no intention of increasing royalties, but we will certainly reserve the right to do so.
That was October. You came into the House before and quoted from an executive minute. The executive minute that you quoted from only says Western Australia were considering an increase; it does not say they were doing an increase, and they did not do an increase in the budget before last. We were informed at the last minute that they had taken that decision. We were not consulted about this decision and we were not given any time to consider it. We were not given any time to respond. We were informed after the budget papers went to bed. That is the situation. Why are those on the other side of the House so antsy about all of this? I can tell you why: it is because they are so embarrassed about their position on mining taxation. When a Labor government takes the decision they think that the mining companies pay too much tax, but when a Liberal government takes a decision to increase a royalty that is terrific. That just shows the rank hypocrisy of those opposite.
A point of order, Mr Speaker, and again it goes to relevance: I ask the Treasurer to answer the question he was asked—does he stand by his words?
For the first minute and a half the Treasurer was directly relating his comments to the question. He has strayed into debate over the last 15 to 20 seconds. I remind the Treasurer that he should relate his material directly to the question. He should be heard in silence.
What I said was that we did not give it the tick. You just quoted the full quote yourself in your question—another own goal from those opposite! That is two in a row: Colin Barnett and Joe Hockey. They have both had very bad weeks. In the case of the Western Australian Premier, you can see how. He has brought down a budget based on dodgy figures. He has framed his budget around an exchange rate of 98c next year, when the Reserve Bank and the government are using $1.07.
Order! The Treasurer is straying.
Do you know what that means? His revenue estimates are out over the forward estimates by hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is what this is all about.
My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the government's plans for plain packaging for tobacco products and how these plans have been received?
I thank the member for La Trobe for her question. We on this side of the House know that big tobacco spends millions and millions of dollars crafting their packaging to make it attractive and appealing, particularly to new smokers. In a world first, we are committed to removing the last legal avenue to advertise tobacco products in Australia. From next year, tobacco will be sold in plain packaging with stronger health-warning information. We know big tobacco is going to fight this every step of the way. They have said that their sales will drop, that their profits will drop and that other countries are going to be watching what we are going to do. Tobacco companies have told us that this is going to lead to Australia being overrun by crime gangs, that more kids will take up smoking and that they will be forced to slash their prices.
When you are up against this sort of hogwash from big tobacco, you need to have some guts and you need to not wimp out under pressure. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has not shown whether he has got that strength of character. Last week he seemed to be cowed by big tobacco executives. In an almost exactly uniform chorus with the CEO of British American Tobacco, the Leader of the Opposition repeated the same scaremongering. The Leader of the Opposition, I am afraid I have to report to the House, is acting like the parliamentary arm of big tobacco. He is sticking up for big tobacco in the same way he is sticking up for big polluters. It seems to me that he is finding it very hard to say no to such a big donor to the Liberal Party. But there are some members of the coalition who have the strength of character to stand up for the health of Australians. The member for Moore, Dr Washer, was quoted on this subject in the Age newspaper on the weekend. I quote from the article for any members on this side of the House who perhaps did not see the quote. Dr Washer said:
The tobacco industry is jumping up and down because they're worried about their businesses. I support these reforms unequivocally and whatever my party decides to do, I don't give a—
I think, Mr Speaker, that the next word might not be parliamentary, although it was reported in the Ageit rhymes with 'hit'. The Leader of the Opposition now needs to show the same backbone that some on his backbench are showing. Our government is prepared to lead the world. It is about time Mr Abbott started leading the coalition.
My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer confirm that he had a meeting with the Western Australian Premier on 19 April 2010, at which the Premier informed him of his plan to increase royalties on iron ore finds? Given that the Treasurer has now had a meeting, a phone call and a briefing note, does the Treasurer still stand by his words that 'Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us'?
I do stand by my words, and I also draw the member's attention to what the Premier himself said publicly—
No, answer the question!
I have answered the question. You asked me whether I stood by my words. I have said that I do, and I draw your attention to the words of the Western Australian Premier on 21 October: 'The state has no intention of increasing royalties, but we will certainly preserve the right to do so.' And that was after, you idiot.
Order! The Treasurer will withdraw.
I withdraw.
My question is to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing. As the minister responsible for medical research, what evidence is there to support the government's move to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products?
I thank my good friend the member for Banks for his question. Recent research shows that smoking kills over 15,000 Australians every year and costs Australia around $31.5 billion per year. Both active and passive smoking increase the risk of lung cancer as well as 12 other cancers and a range of other health conditions. Reducing this impact is a priority for our government. This issue should not be dragged into a political scuffle designed to mask the level of financial contributions made by tobacco companies to the Liberal Party—or at least to the federal Liberal Party, if not all branches.
Most Australian smokers regret having started smoking at all and have made at least one attempt to quit. We need to support people to successfully quit and we know that plain packaging is a key step. I can point to 12 key different research studies only in the last two years covering the issues of branding, design and the promotion of tobacco packaging. Each and every one of them supports strategies such as the introduction of plain packaging to assist in reducing smoking rates. Just a few titles: 'Adolescents' perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference?' in the Journal of Adolescent Health; 'The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk', from the Journal of Public Health; and 'Plain packaging: findings from female youth in the UK', a paper presented at the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. I table the list.
Other research shows that plain packaging will increase the impact of health warning messages, will reduce the ability of packaging to mislead consumers to believe that some products may be less harmful than others and will reduce the attractiveness of the tobacco product for adults but particularly for children. A 2008 evaluation of Australia's graphic health warnings on tobacco products showed that more than six in 10 recent quitters said that the graphic health warnings had helped them to quit, but respondents also said that tobacco industry branding and the use of colour on packaging overpowered the graphic health warnings, particularly on the front of the package. The campaign run by tobacco companies throughout the debate on the introduction of plain packaging proves that they are concerned about the impact of this measure in reducing smoking rates in our community due to the inevitable impact it is going to have on their sales figures. There is no other explanation.
We cannot and we must not sacrifice the health of our community in favour of profits for tobacco companies. This government is committed to the health and the wellbeing of Australians. The evidence is very clear that this measure will reduce smoking in Australia and it is about time that the opposition—the whole of the opposition—stopped mucking around and got behind this world-leading measure.
My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm that in February this year he directed the Commonwealth Grants Commission not to reduce Western Australia's GST payments as a result of Western Australia's increases in iron ore fines royalty rates? Now that the Treasurer has had a meeting, a phone call, a Treasury brief and in fact wrote to the Grants Commission on the subject, how can he still have claimed last Friday that he had no notice of the actions of the Western Australian government?
Very simply, because I did not. It is pretty simple, because when the Western Australian government took this decision they did not consult with us at all, and they took it knowing that when they increased the rate for fines the Grants Commission would take the action of reducing the increase in revenue. They are now acutely embarrassed because the correspondence shows very clearly that they understood that. What that means is that they have been caught out being too smart by half—playing politics and not looking after the interests of the taxpayers of Western Australia. They are not looking after Western Australia but playing politics. We have done the right thing by the people of Western Australia, and the Western Australian Premier has done the wrong thing. He has done the wrong thing because he has produced a bodgie budget based on unrealistic exchange rate evaluations, and what that means is that they are in deep trouble.
My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. How is the government improving support for people with mental illness in our local communities?
I thank the member for Moreton for his question and for his advocacy on behalf of people with mental illness. In this budget the government is delivering a major funding boost to community mental health services. In fact, $260 million extra will go to community mental health services over the next five years. This, of course, is part of our $2.2 billion investment in mental health reform that will provide much-needed support to thousands of Australians who have been waiting so long for that increase. In fact, in the community mental health area, we expect around 35,000 extra Australians and their carers will get support as a result of these improvements. I think all of us are aware that people with severe mental illness have very low workforce participation and many of them are also extremely socially isolated. This budget tackles both of these issues head on.
Just last Monday I was pleased to go up to Bendigo with the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and the member for Bendigo. We went to the Personal Helpers and Mentors service in Bendigo, which is run by St Luke's. It is a great service. It is one of 175 Personal Helpers and Mentors services around Australia, and it is delivering services to people with very severe mental illness in our community. One of the people that I spoke with there indicated to me how much he appreciated the support he gets, but he said he wanted to make sure that other people like him are getting that support.
As a result of the government's investment in community mental health in this budget, we will be able to provide 425 additional personal helpers and mentors who will be able to work intensively with people who have severe mental illness living in the community. This will mean helping people to find employment. It might mean helping them reconnect with their families or doing some of the day-to-day tasks that most of us take for granted that people with severe mental illness often find very difficult—making sure their rent gets paid, making sure they get their shopping done or planning and getting to interviews and appointments with medical professionals. These tasks often present very serious barriers to people with mental illness, and we note that personal helpers and mentors provide excellent support to help people address these difficulties.
We also know that it is often the case that people with severe mental illness are very isolated and alone. Once again at St Luke's one of the people we spoke to said to me that he would often go for weeks at a time without speaking to another human being. That was of course before he was attending St Luke's on a regular basis and before he got a personal helper and mentor himself. It is as a result of their care that he is now getting the support he needs. It is the case that far too many people with severe mental illness do not look for the support they need from the medical profession. As a result of these personal helpers and mentors, they are able to get the support they need. This government is delivering the long-term investment in mental health and the long-term strategy that people deserve. (Time expired)
My question is to the Treasurer. I refer him to his own statement earlier in question time in relation to Western Australian royalties when he said:
But suddenly out of the blue he comes forward last week and increases his royalties …
Treasurer, do you seriously expect the Australian people to believe you after you received a briefing, a letter, a phone call and all of the correspondence that is yet to be referred to when you claim you had no notice of Western Australian royalty increases and that it came—poof!—suddenly out of the blue?
Yes.
My question is to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth. What is the government doing to ensure that every child has access to a great education?
I thank the member for Blair for his question because I know that on this side of the House we value the investment in education that this government is providing, recognising that it provides a substantial suite of opportunities for Australian students to reach fulfilment and to build prosperity for the nation as a whole. In this year's budget we saw investments of some $800 million in initiatives. The Gillard government is now investing more than $64 billion—nearly double the amount spent by the coalition in their last term in office—because we want to see every single Australian have access to a great education and every Australian school to be a great one.
We have reforms that are benefiting every student, whether they are in government schools, Catholic schools or non-government schools. We have developed and delivered the My School website, providing transparent access to information on every school for the first time. We now have an Australian curriculum in four subjects—English, maths, science and history—from reception or kindy through to year 12. We have made available $2.5 billion in partnerships with states and territories, improving literacy and numeracy, really looking at the results of our low-performing students. That is about 1,900 government schools, 400 Catholic schools and 200 independent schools all receiving the benefit of this government's investment in education.
We also know that kids with disabilities need support. We were very pleased in this budget to bring through an additional $200 million to support kids with disabilities in schools. It will make a significant difference in those schools where teachers have kids with disabilities. For example, a deaf student might access equipment which provides text captions of the teacher's words very quickly after the teacher has spoken. This would mean that the student could access the teacher's instructions, including complex terms, alongside other students in the classroom with them. Other potential supports are occupational therapy, special equipment in classrooms, extra teaching hours and the like. Importantly, this initiative also provides support for teachers so that they can improve the planning and delivery of programs, lessons and activities that enhance the way students with disabilities learn and are included in the classroom. Every time the opposition are asked a question about education, every time we hear something from them on education, what we have on the record is $2.8 billion of announced cuts in education. The fact is that over 11 years the coalition put in about 3,000 flagpoles. In our time in government we have provided funding for nearly 3,000 libraries. There is no statistic that better sums up the difference between the approach on this side of the House and the approach of those on that side of the House. Labor knows that education creates skills and productivity; it enables prosperity. We are building Australia's future by making every school a great school, and the budget showed how we are delivering that in spades.
My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister: in the light of the Treasurer's answers to this parliament today, is she confident that the Treasurer was telling the truth, the absolute truth, when he told national radio last Friday: 'First of all, Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do that to us'?
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Earlier in question time the shadow Treasurer read the Deputy Prime Minister's full quote to the parliament and every word of that full quote is true and accurate. Having watched the proceedings today of the opposition frontbench, I have rarely seen such a poorly thought through attack in question time in all of the time I have been in this parliament. What the opposition are failing to recognise and at some point—
Opposition members interjecting—
They have asked me for my view and I am entitled to give my view having been asked. At some point they need to stop, draw a breath and do a tiny little bit of thinking instead of their negative howling. If they do that they will recognise the following: what the Treasurer said publicly is that we did not give the tick to these royalty increases. We were not consulted about them and that is clear. Getting advice that the royalty increases are in the budget documents when the budget documents are already locked in is not consultation.
And then go back to a letter 13 months ago, to a meeting in April last year, and after that time—after the time of that letter and that meeting—the Premier of Western Australia himself was out verifying publicly that he had no present plans to increase royalties.
Opposition members interjecting—
I have the quote here, as they chant. This is yet another distortion from the opposition. On 21 October 2010, the Premier of Western Australia said:
The state has no intention of increasing royalties but we will certainly reserve the right to do so.
Opposition members interjecting—
The meeting that the Manager of Opposition Business is yelling about was before that. So get the time line right. Stop and think at how absurd this attack is.
Then I should say to the opposition that I think all of this is a distraction from two things. First and foremost, they are trying to distract from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition went up and down the nation before the last election sitting in mining communities and in mining boardrooms and saying to the people in those communities and saying to the people in those boardrooms: 'We believe any additional taxation on mining will kill the industry. We believe it will cost jobs.' And now they have been caught out, because if they genuinely believed that then their only option would be to condemn the actions of Premier Barnett. But they do not want to do that because they view their party ticket as more important to them than being straight and honest with the Australian people.
One of the reasons we are seeing this carry-on today is their absolute shame at their conduct before the last election and that they have been caught out now. The other reason we are seeing it—and we always see this kind of bravado when they are at their most deeply divided—is that the member for Wentworth and the Leader of the Opposition have had heated telephone calls back and forth; the shadow Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition have had heated telephone calls—
Order! The Prime Minister will resume her seat.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health—
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! The member for Calwell will resume her seat. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition—and I am not trying to deflect the blame from myself—that the member for Canning was on his feet and did interject while he was on his feet. I chose to ignore that and then saw that the member for Calwell had risen and gave her the call. Without trying to predict what is going to happen, I know that my crime is that I have been a bad director of the theatre here and of timing. But I gave the call to the member for Calwell in the flow of what I saw and I will hold by that call on this occasion.
My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Minister for Indigenous Health. What measures in the budget recognise our Second World War and Korean War prisoners of war?
I thank the member for Calwell for her question and remind the House that on 5 May this year I was fortunate enough to accompany 21 former POWs to Kirribilli House, where the Prime Minister announced a new payment for them: the prisoner of war recognition payment. This payment, reflected in the budget papers, will provide $500 a fortnight tax-free, indexed and without any income test to veterans who are former POWs of the Second World War and the Korean War. Mr Speaker, you will recall that over 30,000 Australians were prisoners of war during the Second World War and the Korean War. This announcement is important. It provides $27 million over four years. It will come into effect as of 20 September this year.
Interestingly, of the people who were at Kirribilli House, at least one of them accompanied the Governor-General to Hellfire Pass in Thailand for Anzac Day. Lex Arthurson, from the 13th Australian General Hospital; the Hon. Tom Uren, a former member of this place and minister in the government, from Sparrow Force; Bill Schmitt from the 2nd/3rd Machine Gun Battalion; and Cyril Gilbert from the 8th Division, 27th Brigade accompanied the Governor-General to Hellfire Pass on Anzac Day. Over this last weekend, I accompanied six veterans to Crete to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Battle of Crete. Three of these veterans were former POWs: Arthur Leggett from the 2nd/11th Battalion, Bill Taylor from the 2nd/11th Battalion and Norm Maddock from the 2nd/7th Battalion.
We need to just reflect for a moment on the experiences of these brave men during the Second World War and the Korean War. We need to understand the trauma that they experienced. We need to continue to appreciate the courage and resilience they showed and the hardships that they endured. We need to acknowledge that through this payment. I commend the Prime Minister for her leadership and the government for making this payment available during the budget. It is worth reflecting for a moment on how Tom Uren described the payment. He said:
It's justice and compassion, that's what this recognises. It recognises the suffering of our people.
I move:
T hat so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving immediately —
That this House calls on the Treasure r to explain to the Parliament w hy :
(1) he falsely stated on ABC Radio on 20 May 2011 in relation to the removal of a concessional rate of iron ore royalty by the Western Australian Government that "Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us… But what Mr Barnett has done here is just very strange. He didn't communicate with us about this move in this budget. He didn't get our tick. He didn't discuss it with us."
( 2 ) he failed to disclose that in early 2010, Western Australian Treasury officials advised the Commonwealth that WA proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate.
( 3 ) he failed to disclose that on 10 May 2010 the WA Treasury wrote to the Commonwealth Treasury advising that the WA Government proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate.
( 4 ) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 the Commonwealth Treasury provided a brief to the Treasurer advising that WA proposed to remove this concessional royalty rate
( 5 ) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 he gave a press conference in which he acknowledged that WA was "looking at very substantial increases in the royalties"
(6) he failed to disclose that on 17 May 2010 he gave a speech in which he stated "We're prepared to talk further with state governments who might have been making their own plans to capture a fairer share of resource wealth through lifting royalties."
(7) he failed to disclose that the minerals resources rent tax costings prepared by Commonwealth Treasury assumed a state royalty rate of 7.5%—which is the iron ore royalty rate in WA with the concession removed.
(8) he failed to disclose that in February 2011 he directed the Commonwealth Grants Commission not to modify its methodology in response to WA's proposals to remove concessional royalty rates.
(9) he failed to disclose that on 18 May 2011 the Chief of Staff of the WA Premier telephoned the Treasurer's Chief of Staff to advise that WA would be removing this concessional royalty rate in its Budget on 19 May 2011; and
(10) after these examples of evidence that he was aware of WA's proposal to remove this concessional royalty rate, that he stated on radio that WA had not communicated its intention to do this?
Can this government give a straight answer to a straight question?
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
Question put.
The House divided. [15:17]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question negatived.
I move:
That Mr Abbott be granted an extension of time.
It can only be extended by five minutes. Question put.
The House divided. [15:26]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
I do thank the House for this extension of time. I particularly thank the crossbench members of parliament for their support in this matter. May I simply say: the government's efforts to gag this debate show just how desperate they are. It is urgent that standing orders be suspended.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I refer to your ruling in the last week of the last parliamentary sitting in which you ruled that in a motion to suspend standing orders the speaker must address the issue of why it is urgent that standing orders should be suspended.
Order! I thank the Leader of the House for reminding me of such a great ruling and I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is going to keep that in mind, but he has just started.
It is urgent that standing orders be suspended, because nothing could be more important than the Australian people and the Australian parliament understanding whether the ministers in this government are capable of giving a straight answer to a straight question. Nothing is more urgent for this parliament than to consider this vital matter. Last Friday, the Treasurer was asked a very straight question on national radio. He knew that Western Australia was going to increase its royalties. They gave you a lot of advance warning.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition is going to the substance of the resolution he moved before the parliament. He must address the question of why standing and sessional orders should be suspended.
Opposition members interjecting—
Order! Those interjecting are just not helping at all. The Leader of the Opposition is aware of his responsibility to actually speak to the reasons for the suspension of standing and sessional orders and not to the motion that would then be put.
It is absolutely urgent that the Treasurer has this matter cleared up before the parliament proceeds to anything else, because nothing could be more important than the question of whether this Treasurer is capable of telling the truth and whether this Treasurer did, in fact, tell the truth to the Australian people last Friday. This is very urgent, Mr Speaker. In response to a direct question, the Treasurer said:
Well first of all Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us.
We now know that this was absolutely false and this is why standing orders should be suspended—because the veracity of the government is just about the most important issue that any parliament can determine. This is the most important matter before this parliament. What we now know is the reason that standing orders should be suspended is so the Treasurer can finally clear this up. This is why standing orders should be suspended. It is absolutely necessary—
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition is straying from the question before the House. He is speaking about an issue that should be addressed by a substantive motion of the House not by a suspension of standing orders.
Order! I am listening carefully to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will speak on the reasons for the suspension of standing orders. Is the motion seconded?
Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the time for the debate has expired.
I second the motion and I add here: nothing could be more urgent than dealing with a Treasurer who lies to the Australian people and does it in parliament.
Order! The time allotted for the debate has concluded.
Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask that the member for North Sydney withdraw those remarks.
Order! The member for North Sydney will withdraw.
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. What we have seen from this government today is a deliberate attempt to gag discussion in this parliament on an extremely important matter. Given the behaviour of the government, I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that under the special circumstances that pertain in the parliament today, it is not right that the shadow Treasurer should be asked to withdraw.
He has been asked to. It is right.
Order! The Minister for regional Australia and the arts and all sorts of other things should sit there quietly. To assist the proceedings of the House, I have invited the member for North Sydney to withdraw.
Mr Speaker, I put it to you that during the Leader of the Opposition's five-minute extension the Leader of the House did absolutely everything in his power to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition did not have the chance to fulfil his time. He raised four points of order. I think that, with due respect to you, Mr Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence to the member for North Sydney given the extraordinary obfuscation and tactics that have been run by the government today to stop this being debated. I would ask you on this occasion to not ask the member for North Sydney to withdraw.
Both the member for Sturt and the Leader of the Opposition have not made points of order; they have made a point and it is on the record. Regrettably, as in many contests, provocation is not a defence and I have invited the member for North Sydney to withdraw. I have appreciated, and I do appreciate it today, that I had a member of the opposition frontbench withdraw without me having to invite her. I am simply inviting the member for North Sydney to withdraw because I wish to get on with proceedings which are going to be fairly sensitive. The next part of proceedings will be very sensitive and I would appreciate closure on this point.
Mr Speaker, we have noted your remarks. I am reluctant to continue this discussion, but I just wish to register, before this matter is concluded—and it will be concluded with honour by the shadow Treasurer—
Mr Speaker—
Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
Mr Speaker—
The Leader of the House will resume his seat.
He's a thug.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Before we deal with the matter before me with the member for North Sydney, the member for Berowra, who as the father of the House knows better, will withdraw.
I withdraw reluctantly.
I would prefer it without qualification but I thank the member. The Leader of the Opposition will come quickly to the point. He is getting the type of allowance that leaders get from time to time, and I think he appreciates that.
I understand and appreciate that, Mr Speaker, but the whole point of the debate which has been gagged by the government was to establish the issue about which you are now requiring the shadow Treasurer to withdraw. So it is only because—
The Leader of the Opposition has made his point.
the government has gagged debate that the shadow Treasurer felt the need to make that statement.
The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
I withdraw.
I thank the member for North Sydney.
Honourable members interjecting—
You're still a liar, Swannie.
The member for Dawson will withdraw.
I withdraw, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, in due fairness to the House, as I also called the Treasurer a liar, I also withdraw.
Honourable members interjecting—
Order! The House will come to order. I will not be giving the call to anybody until we resolve certain matters that are not before the chair. At the moment we are still in question time.
Mr Speaker, in fact as it is past 3:30, under the standing orders we are not still in question time and we have not yet resolved the question that is before the chair, which is the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, seconded by the shadow Treasurer. That question must be resolved.
Order! Pleasantly, for once I was correct. It appears that I am the only person in the chamber at the moment, I suspect, that actually knows where we are at. The first thing is we are still in question time because I do not have, and the House does not have, a motion before the chair because the motion was not stated before the conclusion of time for the debate. People might actually listen to me when I say that there are sensitive matters that I am wishing to go to, over and above a withdrawal, on which I ask for cooperation. But there is nothing before the chair because the time allotted for the debate expired before I put the question. So I am in question time.
Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be put on the Notice Paper.
Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation.
Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Most grievously, Mr Speaker.
Please proceed.
Last night in the chamber the member for Melbourne Ports made the following statement:
However, whenever the member for Higgins has had the chance she has risen to speak in this House and in press releases of the government's funding of school building being a crime against the taxpayer.
I seek leave to table the media release to which he refers. He is, in fact, not correct and has created a misleading statement. I did say:
A Coalition Government will allow government schools in Higgins to self-manage their 'school hall' funding grants as well as being able to keep the savings made to invest in other priorities, Federal Member for Higgins, Kelly O'Dwyer MP, said today.
I went on to say:
The Labor Government continues to waste billions in the so-called Building the Education Revolution program ...
Order! The member will not go further into debate.
I went on to further say:
The scale of the Rudd/Gillard Government waste on this program is worse than a scandal. It is a crime against the taxpayer.
Schools are best placed to manage these projects in a way that achieves real value for money
Order! The member has made her personal explanation. The member will resume her place. The member has sought leave for the tabling of a press release.
Leave not granted.
I have received letters from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Kennedy proposing that definite matters of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today. As required by standing order 46(d), I have selected the matter which, in my opinion, is the most urgent and important; that is, that proposed by the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, namely:
The adverse impacts of Government policy on the mining sector.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
All Australians want to receive a fair share of their state's mining and resource wealth, and state governments have an obligation under their royalty regimes to ensure that occurs. Australia's wealth is shifting west, much of it now located on the west and north-west coasts of Australia. Ninety per cent of our recoverable reserves of natural gas are located in these waters. The Gorgon gas development alone is expected to deliver eight per cent of the world's LNG needs. Ninety-seven per cent of total production of iron ore comes from the west, and Western Australia accounts for well over one-third of Australia's exports. By the end of the decade, this figure is expected to be closer to 50 per cent.
But the federal government has been on a massive tax grab to soak as much revenue out of the west as it can get its grasping fingers on. Last year, we witnessed the fiasco of the resource super profits tax. It was an illogical, ill-conceived tax that assisted in the downfall of Prime Minister Rudd but—miraculously, one would think—left unscathed its principal architect, the hapless Treasurer of this country. After that unmitigated failure, the Gillard government came up with a less ambitious but no less destructive mining resource rent tax. The mining tax has not been finalised despite the fact that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer claimed they secured a deal for it from three large mining companies last year—almost 12 months ago.
Now, in another development in this very sorry saga, the member for Lilley has been caught again 'gilding the lily'. Rather than being economical with his outrageous budget spending, Australians can instead always rely on this Treasurer to be economical with the truth. He has expressed 'surprise' that the Western Australian government has addressed an anomaly in its royalty regime. He has threatened retribution through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. He and the Prime Minister have said they will slash infrastructure funding to Western Australia but, importantly, he said on ABC Radio National last Friday that the decision of the Western Australian government was 'a surprise'. Further, he told the ABC:
Mr Barnett did not communicate that he was going to do this to us.
Today, the Treasurer said this announcement about the royalty regime in Western Australia was 'suddenly out of the blue'. The facts are to the contrary.
But before I detail his deception to this House and to the Australian people, let me briefly explain what was announced in last week's budget in Western Australia. The budget states that the state government will move to increase the royalty rate for iron ore fines to 6.5 per cent from 1 July 2012 and to 7.5 per cent from 1 July 2013, in line with the rate applying to lump ore. In other words, it is not an increase in the royalty rate of 7.5 per cent, which still exists; it is removing a concession, a historical anomaly, to bring in line all iron ore products—fines and lumps—to 7.5 per cent. This will deliver a fairer return to the Western Australian community. The Western Australian community owns those resources.
As I said, this different royalty treatment of iron ore is a historic anomaly—a discount given to iron ore products in the early days of the Pilbara when the industry was getting on its feet. But the Treasurer has said that Premier Barnett 'did not communicate he was going to do this to us'—in other words, to the government. He did not communicate that he was going to lift the fines rate to 7.5 per cent. Oh, really? Is that right? I have a pile of press clippings here from at least 12 months ago detailing how the Barnett government most certainly intended to increase the rate applicable to fines.
Premier Barnett did not say he was going to increase the royalty rate of 7.5 per cent across all minerals, and he has not done so. What he told the Treasurer, what he told the Australian people and the Western Australian public, as recorded in this handful of press clippings, time and time again was that they were going to increase fines to 7.5 per cent. As far back as 18 March 2010, Premier Colin Barnett announced his hopes to scrap all discounts on mining in Western Australia within three years. On 10 April 2010, another article in the West Australian newspaper reported Mr Barnett as saying he would end concessions on mining within three years. This is precisely what he has done.
On 10 May 2010, Premier Barnett again spoke of bringing the iron ore fines rate and the lump rate of 7.5 per cent into line. In the Australian on 13 May 2010, in an article written by Dennis Shanahan, Premier Barnett told the Australian he planned to raise the royalty rate for iron ore fines to 7.5 per cent by July 2011. The plan was so secret that Swanny did not know about it, but even industry bulletins in May last year were talking about the increase in concession for iron ore fines to 7.5 per cent. On 20 May 2010, Colin Barnett said he was going to increase the royalties across the board to 7.5 per cent but it was not going to happen until July 2011, which has happened. If ever evidence were needed that nothing escapes the attention of this Treasurer, he was actually directly asked at a public forum on 19 May 2010 about Premier Barnett's secret plan—the plan that he did not know anything about—to raise the royalty regime on fines to 7.5 per cent. This is a plan that came suddenly out of the blue; a plan that he was not informed about. A journalist says:
Premier Colin Barnett has flagged he wants to increase iron ore royalties to the global rate of 7½ per cent. He has flagged that before the Henry Review.
The Treasurer says, 'Well, they will have to establish that in discussions with Premier Barnett.' This is the plan that the Treasurer said in the House today came suddenly out of the blue.
In question time the government tried to say that last October there was a report that Premier Barnett was not lifting the royalty rate. That is true—he has not lifted the royalty rate beyond 7.5 per cent. In March this year the Treasurer announced that all current and future state royalties would be credited back to mining companies. He knew about the proposed rate. Premier Barnett had already been talking for over 12 months about taking away the concession applicable to iron ore fines. So in March this year the Treasurer knew, and he wrote to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in February of this year asking them not to punish Western Australia when it increased the fines rate to 7.5 per cent.
On 25 March this year, in an article in the Australian, it was spelt out clearly that Premier Barnett was raising fine rates to 7.5 per cent, that the Commonwealth knew about it and that they had already announced crediting back all future and current royalties. This article in the Australian makes it quite clear that Colin Barnett had flagged that his government was already raising the rates on fines from 5.6 to the lump rate of 7.5 per cent. So, again, on 25 March 2011 there was an article in the Australian pointing out that Colin Barnett as Premier of Western Australia was going to raise the fines rate to 7.5 per cent.
Let us assume that the Treasurer does not read the media and that nobody brought it to his attention, and let us assume that he did not understand what the journalists meant when they said that Colin Barnett had a plan to raise the royalty on fines to 7.5 per cent. Even more damaging than those press releases and those press statements are documents released by Treasury under a freedom of information request which make it abundantly clear that the Treasury and the Treasurer were aware of the exact details of these proposed changes in May last year. A letter from the Western Australian Under Treasurer received on 10 May by Dr Ken Henry, then Secretary to the Australian Treasury, explicitly states:
… I seek your urgent confirmation that "scheduled increases" in Western Australia would include the removal of existing iron ore royalty rate concessions, which would see both fine and lump iron ore royalty rates being levied at 7.5% … by 1 July 2012.
That is exactly what has been announced. It is an incremental increase—a per cent increase this year up to 7.5 per cent by July 2012. So the Treasurer knew in May of 2010 precisely what Colin Barnett was going to do. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt and say a letter to the Treasury Secretary is not the same thing as telling the Treasurer himself. However, the FOI documents reveal more. In a Treasury executive minute dated 17 May 2010 entitled 'Mining projects and royalties in Western Australia'—so you get the idea what this is about—the Treasurer himself was advised of this proposal. It is noted in the executive minute that the brief was provided because the Treasurer's office requested it urgently. So the Treasurer himself asked for the Treasury to provide advice on Premier Barnett's plan to raise the fine rates to 7.5 per cent. It states clearly on page 8:
Western Australia indicated at a recent Commonwealth Grants Commission meeting—
this is prior to the announcement of the resource super profits tax—
… it was considering increasing the royalty rate on iron ore fines from the current rate of 5.625 per cent, to the 7.5 per cent rate for lump ore.
So the Treasurer did know; there was communication; there was discussion; there were minutes from Treasury requested by the Treasurer. We now know, following questions from the shadow Treasurer in question time, that there were conversations between the Premier of Western Australia and the Treasurer. There was actually a phone call from the chief of staff of the Premier to the Treasurer's chief of staff before the Western Australian budget that set out explicitly what was going to occur. The Treasurer himself took action by writing to the Grants Commission in February 2011. So, the Treasurer has been well and truly caught out. His statement that this came suddenly out of the blue is a lie. His statement that he knew nothing about this and that they did not communicate to him is a lie.
Mr Speaker, I ask that that unparliamentary term be withdrawn.
It would assist the House if the member for Curtin withdrew the use of the word 'lie'.
I withdraw. It is evident that the Treasurer knew of the Western Australian plans to increase the royalties on iron ore well before he advised the Prime Minister to sign that mining deal with the three big miners. And this is the rub: the Treasurer knew that Western Australia was going to raise the royalty rate across the board to 7.5 per cent. They went into that meeting last year with the big miners—remember how they had to fix the mining tax debacle; they had to sack Kevin Rudd because the government had gone off the rails—knowing that Western Australia was going to raise the royalty rate, and yet they promised those miners that they would credit all current and future royalty rate increases. Now they are screaming blue murder, telling the Australian public they knew nothing about it when they knew all about it. The Treasurer knew before he made the commitment to credit all state and territory royalties against any national mining tax liability. It was interesting during Senate estimates last night how the Prime Minister's own department sought to distance itself from this debacle caused by the Treasurer. The Prime Minister's department pointed out very clearly that the advice to the Prime Minister on the mining tax deal came directly from the Treasurer on this occasion. In fact, the Prime Minister's own department was sidelined—this was all from the Treasurer. The question remains: why did the Treasurer not advise the Prime Minister that signing the mining tax deal would mean that the increases from Western Australia would be credited? Or did the Treasurer tell the Prime Minister and she thought she could get away with it before the election?
We are witnessing a huge deception of the Australian public, an enormous deception by the Treasurer to suggest he knew nothing about the Western Australian increase to 7.5 per cent when he knew all about it. He stood in this House today and said to the parliament and through the parliament to the Australian people that it came suddenly out of the blue. He has had over 12 months notice, in detailed discussions with the Western Australia government. Through a series of press announcements, he knew, yet he stood in this parliament and said it came suddenly out of the blue. This government is not only destroying the Australian mining industry but it also cannot be believed on anything. (Time expired)
I thank the House for the opportunity to address the very strong state of the Australian mining and petroleum industry at this point in time. I remind the House that that is what the MPI is about. It goes to the influence of government policy on the state of the mining industry in Australia. Let us deal with a few hard facts.
In the last 12 months, we have created an additional 27,700 new jobs in the mining industry. The reason we have created those jobs is that we are part and parcel of one of the most attractive nations for investment in the world when it comes to the petroleum and mining sectors. I was fortunate enough last Friday to be part of a further major announcement about where we are going as a nation. That was the Shell announcement concerning the construction of Prelude, the biggest ever floating LNG plant in the history of the world. That announcement effectively means that we now have the capacity to open up parts of the petroleum sector which were historically perceived as being stranded because of their distant nature in Australian waters—not Western Australian waters. Those petroleum products are to be developed for the benefit of all Australians, not just Western Australians.
In the development of the petroleum sector, 90 per cent of Australian projects are in Commonwealth waters. It is therefore our responsibility to continue to work with petroleum companies such as Shell to guarantee that we remain attractive and, in doing so, to create real jobs akin to the 27,700 new jobs created in the sector over the last 12 months.
When you think about the attractiveness of Australia, think about some of the key investments over the last three years. Think about the Gorgon plant, a $43 billion investment, the biggest ever single investment in the history of the petroleum sector in Australia. At the same time and side by side with the Barrow Island development, we are almost at the completion of Pluto 1, a Woodside project, an investment of the order of $15 billion to $20 billion, with gas to be produced in the second half of this calendar year, opening up further LNG contracts for Australia.
We also have the capacity in the foreseeable future to see the final investment decisions going to the Wheatstone project, a Chevron project at Onslow, and potentially the Browse project at James Price Point north of Broome. It is just not in Western Australia any longer; it is also in Northern Australia where Conoco-Philips at the moment has one gas train. There are opportunities to hopefully develop the Impex project—a development investment decision by Impex in association with Total, prior to the end of this calendar year, another investment of the order of $20 to $30 billion. Then we go to the east coast of Australia—investments in the first LNG exports in the world from the coal seam methane sector, a $31 billion new investment which will make Gladstone a major industrial centre in Australia, but that is just the petroleum sector.
Let us go to a couple of other key commodities because in my opinion not only does the coal seam methane export industry have great potential for Australia over the next 10 to 20 years but so do the coal sector and the iron ore sector. And this is despite the best endeavours of the Greens to undermine and destroy the coal seam methane, LNG and coal industries in Australia. The coal industry and the coal seam methane industry in Australia have a bright future of investment and the creation of real jobs and training opportunities and, side by side with that, a capacity to create real export earnings for Australia, strengthening the overall foundations of the Australian economy.
Let us have a look at a couple of those investments over the last six to 12 months. On 25 March this year alone BHP Billiton, at one board meeting held in London, invested $400 million in the thermal coal industry in New South Wales, $5 billion in the coking coal industry in Queensland and then, when we go to Western Australia in the important iron ore industry, something of the order of $7 billion—that is, over $12 billion invested in the resources sector in Australia by one company at one board meeting in March this year. That is only a small example of a range of investment decisions going to the strength of the mining sector in Australia over the last six to 12 months.
We could go to the decision by Fortescue Metals on 10 November last year to invest another $8.4 billion in the iron ore sector in the north-west of Western Australia. That investment decision is very important. That company is now out raising capital for further investment opportunities in Australia. The decision of the Western Australia government last Thursday to increase mining royalties in Western Australia does not augur well in terms of that company's capacity to promote Australia as a safe haven for investment at this very important time in this investment cycle. We go also to other major investors. We go to Xstrata and the Ulan West underground project in New South Wales on 3 August, last year—$1.1 billion. We go to Xstrata and a range of other coking coal and thermal coal decisions around Australia. We should also not forget Rio Tinto, which on 20 October last year made an investment of $3.1 billion in a further expansion of its iron ore operations in north-west Western Australia.
The truth of the matter is that the mining and petroleum industry in Australia, be it in New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania or Victoria, is in a very sound position at this moment. We are strong on investment. Our real challenge is to actually manage the investment pipeline in relation to a shortage of skilled labour in Australia.
What we have really got in Western Australia—and this is what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wanted to talk about today—is a dogs breakfast when it comes to royalties and the understanding of the industry as to where the Western Australia government is going with the royalties regime not only over the last 12 months but also in the future. Let us look at what the Western Australian government has said about royalties since April last year. It is relatively recent history. Firstly, it was out there talking about increases in gold royalties that would occur in the May 2010 budget. As a result of a campaign by the coalition in the upper house, the Western Australian Premier backed off from that and abandoned the plan in the May 2010 budget. Norman Moore, the Minister for Mines and Petroleum, took the Western Australian Treasurer and Premier on and forced them to back off from a potential increase in gold royalties.
Then we had a proposal, over the last 12 months, to review the magnetite royalties paid in Western Australia. There was an expectation in the industry that they would be reduced. I say 'reduced', because the Argus-Ferguson report into the federal profits based tax showed that, where the magnetite industry exists in Australia in competitive terms compared with other states, the royalties rates in Western Australia were relatively high and made Western Australia uncompetitive.
We go to the question of iron ore royalties. Following the budget last year, and a proposed joint venture operation between BHP and Rio Tinto, the Western Australian government reopened the state development agreements with the purpose of trying to increase the royalty take to assist the Western Australian community. That was agreed to by BHP and Rio Tinto, because they expected major synergies and improvements in efficiency arising from the proposed joint-venture operation. The joint-venture operation fell over, yet BHP and Rio Tinto continue to pay those increased royalties without gaining necessary efficiencies. As a result of the renegotiation of that agreement, they contributed about $350 million per year to the Western Australian state coffers. In addition, they made a one-off contribution of the order of $350 million to the Western Australian budget processes for the purposes of developing a new hospital in Perth.
Following that announcement, if I remember correctly, in June of last year, we had very bold and clear statements by the Western Australian Premier as to what he intended to do on royalties in the future. I refer to his statement that was reported in the West Australian newspaper of 20 October 2010. He said:
The State has no intention of increasing royalties, but we will certainly preserve the right to do so …
The mining industry took the Western Australian Premier at his word. Since October 2010 until more recently, not only was Mr Barnett the Premier of Western Australia but also he was its Treasurer. That is why the mining industry took him at his word. They regarded his statements as being set in stone. It is therefore not a surprise to see a range of media statements issued by the mining industry on Thursday of last week clearly nailing the Western Australian government for a lack of consultation with the industry on the recently announced increases in royalties. That is reflected, for example, in statements by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia and by the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies. The statement by AMEC, which was posted on 19 May 2011, said:
AMEC is extremely disappointed that industry bodies and individual companies have not been consulted in respect of the WA Government’s decision to increase the royalty rate on iron ore fines.
That sentiment is also reflected in a statement issued by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy on Thursday of last week. Its statement first referred to the endeavour by the Western Australian government to create a sense that this is just an anomaly. So when the coalition increases royalties in Australia it is an anomaly, but when you actually want to put in place at a federal level what the industry wanted—a profits based tax—then it is a major tax grab. After stating that the chamber is not opposed to reform, the chamber's statement continued:
We support genuine economic reform that protects against sovereign risk, improves the international competitiveness of the resources sector as an investment destination and promotes economic growth.
It has really become clear what it is that the Western Australian government was really about on Thursday of last week. It was focused on a mere short-term endeavour in order to have a political stoush with the Commonwealth government. If members have any doubts about that, I refer them to the comments of the Western Australian Premier today—and this goes to the issue of an own goal. He said:
Yes, we knew that we would get less funding by raising our royalties under the current arrangements.
That is what it is all about: a short-term political stoush. That position is also reflected in comments by the resources minister Norman Moore that were reported in the business pages of the Sunday Age and detailed today by the Treasurer in the House. Those comments referred to the fact that Mr Norman Moore advised journalist Michael Pascoe early last year that the last thing the Western Australian government should do is increase royalties because it would have a major impact on their GST grants under the Commonwealth-state grants system.
I therefore suggest to the House that the Western Australian government has potentially created an environment that will strangle the future of the resources sector in Western Australia. The Commonwealth government will stand by its agreement with the resources sector—both the petroleum and the mining components. We will credit the increase in royalties in accordance with our undertakings to industry. But the truth of the matter is that, in terms of royalties as against a profits based tax, royalties are paid in both good and bad times. The Commonwealth will only increase its revenue take under the mining tax on super profits during very good commodity price times.
In essence, in the future, from here on in as of last Thursday and as of June last year, the resources sector in Western Australia will confront a substantial increase in royalties. There have been two increases in royalties in the last 12 months that will have to be paid in both good and bad times—irrespective of the state of commodity prices. So not only have they kicked an own goal in terms of the potential loss of GST revenue, which they admitted today they had knowledge of, but they have also potentially set up an environment that will strangle the small and start-up companies which are so central to the future of the mining sector in Australia.
In conclusion, I simply say that the mining and petroleum sectors have never been better positioned. We are working with them on labour supply issues, opening up further opportunities for migration to assist them to make sure that their investment delivers further wealth and prosperity to Australia. The real problem in the resources sector in Australia is the lack of policy and understanding on the other side of the House. As we all appreciate, the leader of the coalition finds economics boring and has no interest in decent policy development in Australia, as reflected in the stoush reported in the newspapers of last weekend between the shadow Treasurer and the coalition leader. (Time expired)
I appreciate the opportunity to rise and address this issue today. The mining industry in Australia is highly valued, and right now the centre of mining in Australia is Western Australia. Western Australia has a responsibility to this nation to pull its weight. We have heard a great deal from the Minister for Resources and Energy about why the actions of Premier Barnett are somehow illegitimate. All I can suggest is: check the records, look at the communications that took place and make up your own mind. Premier Colin Barnett has done the right thing by Western Australians and continues to do the right thing by all Australians in supporting this nation, being the state Premier of the coalface, if we may say, of the Australian Treasury. Mining in Western Australia, according to the best stats from 2007-08, made a contribution of $58.6 billion to the Western Australian economy. The Western Australian minerals and petroleum sector contributed 83 per cent of the state's merchandise exports. It contributes approximately 53 per cent of Australia's total value of mineral and petroleum sales. Royalties received by the state government from Western Australian mineral and petroleum producers totalled approximately $2.3 billion in the year.
This whole argument about fines and the rate of royalty levied on fines goes back to the development of the iron ore provinces of Western Australia in the early sixties. Fines were considered at the time to be an inferior product and not particularly required by the smelters of the world. Therefore, there was a reduction in the royalty charged of something like 1.375 per cent. That reduction or concession, in the light of the popularity today of iron ore of any description, has been removed. It is as simple as that. It is not an increase; it is a removal of a concession that the industry in Western Australia has known about for about the last two years. The statement by the Premier in the latest state budget simply gives the industry two full years to come up to speed in paying the full royalty rate of 7.5 per cent. This is much less of an impact than many would suggest is the case.
The mining industry in Western Australia, I might add, in the most recent annual report, contributes $70.9 billion. That is the resources sector in Western Australia. It is now 89 per cent of the state's total merchandise exports and it is 42 per cent of the nation's exports. And $176 billion is the value of projects underway, committed or close to commitment. It is those projects that are close to commitment that I wish to bring to the attention of the House. The imposition of this MRRT, the minerals resource rent tax, speaks to potential investors around the world, who used to believe that Australia was a good place to put their capital investment because, apart from many differences that occur around the world, sovereign risk in Australia is exceptionally low. Investors would say, 'We can deposit our capital funds there. We know that they will make profits for us into the future because Australia is secure.' Australia has had good governance and a reputation for low sovereign risk. With the introduction of the MRRT, all of that reputation goes out the window—forever. The real issue today is the decisions being made in boardrooms around the world as to where to put floating capital. If our reputation as a secure destination for those funds is trashed then we take the risk of reducing employment in the resources industry.
Keep in mind that when this government last year raised the spectre of the people of Australia not being compensated for the mineral wealth that this nation possesses they talked about Australians not getting their fair share of the wealth. What about the taxi drivers in suburban Melbourne and Sydney, the hairdressers and others who provide services to those households employed on a fly-in fly-out basis in the Western Australian iron ore province? That has all been discounted. The government seem to have a hypocritical view of the world. They talk about wanting to close the gap. They refer blithely to closing the gap. They are talking about the health and education differentials between Indigenous Australians and other Australians. Do they realise that, in imposing the MRRT, they run the risk of taking away all of the investment that the mining companies place in regional Australia for the assistance of education, employment and the consequential long-term health of Indigenous Australians?
The Martu people enjoy something like $6 million per annum from Telfer in the way of training and improved health and facilities on the ground like roads and airstrips that will allow flying doctors to come in and provide health services. When imposing a tax on the mining industry, albeit just on the iron ore and coal industries today—and remember that iron ore is the major mined substance in Western Australia—I remind you: what about tomorrow? It is the thin end of the wedge when you talk about the mining industry involving coal and iron ore. But with a greedy government in power that lives by the mantra of, 'Impose a new tax whenever the budget looks crook,' what about all of the other very wealthy, great contributors to this national economy such as goldminers, manganese miners and solar salt producers? Those industries are shivering right now because they fear that this greedy government will impose additional taxes on their industries as well, to say nothing of that hanging sword of Damocles called a carbon tax.
The mining industry is not always going to be the golden goose. This government want to impose a tax that will put the wealth of this nation at risk because they are short-sighted and, frankly, hypocritical in their view. If we are going to increase employment, another mantra of this government, why would we impose a tax on the very industry that has the potential to employ another 27,000 Australians this year? It makes no sense to be so two-faced in one's approach to solving problems for this nation.
There is a great deal to be said about improvements and the way forward in the mining industry. I have a long list of recommendations here. I will pick a couple from the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia. They talk about improving skilled migration. They talk about improving education and training in the industry. They talk about having a strategic policy of planning initiatives to fulfil their vision for the state of Western Australia and exploring innovative ways to manage water, one of our scarcest resources, for enabling growth. They say nothing about the necessity to impose a great big new tax to pave the way forward for this industry.
If we are serious about maintaining the wealth of this nation, if we could be serious for a moment about envisaging this government ever having a budget in surplus, why on earth would we impose a great big new tax on the very industry that sustains this Treasury? It does not make sense. Why would you impose a tax on the industry that provides such a resource for Indigenous people in health, education, training and employment? It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that you could impose a tax and therefore improve the outcome for all of those other things that this government proposes. They put their hands on their hearts and talk about the necessity to improve life expectancy, education and employment opportunities. None of those things will be achieved if they impose this minerals resource rent tax on the very successful industries of this nation.
Last Friday I was in Moranbah, the largest of the mining towns in my electorate. I was there to open the BER projects—a new hall and a new library—at Moranbah East State School. As I was inspecting the buildings with the principal before the ceremony, he told me that the new buildings had arrived just in time to deal with the expansion the school is experiencing. The number of students at the school has gone from under 500 to over 700 in just a few years. That is because of more kids and more families of more miners coming to work and live in Moranbah. And the story is repeated wherever you look in Moranbah and throughout Central Queensland. Investment in mines and infrastructure is flooding in and workers are following. This is not the story of an industry suffering under any adverse impacts, as alleged by the coalition.
This MPI is about politics, pure and simple. It is about shifting attention away from the shafting the Premier of Western Australia is giving to mining companies in that state and the raw deal he cooked up in last week's budget for the people of Western Australia. Just look at who has put this topic up for today's MPI—not the shadow resources minister, the member for Groom, but the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Western Australian chief on the other side. She is doing it as a favour for her Western Australian mate Colin Barnett, even though he has just betrayed every promise she would have made in the boardrooms of Perth in the lead-up to the last election. Back then she would have been going from boardroom to boardroom collecting donations for the Liberal Party and promising her mining company donors that she would protect them from additional taxes.
This is the same deputy opposition leader who not so long ago was in Geraldton telling locals:
To impose an uncompetitive tax on this sector of the economy really does damage it.
Who is imposing uncompetitive taxes now? Who is going after an extra $2 billion in tax from mining companies, big and small, the profitable and the not so profitable, with the hike in royalties? Who is putting his state's budget position at risk with a $300 million gap in revenue, as reported on the front page of the Australian today? Who is giving away more GST revenue from the Grants Commission than the hike in royalties will raise for his state? Who is putting at risk infrastructure funding that would actually support the mining industry in Western Australia? It is the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, and now we can see that he has the full backing of the federal opposition for his tax grab on mining in that state.
If the deputy opposition leader was serious about standing up for the mining industry, she would be gathering her Western Australian colleagues together and telling the Premier to stop milking WA's mining companies and to stop selling out Western Australia in terms of GST revenue and infrastructure spending. But, as we have seen, the opposition is happy to let the Western Australian Premier go right ahead with his mining tax grab and even to provide him with cover here in the parliament with stunts such as this one today. I noted before that it was not the shadow resources minister who put this matter of public importance up for debate today. He clearly does not feel the same obligation to defend the Premier of Western Australia.
Coming from Queensland and from an electorate which sits alongside the explosion in resource investment and activity associated with the coal seam gas industry, the member for Groom—as I know you do too, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—must know that the claims made by the deputy opposition leader and the opposition generally just do not stack up against what anyone in Queensland can see with their own eyes. Every day I open the paper there is a new project being announced: a new mine, a new pipeline, a new port facility, more railway capacity—all driven by an industry that cannot keep up with demand for its commodities. It is an industry whose real life, on-the-ground concerns, away from negotiations and rhetoric about matters like the carbon price or the minerals resource rent tax, are all about dealing with the pressures of growth in the sector—how to get enough workers, how to house them and how to develop supporting infrastructure and industry quickly enough. There is not much evidence in that of these adverse impacts the opposition is talking about. Mr Deputy Speaker, these claims crumble in the face of what is happening all around us in Central Queensland and I know in your own electorate in the south-west of the state. The shadow minister knows it is the same where he is around Toowoomba.
If members do not believe their own eyes, the figures confirm the staggering truth about the scale of the boom we are living through and trying to manage as a government. A snapshot from Central Queensland which was reported in February this year talks about 50 mining projects identified in the Bowen Basin alone, with a potential value of about $20 billion. Twenty-four of these projects are at an advanced stage and include 12 new mines and 12 expansions of existing operations.
A large proportion of my time as the member in a mining region is spent keeping up with what these developments mean for the region and the people living in the mining towns and larger coastal centres, like Mackay and Rockhampton, because the impact a new or expanding mine can have on services and infrastructure—both physical and social—is enormous. As an example, in April the CEO of Anglo American came to Moranbah to announce a $2.7 billion growth plan for the town, including two new underground mines and the creation of 2,000 new jobs over the next five years. As part of the development, the company is going to provide $20 million towards community infrastructure for the town in recognition of the impact this is going to have and the pressure it is going to place on services. That is $2.7 billion just in one town of fewer than 10,000 people. I ask again: how is that indicative of the adverse impacts the opposition is talking about? The fact is that the opposition has to keep attention away from the tax grab by the Western Australian Premier and the betrayal of mining companies and residents of that state.
Sadly, when we should be talking about the substance of the mining industry and the challenges that the mining boom mark 2 presents to our country, this MPI is not about the realities of the mining industry. It is just a political stunt to give cover to the opposition's hypocrisy. On the other hand, the government is focused on the realities of mining boom mark 2. The current mining boom is a once-in-100-years opportunity that must be managed for the benefit of all Australians not just for now but for the future needs of our country—for that time when we do not have the mining boom to hold us up. That is why we have worked with mining companies to design a minerals resource rent tax—a tax that provides a greater return to Australians for their resources and allows the government to invest in other important initiatives that support mining, as well as broadening and strengthening our economy overall.
The MRRT is funding important tax returns. The revenue collected will be returned to Australians in a number of ways. It will help us to broaden our economy by allowing for a tax cut to 29 per cent for all companies, starting from July 2013. Small businesses will get that new tax break from 1 July this year. All Australian workers will benefit from a boost to superannuation savings from 1 July 2013. I know that my electorate is particularly pleased about the $6 billion regional infrastructure fund that will come from the minerals resource rent tax. That is a fund that will pay for important projects like the $120 million for safety improvements to the Peak Downs Highway between the Bowen Basin and Mackay and $40 million to duplicate the Yeppin Bridge and relieve congestion at the southern entrance to Rockhampton.
The MRRT is a tax that the government designed in close consultation with the mining companies that will be most affected by it. It is designed to be more efficient for the companies and fairer for the Australian people, who should benefit from the mineral wealth of the country. The mining sector sees that. Following the announcement of the MRRT on 2 July 2010, the Minerals Council of Australia said:
Today's proposal on a new Minerals Resource Rent Tax stands to deliver a positive outcome for Australia and its minerals industry.
Where is the bit about adverse impacts there? The reality is that the government is responding to the needs of mining companies and mining communities through extra spending on infrastructure in mining states like Queensland and through the funding provided in the budget for training and apprenticeships This is all geared towards creating the skilled workforce the resources sector so desperately needs and ensuring that more people in places like Central Queensland get a foothold in employment in industry. It is geared towards constructing the infrastructure mining regions need to drive the growth in the sector and to enable communities to live alongside that growth. This government will continue to work constructively with the mining industry and continue to show up the opposition for how hollow its claims are to be any kind of friend to the mining industry.
I am pleased to speak today on this matter of public importance about the adverse effects of the government's policies on the mining industry in Australia. Dare I say that we are here today because of what this government did under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan. The history of this is that the Treasurer, over the Christmas break, read the Henry tax review and out of the dozens of recommendations he picked 2½ of them and one of them was this so-called mining tax. The Rudd government's first incarnation of this tax, which was called the resource super profits tax, was condemned across the world. This tax on the Australian mining sector was the brainchild of those geniuses the Treasurer and former Prime Minister Rudd. I thank them for that, because that certainly played out well in seats like mine in Western Australia. Keep it up, because it really goes down well in resource areas where they know what is happening. This resource super profits tax really damaged the Labor brand. It really damaged the former Prime Minister, to the extent that the factional bosses whipped out their knives and executed him in June last year. It was a political execution, dare I say.
Fundamental injustice day!
Fundamental injustice day. Then along came the current Prime Minister, delivered by the factional bosses. In the middle of an absolute row with the mining industry, where she asked the mining industry to stop their ads, to pull their ads and to sit down and negotiate, what did she do? She negotiated with the three major miners: BHP, Xstrata and Rio. She did a secret deal with these three majors on what they were going to pay. Canada was actually licking its lips at that stage. It thought: 'Isn't this fantastic? Australia, one of the pre-eminent resource areas of the world in terms of its mining industry, is now going to make itself uncompetitive.' Canada would be so much more competitive.
I will put this in context. I was speaking to the mine manager of potentially the largest goldmine in Australia, the Boddington goldmine in my electorate. He has just returned from South America and he confirmed what I have said. In Chile, the government tax, which is not set but negotiable, is 26 per cent. If we were to end up with a tax of 56 or 58 per cent, as proposed by the then Rudd government, where do you think they would take their money? As this person said to me: 'We would be taking it off to South America, we would be taking it off to Africa and we would be taking it off to Mongolia, where there are no impositions on us getting ahead and mining.' Money is fluid in this business. Those strange people out there who think that Australia is the only place that these large companies want to invest in should just think about BHP. The largest copper mine in the world is Escondida, in Chile, which they are going to expand. We have huge copper resources in Australia. Sandfire Resources outside Meekatharra is going to be a massive copper mine. But what is going to be put in its way? These sorts of impositions—not only a mining tax but a carbon tax.
The previous Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, went to the 2007 election promising $100 million for WA in infrastructure. The only thing that happened was that he said:
… in the West, so much money is generated for the public revenue in Canberra out of these great resource projects. But you know something? Not enough of that money is given back.
This government has not delivered one cent. None of that $100 million has materialised. The reincarnated tax, the minerals resource rent tax, of the Gillard government—done secretly with the large miners, leaving out the midcaps and juniors—will have a debilitating effect on the mining industry across Australia. Western Australia, where I come from, is not the only place where mining occurs. You only have to look at the massive resources of Olympic Dam in South Australia; at coal resources in New South Wales; right across the board—zinc, copper, gold, obviously massive amounts of coal—in Queensland; and uranium in the Northern Territory. I suspect no-one has mentioned uranium in the debate since Japan. There are all these potential opportunities. Western Australia is described by Colin Barnett as potentially the richest mining province in the world.
We are told that the resource rent tax will deliver $2 billion back to Western Australia over 10 years if it goes ahead. It has to get through this place yet, even though it was announced in the budget. During the election campaign my opponent wanted to tell us it would happen over four years. He argued that on radio. I want to confirm again that it is over 10 years. It is $200 million a year. It is not much when you think of the billions of dollars that will come out of Western Australia. In fact, between 2012 and 2014, WA will generate $7 billion for this tax if it goes ahead and will only receive $400 million in those two years. In other words, for every dollar WA gives to the federal government it receives less than 6c in return. The member for Capricornia talked about this tax grab on mining. You cannot get a bigger tax grab on mining than the minerals resource rent tax.
I want to make this point very clear before we move to the end of this debate. The Minister for Resources and Energy came in here and said how sneaky it was that Western Australia they did not tell them about this. We now know, through questions at question time and since through the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Curtin, that this government certainly did know and they knew well in advance. They knew that this would be added to the iron ore fines and it would not increase the overall royalty on iron ore. Obviously this government does not understand fines.
Let me put this into context. As a thief in the night, a couple of budgets ago, the Rudd government put a $2 billion tax on condensate in the gas industry. There was no prior knowledge and no prior warning. It was a by-product—a bit like the fines—that had not had any tax previously imposed on it, again to help the industry get on its feet. The gas companies did not know about it, they were not warned about it and they did not factor it in. Along came the government, tearing $2 billion a year out of that industry. The government complains about no knowledge, no prior warning, no consultation on this effort—which we now know from Western Australia is not true. What is true is this government put a tax on condensate, on a burgeoning resources industry which is going to supply clean energy to this country and to the rest of the world. They slapped a massive $2 billion tax on it without any warning. So much for this government saying that this is unjustified, terrible and something they would never do—they did. These threats that have been made by this government to Western Australia are just unparalleled. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer of this country are out there threatening Western Australia about its allocation of GST—and we know that we are only getting 63c in the dollar compared to Queensland's 91c, and I will not even mention Tasmania. But the fact is that this income will flow to Western Australia, because we are entitled to it. I had people stop me over the weekend and say to me, 'I thought the resources minister, Martin Ferguson, was a good bloke until I heard him coming out with these unbelievable threats.' If you are going to be a minister, you cannot carry on like a trade union thug, threaten sovereign states in this country and accuse them of doing a whole lot of things, as has been done over this last while. This is a bad tax. It is bad for Australia, it sends a very bad signal about the sovereign risk of this country and, at the end of the day, moneys will flow to areas where they do not have the same impositions.
MagNet, a group of magnetite companies, came to see us the last time we were in parliament here and outlined the massive projects they are building in this country, particularly in the north-west—CITIC Pacific, for example, has a project with a mine life of 25 years which will put $125 million in royalties per annum into this country. They are very concerned about the direction of this government in terms of both its mining tax and its carbon tax. The lobbyist for this company, dare I say, is the former state member for Kalgoorlie Megan Anwyl, who is out there saying, 'This is terrible for mining, this is terrible for our magnetite industry and we should stop it.' (Time expired)
This motion is typical of the coalition and their inconsistency and hypocrisy when it comes to economic issues. Those opposite are always claiming in this House that they are the party of low tax. They always claim that, yet when you look at the record they are the party of high tax. They are the party that squandered the mining boom mark 1. They did not invest in health, education and infrastructure and they never matched our contribution of $4.3 billion to the regions, in places like Queensland and Western Australia.
This motion is a disgrace. It simply shows just how many Western Australians in this place wag the dog when it comes to the coalition. It also shows the hypocrisy of the Western Australian Liberal Party and of the Leader of the Opposition. Have we had one question today about issues of economics? What about the budget reply speech? What about the National Press Club performance of the shadow Treasurer when it came to economics? On that side of the House, there are no economic credentials, there is no economic capability and there is no economic record that they can boast of.
What about the high-taxing government they were when they were in power last? Let us have a look at that. They claim that our policies impact on the mining sector and other sectors. In 2005-06, when they were in government, there was a 25.6 per cent tax to GDP ratio. In 2007-08, it was as high as 24.9 per cent. In the 2011-12 budget, it is 23.2 per cent. That is the reality. Those opposite always like a tax. Then they will squander it on middle-class welfare rorts. That is what they like to do.
They should have a talk to the mining industry. They went to those boardrooms and those business lunches in the lead-up to the last election and said: 'We won't do anything. We'll look after you, mates. We'll make sure we do.' When their state colleagues got in, they decided to whack on another $2 billion tax. I do not care if the member for Durack calls it a levy, a royalty or a tax; it is $2 billion. He knows that is what it is about. He knows this is a political strategy. He knows this is a tactic by those opposite. That is the reality. He knows also that, when it comes to the mining boom mark 2, in Queensland and Western Australia we are seeing massive investment.
The Treasurer, in a speech to the Brisbane North Chamber of Commerce on 13 May 2011, made the point very clearly when it comes to my home state of Queensland. I grew up in Ipswich and grew up with the coal mining industry. We still have New Hope colliery there and coalminers in rural parts of my electorate, around Rosewood et cetera. The coalmining industry is very, very important to Queensland. But it is not just that; the LNG industry is now growing. The Treasurer said in his speech:
The total pipeline of investment in Queensland is about $180 billion.
So much for the adverse impact of government policy on the mining industry in Queensland. He went on:
And over the past year, the state's LNG industry has committed to more than $30 billion in investment, driven by the Queensland Curtis LNG and Gladstone LNG projects. Big projects like this are going to support rising incomes and export capacity, and strong economic growth in the years ahead.
Those opposite know that is true. They know that is the case. They know that, according to the Treasury, the mining industry is planning to invest $76 billion in 2011-12—about eight times the annual level before the mining boom mark 1. That will boost Australia's export capacity. Investment will increase, the LNG sector will have many large projects and we will see projects by Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton and Xstrata. We will see all kinds of minerals and energy projects across the board. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences estimates a total pipeline of resources investment of over $380 billion. That is going to increase export volumes and high commodity prices, and that will lead to increased incomes.
Nationally, Treasury estimates income from non-rural commodity exports over the next two years will increase by 15 per cent to $203 billion. I can tell you something, Mr Deputy Speaker: that really shows that somehow the federal Labor government is adversely impacting the mining sector! Our policies quite clearly are assisting in terms of economic capacity, investment in infrastructure and what we are doing in the regions. Locally I speak to blokes like John Berry, who is the CEO of JBS Swift, the big meat-processing plant in my electorate. John said to me a couple of months ago, when I had a conversation over lunch with him, 'We're finding it difficult to get workers because they're all going to the mining sector in Queensland and Western Australia.'
It was the same thing when we had the opening of the $2 million investment by the federal Labor government in Bremer TAFE, where the new machine shop has been entirely done. I was talking to apprentices and instructors there. What is happening is that the mining sector is grabbing hold of the apprentices and taking them up into Central Queensland and Western Australia. So much for the mining sector being adversely impacted by the federal Labor government's policies. It is just a nonsense. Those opposite know in their heart of hearts that this is a nonsense. It is a stupid MPI topic from those opposite. They know, of course, that we need to invest in skills and infrastructure.
That is why I was so pleased to see that we are building Australia's future workforce with $558 million for tailored quality training places through what we have called the National Workforce Development Fund. And we are giving $1.75 billion to the states and territories for vocational education and training. We are partnering with the states—for example, the department in Queensland known as DEEDI. I saw that on Friday when I was speaking to some women who were graduating from work ventures with a certificate II. I saw what they were doing. We have great organisations.
I was at the trade expo in Ipswich run by Apprenticeships Queensland. You can see what is happening. I spoke there to Brett Kitching, who is in charge of the Ipswich Turf Club. At the turf club in Ipswich they put on the trade expo. There you have a whole host of people from various sectors in vocational education and training, people from TAFE et cetera, including the federally funded Business Enterprise Centre Ipswich Region. Over lunch, Brett was saying to me that there is more interest in this trade expo than ever before. I was speaking to Anita Dwyer, from Apprenticeships Queensland, over lunch as well. I was talking to them about what is going on in the work that they are doing. Workers with qualifications in carpentry and building and construction trades, electricians et cetera are not just staying in South-East Queensland; they are going up to Central Queensland and Western Queensland and to the Western Australian regions because they are getting jobs there.
This is what the government is doing, spending $3.1 billion in trade training, skilling, increasing the capacity of our workforce and investing in the regions. Those opposite did not invest in regions. In my region alone, in South-East Queensland, it is quite clear that they did not invest. They did not take the benefit of the mining boom mark 1. We are taking the benefit of the mining boom mark 2, and in Regional Development Australia we are seeing an extra billion dollars put in for projects.
The Regional Infrastructure Fund that we have announced is part of the minerals resource rent tax. We are putting $6 billion in that fund, and locally we are seeing the benefit of it. We are seeing the benefit in my electorate with the $54 million to upgrade the Blacksoil Interchange. That is important not just for farmers but for the miners from the Surat Basin. You can see the mining trucks going through. You can see the farm produce going through. You can see the kids going to school. You can see the workers going to Ipswich and Brisbane and up to Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley as well. That is what we are doing: investing locally.
And we are investing in major projects in South-East Queensland that the coalition refused to do. We have used the money we have beneficially, and I think it is important to note that we are going to use the money from the minerals resource rent tax to invest in important infrastructure in Queensland and Western Australia. Those opposite would not provide that infrastructure. They would not invest in organisations. The shadow minister for energy and resources, the member for Groom, has gone missing in this debate. There is a great project that he should have funded in his electorate during the time he sat in the cabinet—that is, the Toowoomba Bypass. He did not fund that project, and he squandered the money from the resources. He talks about the Toowoomba Bypass all the time, but did they use the money from mining boom mark 1? No way. Those opposite did not fund that project. They would not fund that project. They would not fund the Ipswich Motorway. They would not fund so many projects in Queensland and Western Australia which we are doing through the minerals resource rent tax. Those opposite should hang their heads in shame over this MPI topic. It is a disgrace. They should go back to their Western Australian colleagues and tell them they should fix this—
Thank you for your contribution. There being no other speakers, the discussion has concluded.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of bill presented.
Bill agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Can I indicate that I am pleased the Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 will be passed by the parliament today. The new law will provide greater protections by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities for both men and women in all areas of employment; establishing breastfeeding as a separate ground of discrimination and allowing measures to protect and to accommodate the needs of breastfeeding mothers; and bringing in new protections for students from sexual harassment, including over the internet or by texting.
One disappointment was the opposition's amendments to the bill in the Senate to remove protections from indirect discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities. We are disappointed that the opposition has moved to limit important protections that would have helped both men and women to better balance work and family responsibilities without fear of potential penalty. Those protections would have complemented similar protections already available at the state and territory level, and it is disappointing that at a federal level the protections will not be as strong. Although the government did not support the opposition's amendments, we will nonetheless support the bill in its amended form.
Despite the opposition's amendments, the bill still contains important protections for men and women against discrimination and those important protections should not be delayed any further. The government are still strongly committed to ensuring working families are properly protected, so we will monitor how these new provisions operate.
As I indicated, the passage of this bill is necessary to establish the position of Age Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission. It will be the first time that such a position has been created at a federal level. This position will provide a dedicated advocate for the rights of all Australians and to raise awareness in particular about age discrimination in the community and also obviously in the workplace. Appropriate funding has been provided for this purpose and we are committed to having the new commissioner in place by July of this year. I commend the bill to the House.
On behalf of the opposition, we also welcome the passage of this bill today. Clearly both sides of the House would like to see the parliament do all it can to tackle sex and age discrimination. But once we do so we need to be mindful of the fact that when we are legislating we can complicate matters in a way that makes it very difficult, particularly for small businesses, to keep up with the constant changes we make to legislation. In the interests of simplicity, the amendments have been moved by the opposition and I welcome the government's support.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That:
(a) the following Bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 3) Bill 2011;
Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011;
Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011; and
(b) unless otherwise ordered, at the adjournment of the House for this sitting the following Bills stand referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012;
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012, and
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012.
Question agreed to.
Before the debate is resumed on the Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2011-2012, I remind the House that pursuant to the resolution agreed to by the House on 10 May 2011, this order of the day will be debated concurrently with Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
“while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) condemns the government for incorporating in an annual appropriation bill provisions to increase the limit on government borrowings above the total of $200 billion;
(2) recognises that a special case must be made for such a significant increase in borrowing limits and that the government must explain any special circumstances that it believes justify such an increase; and
(3) demands that the parliament be given the opportunity to consider separately and vote on the proposed increases in borrowing limits set out in Part 5 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-12."
In the small amount of time I had left before I was rudely interrupted last night, I recall that I wanted to summarise by saying that this budget is important for the people of Greenway because it delivers on three key areas and is responsive to the needs of my constituents. The first area is jobs. Over 3,000 apprentices in Greenway stand to benefit tremendously from this government's ongoing investment in their training, which ensures that the right incentives are provided to apprentices as well as to the businesses who conduct the training to keep them on. Older members of my community lament that investment in apprenticeships and vocational training generally has not featured prominently in the last few years. It is terrific to see that that has been turned around.
In the area of health, I would like to thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for her continuing interest in the health needs of the Greenway constituency, particularly the MRI licensing reform, which will be extremely beneficial. Finally, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for Community Services, who is in the chamber, for coming to Greenway last week for that fantastic funding announcement for the Riverstone neighbourhood centre.
In speaking to the appropriation bills, I intend to take advantage of the fact that one can speak on a wide range of subjects and, of course, one of those subjects is the carbon tax, which is conspicuously absent from the appropriation bills and, indeed, from the budget generally. One would have expected it to have been dealt with at least in the budget speech of the Treasurer. But as we saw today from his performance in this House, where he was shown to be someone who tells untruths and perpetually tells untruths, I guess I am not at all surprised that he omitted to leave any reference to the carbon tax out of his budget speech.
But I think it is important to know that the problem with this government is that it is not legitimate. It is a totally illegitimate government. It was not elected and the problem for the Prime Minister is that she was not a legitimately elected Prime Minister either. She came to office by being part of a Shakespearean plot where 'E tu, Brute' was active. A dagger was put in the back of Kevin Rudd in order that he could be disposed of and the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, put in his place. The fact of the matter is that she stitched up a nasty deal with trade union heavies in order to get this position. There were members of the Labor caucus who did not even know that the challenge was on. So she stitched up a deal and became the Prime Minister.
She then called an election and went to that election seeking a mandate to legitimise her position as Prime Minister and Labor as a legitimate government. She failed to secure a majority. In fact, the coalition scored a majority of primary votes and the net outcome is that the people believe that there was no outcome from this election at all. She was able to get a commission from the Governor-General to form a government because the Greens entered into a coalition alliance with the Labor Party and because the Independents in this House agreed that they would not support a no-confidence motion and therefore allowed her to gain a commission and form a government.
Just as once an election is called the entire economy seizes up—people do not make decisions, people do not spend; they are nervous about the outcome— that is exactly what we are seeing in the community as a whole right now. There is absolutely no confidence among the people in the electorate that they can in any way trust this government at all. In fact, they see it as simply a continuation of the campaigning that led up to the election day when no result came forth. Over the weekend I was standing for many hours collecting for charities and a number of people simply came up and asked when were we going to get an election, when were we going to get rid of this Prime Minister—some of them were more deprecating in their terminology than I am in what I am using here—and when could they get rid of this government, as they feel there is no possible progress that can be made in this country until such time as there is an election and the government is removed. I have no doubt that if there were an election we would go in with a solid position to put to the Australian people which would seek a legitimacy and mandate for this side of the House. When we look at the words of the Prime Minister six days before the election we note she said 'there will be no carbon tax under any government that I lead'.
And a day before.
And the day before as well; you are quite right. There is no way in the world that anybody could have been confused or misunderstood what she meant when she said it. She was making an undertaking to the Australian people that they did not have to worry, that that there would be no carbon tax if she were the Prime Minister. Immediately the deal is stitched up—she becomes the Prime Minister because she is able to get a commission because she has stitched up another deal—she says there is going to be a carbon tax. That is a reflection on her. The people know that they were lied to. They people know that deliberate untruth was told in order that she could mislead the people and gain an extra vote. The fact that she was not elected makes it worse. When you put together the manner in which she came to power—the knifing of the existing Prime Minister and then lying to the Australian people in order to gain another vote and then stitching up a deal—
I remind the member for Mackellar that I do not mind a wide-ranging debate. But this is in no way relevant to the appropriation bills. I would ask the member for Mackellar—
But this is the whole point.
I am speaking. Member for Mackellar, I would ask you to deal with the appropriations. I have made my ruling.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason we have maiden speeches given on the appropriations is because it is the one time you do not have to relate your speech to the bills.
I am asking the member for Mackellar to deal with the appropriations.
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but perhaps you could seek advice from the clerks because this is the one time, as I made quite clear at the beginning of my speech, that we do not have to relate our material to the bills before the House—and the clerks will advise you accordingly.
Member for Mackellar, the reason I am speaking to you now—if you would have the courtesy to listen to me—
You have interrupted me—
I am asking you to listen to what I am saying. I believe your speech is reflecting on the Prime Minister—unnecessarily so and repetitively so—and I am asking you to deal with appropriations, please.
I do not have to deal with the appropriations, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I would ask you to consult the clerks. I will return to my speech.
I have made my determination, thank you.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact of the matter is this is why we have maiden speeches in this period, because you do not have to relate them to the appropriation bills.
I am mentioning to you that I believe you are unnecessarily reflecting—
You can mention it all you like, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to my speech.
and I would ask you to remember it.
I am making the point that this Prime Minister has no legitimacy. It is a point I am entitled to make because the people were misled by her telling a deliberate lie with a promise before the election and breaking it after the election.
I go to the next point—that they say there is to be a carbon tax. The government chooses from time to time to make an analogy between the carbon tax and the GST that was introduced by the coalition government under Prime Minister Howard. The difference is this. When John Howard changed his mind about the need for a GST to be introduced, he took it to an election and the Australian people voted upon it. Not only did he properly take it to an election, he also abolished the wholesale sales tax and other taxes so that the GST was a replacement tax. It is also a value added tax, whereby when the tax is paid at each level it is also refunded so that only the final consumer pays the tax; it is not compounded at every level. That is the distinction between that and the carbon tax, which is a cascading tax. It compounds at every level because at every level the tax is paid. A clear example, which has been made quite public and backed up by authorities, is a tax on bricks that are used in building houses. The tax on those bricks will then be cascaded all the way down to the house itself. The Housing Industry Association has indicated that it believes the price of the house will increase by $6,000 and a mortgage repayment will rise by around $43 a month. So, when we say the carbon tax is a tax on everything, it will get into every nook and cranny of everything that is done.
The Labor Party says, 'We are going to offer compensation to the lowest paid'—that is, people who are probably on a total pension without other income—and some compensation for the so-called middle class and none for anybody else,' using again family tax benefit part A as the test. That is the benefit from which the government has just taken away $2 billion and then spent around $1.7 billion on boat people. So we penalise our own Australian families to try to pay for the messed-up, disastrous policy of boat people coming to this country. The Labor Party will be using that same test to decide who shall get compensation.
We have to be very careful here because the compensation that will be paid will be a one-off measure but the tax will be there permanently. The tax is something that will eat into every saving, every payment, but most of all it will eat into the disposable income that people have, and that income is depended upon by the retail sector and the manufacturing sector to survive.
Let us look at why that is so. There are certain things that people have to have in a civilised society as an absolute necessity. Electricity is one of those things. Electricity marks civilisation from non-civilised behaviour. We have at every turn a need for electricity: you cannot have a sewerage system without electricity, you cannot have clean water without electricity and you cannot have safe streets without electricity. Ninety per cent of electricity on the eastern seaboard is generated from coal-fired power stations. Eighty per cent across Australia comes from coal-fired power stations.
We have already seen that the cost of electricity has been rising at an enormous rate—50 per cent since this government came in. Part of the reason for that is a dictate that 20 per cent of all power has to be purchased by 2020 from renewables. There was an attempt by the government with that legislation to allow wind and solar to crowd out the market. I introduced a private member's bill that would allow some room to be left for tidal, thermal and other innovative sources of energy that might come on stream later on. The fact of the matter is that wind and solar are hugely expensive, as we are seeing in New South Wales with the enormous blowout in the cost of electricity generated by subsidised panels on roofs with a very high tariff feed-in. Pensioners are being forced to pay a subsidy to those people who have put those on the roof because it is so expensive.
The bottom line is that people will always have to pay for their electricity, and so that will take up a very fixed part of their available income. They will also have to pay for their gas, rates, mortgage, internet and phones, leaving less and less money to spend on things that are in retail outlets and those things that come into retail outlets from manufacturers. Fifty per cent of all electricity bought by the business sector is bought by manufacturers. They will be hit, and hit very hard. While the dollar is as strong as it is, they will be doubly hit.
We have a situation where we have a government which has no mandate, was not elected, has stitched up a deal and promised not to introduce a tax but which it is now going to impose on people without taking it to the Australian people for a mandate and punish the people and the economy—all in the name of trying to do something for the environment. What a laugh! It will do nothing for the environment at all. It will penalise and hurt families and individuals—and they know it. Boy, do they express their point of view. Whenever I am out and about they come and tell me, 'Get rid of that woman; get rid of that government.' That is how the Australian people are feeling.
The philosophy that guides this government is very simple. The government will always believe that it can spend the people's money better than individuals can. We on this side of the House believe that individuals will always spend their own money better than governments that take it compulsorily by way of taxation and then say, 'We will spend it on your behalf.' That is a fundamental difference between Labor and the Liberal coalition.
When we look at these appropriation bills we see the most important thing that is threatening the Australian people is the great big tax on everything—not even mentioned in the budget, not even factored in, although it is supposed to take effect on 1 July next year. What a joke. Here is a Treasurer who gave a speech and was shown in this parliament today to have misled the Australian people. He misled the parliament this afternoon when he said that the actions in Western Australia had come 'out of the blue' when he knew damned well—when he agreed to pay back to the miners what is paid in royalties—that the Western Australian Premier intended to lift the concession on fines. When I say that this is an illegitimate government, it is true in every sense of the word, both in the way they came to power and the way in which they are using it and abusing it.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: in the course of the contribution by the member for Mackellar, you made a ruling that the rules of relevance meant that the member for Mackellar must restrict the scope of her remarks. Just to assist you, Mr Deputy Speaker, given our good relationship, I point out that page 495 of the House of Representatives Practice points out the relevancy rule for debates and the exceptions to that rule. It stipulates—
Thank you very much for that.
No, you have not actually got the point—
I have got the point, and I do thank you—
It stipulates the main appropriation bills and the supply bills as exceptions to that rule.
Mr Deputy Speaker—
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat while I respond to the member for Casey.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking to the point of order.
The member for Mackellar will resume her seat so I can respond to the member for Casey.
The member for Casey raised a point of order, and I wanted to speak to it.
Please sit down. I thank the member for Casey for his point of order. I was mainly commenting on the fact that I believed the member for Mackellar was going very close to reflecting on the Prime Minister and I asked the member for Mackellar to remain relevant to the appropriations and not reflect—I believe she was getting close to unfairly—on the Prime Minister. I would expect the member for Mackellar and others to be aware of what I would regard as that basic courtesy in this House for any member. I call the member for Mackellar on the point of order.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My intention in rising on this point of order is that your intervention during my speech cost me time and affected my ability to deliver my speech. I would expect an apology from you because you were quite wrong. There is no censorship from the chair. A member may not reflect upon the chair, and I would not dream of doing that, but I may reflect on the Prime Minister all I wish. I would request that I get an apology.
I am sorry if the member for Mackellar felt that she was unfairly dealt with. I try to maintain common courtesies in this place, and I have an expectation that all members would adhere to that principle. I believe the member was getting very close to reflecting unfairly on the Prime Minister, and that was my ruling. If the member for Mackellar feels that that deserves an apology, I am sorry she feels that way—I was trying to maintain the courtesies and protocols of this House.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it would assist the House, given that clearly the member for Mackellar is entitled in her speech on the appropriations to speak on any subject at all—this is the clear exception in the standing orders—and is entitled, if she so chooses and as long as she does not use unparliamentary language, which you would be entitled to pull her up for, or behave in a disorderly fashion, which you would also be entitled to pull her up for, to reflect on the Prime Minister and the job the Prime Minister is doing, if you were to apologise to the member for Mackellar and then we can all move on.
I thank the member for Sturt. My ruling was that I believed the member was getting very close to reflecting unfairly and in an unparliamentary way—
But I am entitled to reflect—
Member for Mackellar, I am trying to give you an explanation as well and I am trying to do it in good faith. I apologise if my ruling does not follow the strict protocols—which I cannot rule on at this stage; I have to take advice on that—and I am just outlining what my intention was.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for your explanation and for your apology to the member for Mackellar. The appropriations are an unrestricted debate. We accept that you were not aware of that until now, but by the very nature of the appropriations the debate is unrestricted subject to the constraints pointed out by the Manager of Opposition Business. Again, to assist you, that is why your good friend the former Leader of the Opposition and member for Werriwa was able to make the sorts of remarks he made on appropriation bills and in grievance debates and in adjournment debates. I certainly accept at face value that you were unaware of the unrestricted nature of the debate, and we thank you for your apology.
Yes I do thank you for your apology, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, I congratulate you on your excellent speakership. I have been sitting through today's proceedings and your judgment has been impeccable. The member for Mackellar was in a very interesting position back in 1991 when there was a hung parliament in New South Wales. I did not hear the member for Mackellar, who was a prominent Liberal at the time, suggesting that the Greiner government was in some way illegitimate and that the choice I made at that time in that hung parliament was illegitimate. I take offence at some of the comments she made about the legitimacy of this parliament. The people voted how the people voted.
The issue of climate change seems to have upset some people. The member for Mackellar, who is now leaving the chamber—in disgrace!—would recognise that during my 2010 election campaign I actually ran on the issue of climate change. I was saying that something needed to be done about climate change. I do not think the government has explained its change of heart terribly well, but I do believe that, given the nature of the parliament, issues such as climate change do have some legitimacy. It is unreasonable for the member for Mackellar to claim that the parliament itself is illegitimate because of some words the Prime Minister may have used in a majority situation when she now finds herself in a minority situation where others have some effect on policy mix. One of the things I would like to congratulate the government on—again, the member for Mackellar raised the issue that she believes individuals can spend money better than governments—is that I am delighted that there are no tax cuts in this budget. In the previous eight years, under the previous Labor government and the Howard government before that, an enormous amount of money was going back to taxpayers in an attempt to buy votes with largesse. I surveyed my electorate on a number of occasions and I sensed that they would have much preferred that money to go into health, hospitals, schools et cetera, rather than going back through the taxation system. I am pleased that we have put a stop to these ongoing tax cuts which have become part of the budgetary process. I am also pleased that the middle-class welfare issue is being further addressed. We need to address it. Middle-class welfare has potential implications as great, if not greater, than people at the lower end of the system not working—people we commonly refer to as 'dole bludgers'.
Because of that eight-year period and a number of initiatives, including the baby bonus and others that were put in place over time, people on very reasonable incomes are now assuming that everybody deserves some sort of handout from government. That expectation needs to be nipped in the bud. We talk about generational welfare and generational work for the dole and we are trying to address those issues through various skills and educational programs, trying to break that particular nexus. If we allow the middle-class welfare issue to go too much longer, that will develop another subculture of expectation that government will provide.
The member for Mackellar raised the issue of giving people the money because they will spend it better than government—the final six years of the Howard government did exactly the reverse. They poured money into people's hands through tax cuts and other middle-class welfare to encourage them to vote for them. So the actions of the Howard government in those last years seem very contradictory—and the first years of the Rudd government as well, when that approach was perpetuated. One of the failings of the Rudd government occurred on the second day of the 2007 campaign. There was a very clever piece of electioneering by John Howard on the first day, when he announced $43 billion in tax cuts. Kevin Rudd at the time, obviously worried about the political ramifications of that degree of largesse, agreed that Labor would carry through with those tax cuts as well. Howard, knowing that he was going to lose the election anyway, was able to hogtie the incoming government. So $43 billion went back through the system—$43 billion which, in my view, could have been better spent on hospitals, education and a range of other community initiatives.
Here today we still have the debate about the National Broadband Network and the so-called enormous draw on the public purse. The reality is that it is about $26 billion; the balance will be obtained from the market. So it is potentially far less than the $43 billion that was given back to people in three years through tax cuts, and it is obviously far less when the $27 billion, or whatever the number ends up being, is over a 10-year period. So I do congratulate the government on starting to address what could become structural issues within our society if we maintain this expectation that there will be welfare for everybody. We have rethink that fairly quickly.
I am sure, Deputy Speaker Bird, that you will allow a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues. I would like to raise briefly a couple of issues which are before this parliament. I think this parliament has the potential to do a lot of good things. There are some enormous issues before this particular parliament. Someone suggested that a hung parliament cannot deal with difficult issues. This hung parliament may well be able to come to a resolution in the climate change debate. That resolution is out there in the ether at the moment with respect to its structure, et cetera. Obviously it could not be in any budget arrangements because there is no structure—whether there will be a carbon tax or other mechanisms to deal the issue. The substantive issue is critical to this country.
I listened to the Climate Commission this morning. It is something that all of us should regard as substantive. We have to bypass some of the petty politics that are going on in this place and legitimately form a consensus on how we work through this problem. It is all very well to use fear tactics because of the short-term nature of each parliament, although I do not think the government has marketed their arrangements well either. But the substantive issue is one the general public wants addressed.
The Murray-Darling guide which the authority put out is a critical issue across six governments. The member for Braddon was the deputy chair of that committee and I thank him and other members of the committee who are looking at that crucial issue. If this parliament did nothing else other than resolve that substantive issue, that would be a significant legacy of this parliament.
The National Broadband Network is probably the most important infrastructure we will see this century, particularly in regional areas. We still have country members of parliament arguing that it is not a good idea, that we should not do it, that only the cities should have this technology and that country kids do not deserve it. The broadband network has tentacles that reach through a whole range of other sectors, including health, education, climate change and aged care, even through to the Murray Darling system. One of the key areas we have noticed from the inquiry of the Standing Committee on Regional Australia into the impact of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been the lack of adequate monitoring of the various river systems and catchments within the basin system. The National Broadband Network has the potential to save billions of dollars, yet we concentrate on costs and whether every house should have it.
The New England electorate fared very well in the budget, which I think was a great one for regional Australia. The Hon. Simon Crean has mentioned a number of issues, but there was something like $4.3 billion in various programs in this budget that will accrue to regional Australia. I am proud of the part that I have played, as has the member for Lyne, in developing some of those processes. The Health and Hospitals Fund, for the first time in history, is being ring-fenced for regional hospitals. That is not to say that city hospitals should not receive their fair share, but normally country hospitals get about 20 per cent. There was a recognised inequity in the system, and $1.8 billion has been set aside in this budget to go to country hospitals and health services. That is an enormous breakthrough.
There will be a similar arrangement with the Education Investment Fund, where half a billion dollars will be ring-fenced for country universities to give them an extra boost to allow them to be competitive in the new tertiary education world. Tamworth Base Hospital was funded through that program—I am very pleased about that. I am delighted that the state government has put in $100 million as well. Something like 50 planners have been working on this process for the last two years, and I congratulate them on the work that they have done. The redeveloped Tamworth Base Hospital will be a significant piece of infrastructure not just for Tamworth and the region but for the relationship that that hospital has with the University of New England in Armidale, the University of Newcastle and the health services to assist in training our young doctors and allied professionals. The University of New England has received more funding as well for a number of programs that help feed off that capacity to teach young doctors and allied professionals in the country.
I am pleased that the Tenterfield area has been looked at in this budget. The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was in the electorate only last week. Planning money has been allocated for the Tenterfield bypass and also for what is probably the last of the crucial deathtraps on the New England Highway—Bolivia Hill. It is a relative short section of road but a highly dangerous one. Many deaths have occurred there, so I am pleased to see that funding. I am also pleased to see that the Chaffey Dam expenditure has been recognised to ensure that the city of Tamworth has a water supply into the future.
I am delighted that more money for mental health has been included. That will go across a whole range of services. I think it is one of the key parts of this budget.
One of the critical issues that I flag to the government and the opposition—I know there are members of the opposition in particular who are very concerned about this issue—is that of the ad hoc development that is occurring with coal seam methane gas. If we are serious about the climate change debate, we must have a very serious look at current planning protocols. We had a fairly ordinary state government up until the last New South Wales election. I wish Barry O'Farrell and his government well. I know Barry quite well. He was one of the minders back in my last hung parliament along with the Hon. Joe Hockey, who used to deliver pieces of paper to me. The issue of coal seam methane gas has to be addressed not only at the state level. I think that if we in this place can show some leadership on the Murray-Darling—for obvious reasons it has failed on previous attempts—we should show some national leadership on some of the activities around coal seam methane gas and coal developments, particularly on floodplains that are underpinned by groundwater resources. There are other issues, but I will raise them on another occasion.
I am pleased to follow the member for New England in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and its cognate bills, particularly on the subject he finished with—the Murray-Darling Basin—which is important to him. He obviously has a key role with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan over the coming months. As a South Australian and a person who has had a longstanding interest in the Murray-Darling Basin and how it affects my state and my city, it is the first subject I want to touch on in my contribution to the appropriations debate.
Back in 2000, as a backbencher in the Howard government, I raised the issue of the Commonwealth taking over control of the Murray-Darling Basin from the states. I was regarded as something of a radical for making that suggestion, and I was told it would never happen. I note that, 11 years later, most people who study this area of government policy think that the Commonwealth should and must take a much greater role in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin and that it should not be left to the state governments, which have mismanaged it for the 110 years since Federation. I am disappointed that in this budget there is very little to give any comfort to South Australians, particularly to people in Adelaide, about the future management of the Murray-Darling Basin. Again, the government seems to have dragged its feet and squibbed the hard decisions with respect to the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the allocation of the necessary resources, or the bringing to book of the resources that have already been allocated, for the Murray-Darling Basin.
The delays in the implementation of the plan since December last year have been significant. Despite Mike Taylor, the former Chair of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, stating in advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Tony Burke, that 'given the processes prescribed in the act, the proposed Basin Plan must be released in early 2011 at the very latest', the Prime Minister and the minister for water have delayed that release until well after the inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia, which is being chaired by the member for New England, into water reform is due to report—until after May this year at least—and potentially later. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority said that finalisation of the draft plan could take in the order of 40 to 50 weeks if there is a reasonable level of agreement on the plan and much longer if there is significant disagreement at the ministerial council level. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority advised the Gillard government that current timelines cannot be met and yet, in spite of those comments from the authority and the obvious incapacity for those timelines to be met, Minister Tony Burke and the Prime Minister continue to insist that timelines will be met and are on track. For people in South Australia, Adelaide and the Lower Lakes and right through the Murray-Darling system it is vitally important that timelines are met and it is vitally important that the work is done. It is also vitally important that parochial state interests do not, once again, hamper a solution to the issue of marrying and balancing the different requirements of population, environment and industry in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The government has also failed in this budget to progress investment in water-saving infrastructure projects, despite many of these projects having the potential to assist in meeting water reductions required by the sustainable diversion limits. There still exists significant scope for infrastructure projects to improve efficiency within the Murray-Darling system and storages. These savings are wasted as the government, instead, focuses quite obsessively on buybacks rather than on ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is built in the Murray-Darling Basin.
In 2010, another deferral until 2015-16 of $450 million in infrastructure spending was announced, which is well beyond the forward estimates. This is a significant underspend of the almost $6 billion, the $5.9 billion, that was set aside by the Howard government for water efficiency upgrades. It contrasts with the government's massive overspend on buybacks, which highlights the complete neglect of the program of infrastructure that can deliver real win-win outcomes for communities and the environment. Labor has systemically underspent and ignored infrastructure upgrades but, at the same time, overspent on buybacks. This lopsided approach means the government is buying water out of regional Australia while refusing to invest in the future of regional communities through proper infrastructure projects.
The lack of a plan outlining where water needs to be bought from has seen a patchwork of water sales resulting in continuing higher costs for water users in the area. Targeted water buybacks could minimise costs for other users and deliver increased water savings. For a long time the government has been flying blind on purchasing water without knowing where it should be purchasing that water. In some cases water is actually being purchased where it does not even flow into the river system. I am, as a South Australian and a member for a marginal seat in Adelaide, disappointed that the budget, yet again, has not focused on the needs of the Murray-Darling Basin community in meeting the requirements for the future of that whole basin for the people, not just of South Australia, but everyone who lives in it including the member for New England, who is chairing that very important committee.
The budget also attacks people with private health insurance, again. The Labor Party has an ideological opposition to private health insurance and in this budget has decided to means test the rebate on private health insurance. This will further hurt families and drive up costs for people with private health insurance at a time when cost-of-living pressures in our community are enormous. People can ill-afford to see rising costs and rising bills in private health insurance, which families will do their best to hang onto because they regard it as important for them and for their children.
In my electorate of Sturt 72 per cent of people are covered by private health insurance. Means testing the private health insurance rebate is a direct attack on those 72 per cent of people who value private health insurance. I say to all of those people—since I received about 53.5 per cent of the vote in Sturt—that there are some people with private health insurance who are clearly voting for the Labor Party. What they need to understand is that, if the Labor Party gets its way on the private health insurance rebate, costs for those people will increase.
I also wish to comment on mental health. I was the parliamentary secretary in the Howard government with responsibility for mental health. As I was saying earlier, I think I was the longest serving parliamentary secretary in the Howard government. I did the job so well it was felt that I should stay in that role until the dying days of the Howard government in 2007. I was delighted to have the opportunity to be a parliamentary secretary, particularly with responsibility for mental health. In that time I founded headspace and appointed Pat McGorry to be the head of it. I put psychologists and social workers on Medicare in a $1.9 billion package of spending. To put that in context, the previous largest announcement of spending by a federal government on mental health was $110 million. So $1.9 billion was regarded as an enormous entry into mental health, which is essentially a state government responsibility by the federal government. Tony Abbott was the minister for health at the time. He had overall responsibility and I had responsibility as the parliamentary secretary. I think it was one of the best things the Howard government did.
Mental health is one of the most critical issues facing Australia. No member of this House would disagree that mental health has been the poor cousin in the health system for far, far too long. Everybody in this House would know of families, or individuals, or even their own family, extended family or friends who have been touched by mental health issues, which extend to drug, tobacco and alcohol use, all of which are essentially self-medication for people with mental health issues. Allowing psychologists and social workers to access Medicare meant that people who otherwise would not be able to afford to could continue to get the treatment they needed. The government's mental health announcement is welcome in terms of extra funds being spent on mental health but I hasten to add it is not the $2.2 billion claimed by the government. It is much more like $583 million of new net spending on mental health. We are grateful that there is more money to be spent on this important issue but it is only $583 million, not the $2.2 billion trumpeted by the government.
Even within that mental health envelope of spending, there is a tightening of the criteria for people to access psychologists and social workers to reduce the number of times that patients can see the person they need to see. I think this is retrograde step. I hope that members of the Labor Party in government and the Independents on the crossbenches who support them will lobby the minister and the Prime Minister to change that policy. It would be a very bad and retrograde step for people with a mental illness to not get the assistance they so desperately need for the times that they need it.
We know that when people with mental illness are not getting medication or assistance or the kind of support they need from professionals they are more than likely to become homeless and more than likely to break the law in order to survive. It is no surprise that an enormous percentage of people in Australia's prisons have a mental illness and an enormous number of people who are homeless have a mental illness. The last place there should be cuts found by any government, whether it be an incoming coalition government or the current government, is in mental health.
Specifically with respect to South Australia, I would like to comment on a number of other changes in the budget. I am very disappointed that the government has decided to scrap the extension of the O-Bahn track in my electorate and in South Australia generally. It was promised by Wayne Swan the Treasurer in 2009. It was meant to cost only $61 million. It was to extend the route down Hackney Road, up Rundle Road, along East Terrace, then through Grenfell Street and Currie Street to West Terrace. Construction was expected to start in 2009 and be finished in 2011 but a series of delays and excuses have meant this has not happened. The federal government has now announced that the O-Bahn trackway extension has been entirely scrapped and that is a disappointing outcome of this budget for the people of Adelaide and the people of South Australia. The acting transport minister at the time said that the state government would not find the necessary funds in order to meet that commitment which means that extension will now not go ahead. So South Australians are missing out.
I could go on with some of the more general changes that affect South Australians. In my electorate of Sturt the freezing of the family tax benefit part A and B supplements will affect 9,304 recipients and 6,779 recipients respectively at a time of rising cost-of-living pressures and real pressure being felt in households across my electorate. As a father with four small children I can tell you it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet. If it is so for us as members of parliament, imagine how hard it is for people who are not so fortunate. This is not the time to be cutting benefits for families; this is the time to be extending a hand to families who are in need and to be ensuring that they do not fall behind.
South Australians will be paying around $7.7 billion of the government's debt and deficit back to the people who we borrow the money from, the financiers from around the world and in Australia. South Australians will account for $7.7 billion of that $107 billion of debt that was announced in the budget. Other people in my electorate will be damaged by the government's fringe benefits tax changes, which will leave tradies and workers and ute men, as they are often called, $3,000 worse off in increased taxes. In my electorate there are 12,125 such businesses which will be affected as a result of these government changes to the fringe benefits tax.
Many commitments the coalition made before the last election in my electorate have not been funded in this budget but they will be funded under a coalition government. The Campbelltown Leisure Centre, black spots roads funding, the Burnside Hockey Club, the Blue Eagles Soccer Club, the solar school at Charles Campbell High School and St Francis of Assisi Primary School and the Campbelltown oval sports hub will all be funded under a coalition government. I look forward to that day.
While every federal budget is obviously important, this year's seems even more so coming as it does in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and a shocking series of natural disasters. Having been prepared by the first minority federal government in nearly 70 years makes it all the more remarkable.
On balance I think the budget is a satisfactory but somewhat pedestrian effort; probably sensibly so as far as the government's perceived political self-interest is concerned. It is pedestrian in that generally it gets the job done without dramatic initiatives and fanfare. It is sensible in that this point in time would be judged by the government to be the moment for the steadiest fiscal hand.
Where the budget greatly lets us down is the way in which it reflects the government's determination to announce a surplus in 2013 in order to serve its political self-interest at the expense of the public interest. Of course, governments must run a balanced budget over the long term. But that does not mean short-term deficits are bad, or even undesirable, especially at times like these when Australia is dealing with genuinely extraordinary economic circumstances. So I feel very strongly that the government should have refused to let its economic agenda be dictated by the opposition and instead run the deficit out another 12 months to beyond the 2013 federal election.
The government also seems to have judged it would not be well served by additional and potentially controversial initiatives at this point in time. While the National Broadband Network, a price on carbon, the minerals resource rent tax and poker machine reform promise to make this government a genuinely reformist administration, the agenda is presumably judged by the Prime Minister and her cabinet as being full for now. Madam Deputy Speaker, just think of the opportunities a commitment to running the deficit out another 12 months or so would have created. The flood levy could have been avoided and any number of new initiatives embraced. The government could have allowed itself to think and speak even bigger and to do even more to answer the calls of those on the front line in our community who know more needs to be done and done urgently. Indeed, as part of my maiden speech, I offered the observation that every parliament is an opportunity to discard political self-interest in favour of the public interest and that doing so is only limited by lack of vision.
A more courageous government budgetary agenda could have included funding, or at least tangible forewarning, of the sorts of nation-changing initiatives I trust this government or its successors will eventually bring to fruition—for instance, a national disability insurance scheme to finally bring certainty and equity to the enormous number of Australians living with disabilities, as well as their carers; a big federal cash injection to finally bring fair wages to community sector workers; genuinely deep reform of public dental care; and substantial increases to pensions and payments so that students and the elderly, for instance, could at least afford warm homes and balanced diets. Defence Force retirees in particular, would be better cared for if the unsatisfactory indexing of defence pensions were overturned in favour of a system that at least keeps up with the cost of living. Yes, I do have a financial stake in such a reform on account of being a recipient of a DFRDB pension, but that should not stop me speaking up for retired defence personnel who served their country in good faith but who now find themselves increasingly left behind financially. Of course, such initiatives would cost a lot of money. But this is one of the richest countries in the world, with the means to care properly for our young, our old and our sick, among others. It is simply a matter of priorities overlaid by an approach to fiscal planning based on the public interest, not party political self-interest.
In fairness to the government, though, the budget did go some way to realising my vision for Australia, perhaps most notably in the commendable revitalised mental health package which heralds a not insignificant injection of new funding across a broad range of mental health areas. One does not have to look very far to discover just how many people's lives are being destroyed by mental illness. Indeed, in the short time since being elected to parliament, I have become acutely aware of the fact that we have reached a mental health crisis point. Just last week, one of Hobart's most important community based service providers—Colony 47's Community Central, which is a mental health drop-in centre that has been running for some 30 years—announced that it will be forced to close its doors at the end of the month, unless my plea for additional federal assistance can be accommodated.
Moreover, I recently met with a company in Hobart who are enlisted by local job service providers to help determine the mental health needs of unemployed job seekers, many of whom are long-term unemployed. Over the past two years, they have conducted over 600 clinically based mental health assessments using mental health nurses or clinical psychologists. Those assessments identified a level of mental illness among assessed job seekers close to 10 times the assumed national average. Furthermore, they found that a staggering 80 per cent of the cases of mental illness were previously unrecognised by the job seeker themselves, the employment service provider or the broader social security system. There is clearly a serious mental health problem in this country and there is a compelling case for mental health services being accorded the same priority for funding as GP and hospital services. I would just like to say thank you to the former Australian of the Year, Professor Pat McGorry, for his tireless advocacy, which no doubt was in the mix when the government was putting this budget together.
Not unrelated is the government's welfare-to-work push, which was another significant element in this year's budget. In essence, I fully support measures aimed at removing barriers to work and increasing workforce participation. And I agree with the government that there is a need to encourage those that are fit and able to find work. But such measures must be based on a person's genuine capacity to work. Whether it is a long-term unemployed job seeker suffering from an undiagnosed mental health condition, or somebody who has suffered a physical impairment, the government has a clear responsibility to ensure it does everything in its power to determine their capacity genuinely. In other words, I am concerned that some of the measures contained in the welfare-to-work package could be unfair, particularly but not exclusively for recipients of the disability support pension. The government runs the risk here of frightening and demonising genuine recipients and potentially pulling the rug out from under some of the most vulnerable people in our community. To do this on account of a short-term political fix would be cruel.
On a brighter note, the budget did contain some very positive outcomes for the Denison electorate, for which I am grateful—for instance, the maintenance of funding and, in fact, a modest increase for the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is a vital source of funding for the Menzies Institute in Hobart. I was particularly delighted with this outcome, given that I had lobbied the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Minister for Health and Ageing as well as the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research for NHMRC funding to be maintained. Another significant win I had championed was the need for federal government funding for the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and I was very happy to see $3.9 million allocated to prostate cancer support services over the next three years This is an unprecedented development as the foundation does not receive federal funding currently. Also on the health front, the budget confirmed full funding of the $340m for the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment, as well as the inclusion in Medicare of a privately operated MRI scanner in Hobart. More broadly, the $20 million funding I negotiated for the continued operation of the CSIRO Information and Communications Technology Centre was also reflected in the budget.
The government has defied the sceptics and proven remarkably stable. This is as it should be, because an election outcome represents the democratic choice of the Australian people and it is up to the 150 men and women elected to get on and do all they can to stand up a workable and effective parliament. For my part, I remain comfortable with my decision to give certainty of supply and confidence to Julia Gillard, and I am happy to say that my pledge of limited support is unaltered. So I will be voting for the appropriation bills that reflect this budget and trying not to sabotage the budget when associated enabling legislation comes before the parliament. I will not like some of that legislation, because I do not like all aspects of this budget. But my promise to ensure supply, by implication, also means I will support the enabling legislation that underpins the government's broad economic agenda.
That is not to say that I will not seek to have amended any legislation warranting change. For example, the proposed changes to the taxation arrangements for minors seem to have shortfalls. While I am fine with the notion of stopping high-wage earners disbursing income to children in order to minimise personal income tax—something I have done myself through my own family trust—I do have a concern, for example, about the way the return on a young person's invested inheritance would be hammered with a 66 per cent tax rate. Nor am I obliged to support carte blanche items that are carried forward in the estimates as part of previous budgets, two of which I would like to briefly flag as I will have difficulty supporting them.
The first is the proposed excise on LPG as part of the government's alternative fuels legislation. This tax will have a patently disproportional effect on Tasmania, to the extent that I am very concerned that the market in Tasmania for auto LPG could collapse altogether. LPG is already as much as 20c a litre dearer in Hobart than it is in Melbourne or Sydney, and this excise will push the price of LPG so close to the price of petrol that it would scarcely be a viable alternative fuel.
The effect on the Tasmanian taxi industry in particular would be catastrophic. The Tasmanian state government incompetently flogs off taxi licences every time it needs some cash, to the extent that the taxi fleet in greater Hobart is now seriously bloated and the drivers must work ridiculous hours. So I cannot, in all conscience, come into this place and support a tax that will reduce their meagre earnings even more.
Another measure from past budgets I would like to briefly mention here is the proposal to apply a means test to the private health insurance rebate. My instinct is to support measures that promise better public health care, even if doing so is at the expense of high-wage earners such as me. So, at first blush, I may be expected to support the introduction of a means test for the rebate. But I am also concerned that this means test will result in people forsaking private health insurance for the already stretched public system. And I am worried that health insurance premiums will rise significantly, forcing even more people into public hospitals and onto waiting lists. Not insignificant too is that governments of all persuasions have effectively forced us into greater reliance on private health insurance on terms including the rebate.
In short, we have to be careful we get the balance right and, while I remain open-minded, I am yet to be convinced by the government that means testing the health insurance rebate is the most sensible thing to do right now.
This budget is indeed a record budget. The Treasurer has devised a 2011-2012 budget that delivers record growth in real spending, a record level of net debt, a record number of public servants and record spending on cleaning up the mess of this government's previously failed programs—programs which have not only failed to deliver for Australians but cost them hundreds of millions of dollars.
After the tragic outcomes of the home insulation scheme, I hoped we had seen the last of this disastrously delivered program. However, here it is yet again in this latest budget— another $110 million to continue to clean up the mess it has left.
Before 10 May the Treasurer spun this budget as 'getting tough'. Plain and simple, this did not happen. Instead of getting tough, this Labor government has stuck with its tradition of poor and reckless financial management, talking surplus but delivering deficits—talking budget cuts but, once again, increasing its spending.
Indeed, increasing its spending so much that this bill, the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, is seeking to raise the government's gross debt ceiling, from $200 billion to $250 billion.
I remember when the former Prime Minister, the member for Griffith, originally put through amendments to increase borrowing capacity to $200 billion, ostensibly for the stimulus package, up from just $75 billion. At least at the time they could argue that the global financial crisis threw out proposed budgeting plans. However, these days the Treasurer continuously repeats that Australia is in the best position of any OECD country and that others should be envious of our finances.
Why then do we need to further increase our borrowing capacity? Where has the money gone? It is real money that has to be paid back, but how will the government achieve this? Can we expect yet another tax or levy?
I am sure other countries are indeed envious of this Treasurer's position, being the only OECD country to enter the global financial crisis with a surplus, a surplus that was a legacy of financial discipline of successive Howard-Costello budgets. They were budgets that produced surpluses through responsible financial management, a concept alien to this Prime Minister and a concept wilfully ignored by this failed Treasurer.
The Treasurer never seems to mention to the public that Australia has the highest interest rates and highest home mortgage rates, when compared to those of OECD countries.
He also does not like to admit that a large portion of so-called government saving comes simply from freezing indexation, hurting families and the business and industry sectors in real terms. This makes a real difference to a family's bottom line. Freezing indexation of the childcare rebate alone could see over 72,000 families receive a lower subsidy by 2014.
It also particularly hurts sectors that rely on government funding to deliver real outcomes for Australians. I am talking of course of medical research, yet another example of how Labor closes their eyes to the real consequences of their decisions.
In the lead-up to this budget, it was leaked that medical research could take a hit of up to $400 million as part of Labor's attack on health. I remember hearing a statement by the Minister for Health and Ageing at the time, where she implied that as medical research had not faced cuts under last year's budget, why was the health sector complaining? I was shocked to hear how little regard she seemed to have for this sector.
World-leading research is being undertaken at University of Queensland. Indeed, researchers are on the cusp of many discoveries and innovations and they just need funding commitments for their projects, which will in turn realise health and economic benefits for the wider community. I can understand exactly why the research community reacted to the proposed cuts the way they did. This is a government that likes to make grand claims which then fall apart under proper scrutiny.
On the subject of poor and reckless financial management, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, you need look no further than NBN Co., the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history at $47 billion—plus, plus. Everyone agrees as to the benefits of a national broadband network, but not at any cost. Smaller infrastructure projects require a cost-benefit analysis; why not this project? And why is the government repeating the errors of the past, basing the network on an out-of-date monopoly telco model from last century and in some areas building over existing fibre installations? If NBN is to achieve its potential it must provide open access. Even at the outrageous cost of $47 billion plus, it is alleged NBN Co. was unable to attract companies to build the project within budget. Their solution was to shoot the messenger. The employees who ran the tender process have now parted company with NBN Co. and the contracts are still well behind schedule. The government claims NBN Co. will change the lives of all Australians, and indeed it will: all Australians and their children and their children's children will be paying off the debt from this flawed, mismanaged project.
With the failure of the Treasurer on a national level, I held little hope for any projects in my electorate of Ryan, and regrettably this budget met my expectations. I have on many occasions called for the recognition of PLD, Primary Language Disorder, as a disability, and for funding for The Glenleighden School. I have made personal representations to the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood, and Youth. Despite this, Glenleighden has again missed out under this budget. It is the only school of its kind, and families even relocate from other states to enrol because of the excellence and success of their program. This continued snub from the government is simply not good enough and demonstrates, yet again, that they are not serious about real outcomes.
Speaking of not good enough, I think back to the fight that Brisbane City Council had to have to ensure funding for vital Brisbane infrastructure after the floods. As I said in my maiden speech, I stand for the future of our cities, and it is imperative that the government support the infrastructure needed to manage growth in our cities not only in good times but also in bad times. The Gillard government was actually going to deny aid to Australia's third biggest city after it was hit with one of the worst natural disasters on record. This is an absolute disgrace, as is the fact that the only way they could fund rebuilding after these natural disasters was to impose a $1.7 billion tax on Australians. They had no surplus to fall back on, no savings from prudent government spending over the past four years. 'Just impose another tax' seems to be their only solution to their ongoing poor and reckless financial management. This government expects everybody else to pay for their mistakes. Even when it comes to taking real action for our environment, their solution still is to simply impose yet another tax. However, the much heralded carbon tax does not even appear in this budget, other than an expense item of $13.7 million for promoting this big new tax.
This is simply a bad budget. The government have failed to deliver positive change for Australians and they make a mockery of prudent financial management. Labor have once again shown their true colours. They are big spenders; they are mismanagers; they have no real grasp on the reality their governance has on Australians. How could a government waste hard-earned taxpayer dollars with so little regard or concern? If they were spending from their personal accounts, perhaps they would stop and reconsider their poor and reckless financial management.
We often speak in this place of the debt we owe our courageous servicemen and women, who have volunteered knowing that they put their lives at risk to ensure our safety. It is timely to remind the House of the coalition's commitment to ensure that their entitlements reflect the contributions and sacrifices they have made through the indexation of the DFRDB, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, and the DFRB, the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme. Yet, in not matching the coalition's election promise of indexation for our servicemen and women, the government's words have not been matched by action in this budget.
In short, we have a government without morality, driven by focus groups, determined to build this house of cards, this charade, whatever the cost, well knowing that its track record of failed delivery with home insulation, BER bungles, cash for clunkers, the cost blow-out of computers in schools, the disaster that was the Green Loans Program and the now scrapped Fuelwatch and GroceryWatch is likely to occur once again elsewhere in this budget. We have a government that arrogantly ignores the damage its poll driven expenditure will cause. The trouble is that all this comes at a cost, not just in terms of today's budget but for generations in the future. Once again it will be a future coalition government that will have to put right the wrongs of this budget. Once again it will be a future coalition government that will have to put right the ill-conceived implementation of so many programs.
This budget represents a wasted opportunity. This budget is reminiscent of a drunken streaker at the Gabba, with the excuse: 'It seemed like a good idea at the time!' The people of Australia see through this government. They are not ready for a Bob Brown driven economy. They simply want sensible, rational decision making, careful planning and proper implementation. They want a budget that plans for the future. They want a budget that does not raise living costs for families, singles, seniors and business. They want a budget that does not borrow $135 million per day and does not accumulate $7 billion in interest payments every year. They want a budget that stops poor and reckless financial management. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, is that really too much to ask for?
I speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. These appropriation bills deliver on Labor's key election commitments made last year and continue Labor's expansion of local projects and services not only in my electorate of Deakin but right across the country. In this debate I think it is very relevant to report on the outcomes of our previous budgets which have seen Labor deliver on major projects which have transformed local schools and local infrastructure—again, not only in my electorate of Deakin but across Australia.
Since the last budget, I have personally opened 11 Building the Education Revolution Primary Schools for the 21st Century projects in Deakin. For many of these schools this was the first major investment on infrastructure for decades—not just one or two decades but in some cases three or four decades. It is very satisfying to see the difference that new buildings have made to our local schools. Some of these schools are weatherboard and were put up in the 1950s, and I hate to say that some still have only one power point in the classroom, so to see new buildings replace what was there or at least help out is a great start. It really has made schools look better from the kerbside as well. Something that is often forgotten is that when parents are looking for schools for their children they quite often, even though they should not, look at the outside and judge by that rather than what is on the inside.
The schools that I have opened so far this year are: Blackburn Primary School, Burwood East Primary School, Burwood Heights Primary School, Eastwood Primary School, Marlborough Primary School, Old Orchard Primary School, Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School in Ringwood, St James Primary School in Vermont, St John the Evangelist Catholic Primary School in Mitcham, St Thomas the Apostle Primary School in Blackburn and Tintern Girls Grammar School Early Learning Centre in Ringwood East. These schools have all had huge benefits from the different types of buildings they have been able to choose and apply to their schools.
Of course, that goes across the range of sectors; it is not only the state government sector but also the Catholic and private sectors as well. They have all done very well with their choices and with the way they have been able to utilise the buildings. The buildings are of course modern and sometimes that shows up even more, I suppose, the difference in the ages of the infrastructure provided, but I think it is a great start for each and every one of them. When you compare some of the old classrooms—which, to be honest, look exactly like the classrooms I was taught in—with these new buildings and you see the open spaces and the new methods that can be used to teach, it really is a case of looking at two different worlds. I would like to relate just a few of the openings I have been to because I think they are all valid, especially for the schools. They were a really big event for schools that, in many cases, as I said, had seen no investment for such a long time.
On 22 October last year, I visited Blackburn Primary School for their official opening. They have a full-sized basketball hall there. Blackburn Primary are particularly noted for their music program and, as a primary school, they quite honestly have one of the best school bands and music programs you will find in Melbourne. They are a great feeder for Blackburn High School, which is just up the road and which also has a particularly good music program. With their new, full-sized hall, Blackburn primary can now stage concerts. They can have full school assemblies in one room without the parents having to stand outside and literally put their heads inside the windows to be able to hear what is going on, because the space was simply too small. So they have been able to make great use of their facility in school hours, and the facility is also used outside of school hours by the local basketball club to train on. That is a great outcome for the community.
On 30 November last year, I visited Our Lady of Perpetual Help Primary School in Ringwood to open their new BER P21 facility. They chose to build new classrooms. For a school that was built in the 1950s and which has never had a great source of funding to build new buildings it came at the perfect time. Indeed, when initial work was done, it was found that the buildings they proposed to add to were in fact structurally deficient and not that far from having to be taken down. So it worked out very well that they had chosen to build a two-story, purpose-built, six-classroom complex and IT centre. That has made the school bigger and they are now able to fit in more children, but it has also made it a modern school, which is something that it had not been up to that date. The school also used some of their funding to upgrade the entrance to their hall so that the children can go in and out from the quadrangle instead of going through the end of the hall, and that is a great benefit every day at the school.
Last year on 1 December I visited the Burwood East Primary School and opened their brand-new P21 building. They now have a hall where they can have an assembly. I have been to the school many times. In fact it was back in 2008, when I was doing the school awards at the end of the year, that we all got rained on—not only me but also the children, the teachers and the parents—and there was simply nowhere to go. They had no indoor facility whatsoever. They do now and it is a modern one with a movable stage, and each and every student and parent and everyone involved in the school can see the difference. It is a facility that of course gets used every day.
On 8 December in Blackburn I opened the Old Orchard Primary School BER project. Theirs was a large building that they specifically put aside for years and 5 and 6. It has two large open spaces, with break-out areas and linked classrooms. It is also directly connected to the rest of the school buildings so that it is not out in the middle of the paddock, so if the weather is inclement no-one need get wet.
On 10 December last year in Mitcham I officially opened the St John the Evangelist Primary School new buildings and refurbishments. For a school that is of a similar age to the others I have described, the funding has been a great boost. They now have brand-new and modern facilities in a mix of new buildings and refurbished old buildings. The school has also had to go to two storeys because they do not have much land there. They have also managed to enclose many of the exposed walkways they used to have and, therefore, have made larger teaching and learning spaces. On 25 February this year I opened the new multipurpose centre at St James Primary School in Vermont. It has new teaching spaces but, most importantly, it has a very large assembly space that the school, along with the entire school community, can use for the sorts of things that many schools take for granted—that is, have school assemblies inside and not outside in the weather. The project at St James also included the refurbishment of existing classrooms and a brand-new IT and library space.
On 9 March this year I visited Tintern Girls Grammar School in Ringwood East and opened their brand-new early learning centre for preschoolers. It was a very innovative project and is a quite striking building, most unlike others I have seen. I am sure it will stand the test of time for its quality finish both inside and out. The school also contributed money to supplement the BER funding and was able to get something larger than a straight-out government contribution would have got.
The Burwood Heights Primary School was also very privileged to open a brand-new multipurpose centre on 15 March. They are able to use it for extra classrooms while the school is being rebuilt under the state government's Building Futures program. Once they finish using it as classrooms, they will be able to use it as an open area, but already they are able to use it as an assembly area. This is yet another school in my electorate that had a hall that had no hope of holding all the students in it, let alone teachers and parents. I have attended many assemblies there in the past and they have had to be done two or three years at a time. They simply could not fit all the children in.
On 16 March this year I visited St Thomas the Apostle Primary School in Blackburn, also to open their new buildings. It is another school that has had to go to two storeys because of the lack of land, but they have been very smart and they put in an excellent IT centre—one of the best I have seen—but also blended it into the old school. The office and the facilities that the children use are seamless between one building and the other. Of note there was a great decision, in a two-storey school, to install a lift so there is disabled access now and in the future.
Last week, on 18 May, I opened the new early learning centre for prep to grade 2 at Marlborough Primary School in Heathmont. The building there has made a particular difference to the school. It is right at the front access, so it is one of these schools where that is the first thing that prospective parents see, rather than an old and faded school building. It has also meant that the school has been able to get rid of all of their portable buildings. I remember when I first saw Marlborough primary in 2008, when I was in this job, and the thing that stuck out in my mind was the rows of portable buildings. Not all of them were used but they certainly detracted from the look of the school. Many of them were in quite a run-down state. They are all gone now, each and every one of them, and I think that is a great result for Marlborough primary.
Also last week, on 18 May, I was privileged to officially open the Eastwood Primary School's new multipurpose hall. In particular, this is one that I think deserves a special comment because its design was not the standard state government template. Its design came about through a group of local principals and action from me and the local state education department to come up with something better for schools that did not quite qualify for the full $3 million allocation because of their size. Schools that qualified for the lesser amount in Victoria did not automatically qualify for a full-sized building. For instance, a school that had just under 400 students would not have got a full-sized building. In my area, we now have what is called the Maroondah template, named after the council area and also the network of schools. There are now 10 schools in Victoria that have this special design and have a full-sized building where they may not have. I think it is a great result. It is big enough to hold a basketball court, and many of them are already talking to teams or have already signed agreements with basketball or netball teams for training so that these buildings get used after hours as well as within school hours.
All these brand-new school projects were delivered for local school communities in agreed time frames and within budget. But there are many more schools in Deakin that are awaiting their official openings or finishing off their BER buildings. Mostly, I am happy to say, they are waiting for an appropriate time to do an official opening. Many of them have moved in and have been using their facilities for a number of months. That is great to see, because there is a big long list of them. Hopefully by the latter part of this year we will have each and every one of those done.
There are also a few schools where things have not gone so smoothly. One school in particular, Great Ryrie Primary School, has had issues with soil. Finally we have got over those and they have now started building. We also have Whitehorse Primary School, a school which was completely knocked over and is in the process of being rebuilt with both federal and state money. That came about in many ways because of the availability of BER funding. That is a great example of what can be done if governments put their minds to working with each other in the education space.
I look forward to the completion of the BER P21 program in Deakin in the near future. I know that students in every primary and special school in the electorate—and of course, as I said before, right across Australia—will have the benefit of this groundbreaking federal investment in education infrastructure. But it should never be forgotten that the Liberal Party and their partners, the Nationals, opposed these wonderful local projects and voted against the funding in this very place in 2009. If the Liberal and National parties had had their way then these buildings would never have been built and schools in Deakin would have been around about $80 million worse off in infrastructure. Children would still have been using 1950s facilities and the local community would have been left behind.
Of course, it is not only schools that have been part of the BER and the associated rollout in Deakin. There was also investment in many other facilities, whether they be TAFEs, local infrastructure at a council level or sporting facilities. There will be many more opportunities in this place to talk about such things in the future, and I most certainly will be doing that. On that note, I would like to commend these bills to the House.
I am very pleased to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and cognate bills this evening because it gives me the opportunity to examine some of the impacts of these bills. I want to make it quite clear from the outset that when the budget was generally delivered in this House, particularly in the Howard years, it was exciting. In fact, in the budgets delivered by Peter Costello we were always trying to find out who the beneficiaries were and what tax cuts there would be. What we are doing now is saying: 'I wonder who is going to get hit? Who is going to get a negative impact from this budget?' In fact, the half life of this budget is such that it was an absolute fizzer that only lasted about 48 hours. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer had huge difficulty keeping any momentum on this bill past the weekend. Where we used to put out a newsletter explaining the benefits, the impact and the rollout of budgetary initiatives, if you were a government member you would not want to put out a newsletter on this because it was old news—it was fish-and-chips wrappings—by the end of the first week it was out there.
So much for a party that once used to champion the working families of Australia. Probably the most divisive and negative impact of this budget was on middle Australia and the families of middle Australia. Let's have a look. In this budget the government proposed a freeze on indexation to family tax benefit parts A and B for three years, past the next election, in the forward estimates. When we add up all of the savings on tax benefit parts A and B at the 2010 rate by fixing it until July 2014, what we see is that a freeze is actually a reduction over those forward estimates years.
The cost of living is going up for working families in this country. We know from the polling and from the feedback to my office that the biggest item for Australians, particularly Australian families, is the cost-of-living impacts. Grocery costs are up 14 per cent. Health costs are up 20 per cent. Education costs are up 24 per cent. Gas prices are up 30 per cent. Electricity prices are up 51 per cent. In my electorate of Canning there are roughly 38,731 families. They are going to get hit by this Labor budget. The Treasurer described it as a true Labor budget. It really is, because it rips the heart out of working families. Interestingly, you do not hear the Labor Party talking about working families in this place much anymore, because they know what they have done to them.
As I said, these thresholds are going to be frozen. In addition to that, the government have suddenly decided that the rich in this country are people who earn either an individual or a combined income of $150,000. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, that even in downtown Tasmania two school teachers on a normal salary for teachers who have been teaching for a number of years would combine to make $150,000. In fact, I was talking to a teacher at a local school of mine the other day and she is on $85,000. So a school teacher and nurse or a policeman with a schoolteacher wife would be on $150,000 and considered by this government to be rich. As a result, they are the ones who are going to have a whole lot of tax benefits and family entitlements gutted.
One of the interesting things about this budget is that the savings measures will be directed to spending on projects in other areas. So the $2 billion being stripped away from families is going to be directed to other areas. One of the things that I could not believe, which was almost a case of 'ripped out of here and put over there', was the $2 billion out of middle-income Australia or from working families and the almost $2 billion extra—not in total but extra—to the asylum seeker program.
Where do our priorities lie? Do our priorities lie with the people and families at home? Or do they lie these days with those, to use the Orwellian term, 'unauthorised arrivals', non-Australian citizens? That is what makes my electorate angry. When I go to Anzac Day or go around the electorate, people are coming up to me and saying, 'Mr Randall, you've got to do something about what is going on here—the free access to phones and all the sorts of rorts that are going on and the motels that they are staying in around my electorate.' Generally they are on Commonwealth land. Jandakot air base has a whole lot of asylum seekers housed there. Of my people, there are 20,000 seniors on a waiting list in Perth for housing for low-income earners. They cannot get it. Pensioners are trying to get help with their power bills and cannot get it. There are people wanting legal aid; they cannot get it. But we took $2 billion from working families and put almost $2 billion extra into the asylum seeker program because the size of the program has blown out from the government's anticipated 3,000-odd to what we know is more than 7,000.
I notice that there is $1.37 million for carbon tax advertising. As I said, imagine trying to tell constituents, mothers and fathers, who cannot pay their power bills that the expected savings from the indexation of their family tax supplements are being redirected into an advertising campaign to try to sell them a tax. Seriously, what are we doing talking about working families? The Prime Minister is saying: 'These families are wealthy. They do not need any extra assistance to help raise their dependent children. They do not suffer under the big rising cost of living. Let's make it even harder for working families.' That is the message that is out there, and that is why the poll on the budget was bad and why the poll on the Prime Minister and the Labor Party was bad.
There are other initiatives in the budget which have not materialised. In the area of aged care and high-level residential care, funding for residential care has been eroded and redirected. As much as we support aged-care packages in the community, there are some people who have to end up in nursing homes and institutional care.
The government has once again ignored the plight of grandparents acting as sole carers for their grandchildren, as evidenced in this latest budget. The government have said that they are going to put in $1.2 million over four years to establish 25 peer support groups across Australia for grandparents to meet and share information. Meeting and sharing information will not help pensioners pay the bills for their grandchildren whom they have been left with. Quite often, grandparents have ended up with their grandchildren because their children have either deceased in some manner or got into a lot of trouble such as being hopeless drug addicts. This is a disgrace and something I have raised in this House so many times.
With respect to the solar initiatives, what happened to the green government after a number of houses burnt down under the pink batts program and the green loans program and some of the other initiatives the government said they were going to be green about? They are actually reducing the subsidies for solar heating and photovoltaic cells. There is no extra government rebate for pensioners. Recently, I went to the house of one of my constituents in Pinjarra and she gladly showed me on her roof the eight photovoltaic cells which were feeding power back into her house. Not only was it good for her because she was receiving power from the sun but she was getting a dividend because it was being fed back into the grid and she was getting money from the state government to do so. Out of the window, it is being reduced.
During the election campaign many people were sold on the fact that we were going to help them towards solar power. For example, in the RAAFA village in Erskine in my electorate, under the proposed Solar Towns program 197 units were very keen to get a project going, but nothing has come from this government. In fact, this program is now totally off the drawing board and, even though the people from the RAAFA village have had a meeting with Synergy, Western Power and Perth Energy, they cannot meet the 30 June deadline when the solar credit multiplier reduces.
I am hearing also from those supplying solar panels that they have had an absolute rush. For example, the head of the Australian Solar Energy Society, John Grimes, has said:
Literally thousands of people will rush in to try to meet the deadline of July 1 and then after that all activity ceases, because you've brought forward all the sales for the next couple of years.
You can see what is going to happen here. We have got pink batts all over again. My office has talked to a contact in the area, Paul Hart from Solargain, one of Australia's leading solar suppliers. He said that he is unable to service a huge influx of people wanting to switch to solar because by the beginning of May his books were already filled to the end of September. Even if his paperwork is completed before 30 June this year, the installation will have to happen before 30 September this year, and he does not have the manpower to do this. So it is pink batts all over again. You currently have people out there trying to get on the back of this program and quickly fitting up solar panels everywhere—a whole lot of unqualified people doing potentially shonky work, accidents waiting to happen; and people potentially losing money. That is some of the collateral damage from this.
One of the things I want to raise in the last few moments I have is the fact that Western Australia has made application to this government—and I have also spoken privately to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen—for Perth to be classified as a region for the purposes of immigration. In Western Australia, we have a huge shortfall of skilled and unskilled workers. If you are from another state of Australia, you might find that unusual, because I am sure that you are not necessarily in the same boat. Everyone thinks this is in the mining areas, in the Pilbara, in the central west and in the Kimberley; it is not. The Western Australian Minister for Energy, Mr Collier, wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. He put out a press release, which said:
Training and Workforce Development Minister Peter Collier has expressed his frustration that his calls for Perth to be recognised under the Regional Sponsorship Migration Scheme (RSMS) have been ignored by the Federal Government.
Some of the occupations not on the ASCO code nationally that we want in Perth are teachers aides; childcare workers; aged or disabled carers; dental assistants; hospital orderlies; nursing support workers; personal care assistants; therapy aides; bar attendants; hotel service manages; waiters; security officers; bookkeepers; property managers; plastic production machine operators; reinforced plastic and composite production workers; sewing machinists; sterilisation technicians—that is obviously for equipment in hospitals; shot firers—in other words, blasting; engineering production workers; railway signal operators; train controllers; waste water plant operators; agricultural and horticultural mobile plant operators; logging plant operators; earthmoving plant operators; excavation operators; taxi drivers; bus drivers; train drivers; and truck drivers generally.
They are the sort of people we are chasing for Western Australia—and do you think we can get recognised? Tasmania is obviously regional for the purposes of migration, as is Adelaide, yet Western Australia, which is screaming out for skilled and unskilled workers, is getting ignored. We want 200,000 workers in the next decade or so for projects worth billions and billions of dollars. When people say to us, 'Why are you sending the prefabrication of some of this mining equipment and general work to places like Korea and elsewhere?' we say that we have not got the skilled workers. We try and bring in the skilled workers from Korea and the Philippines et cetera, but we have the dickens of a problem because retrospectively this government has changed the rules on 457 visas and the English qualifications, so they cannot come. At the end of the day, the productivity of this country is going to get hurt because this government had an opportunity in this budget to do something about productivity through migration to the areas that need workers. It is a damp squib that failed. It has failed the Australian people. It is an irresponsible document which is going to put us in debt for many years. We need to see the end of it by going to an election as soon as possible and changing the government. (Time expired)
Before I commence my speech on the appropriation bills, I would like to inform the member for Canning that the proposed cut to the feed-in tariff is actually a proposal by the O'Farrell state government, not this government. There are many people in my electorate who also do not want to see a cut. He might like to join the chorus in New South Wales asking for it to be retained.
This is a good budget from my perspective. It delivers on jobs, with another 500,000 new jobs by 2013 and a reduction in national unemployment to 4.5 per cent, and that is on top of the 750,000 jobs created since Labor first won government in 2007. It delivers on much needed skills in our growing economy, with 130,000 more training places, mentoring for 10,000 apprentices to help them finish their training and $101 million to accelerate apprenticeships for workers with existing skills.
This budget delivers on mental health. There are many, many people in my electorate who have already contacted my office congratulating the government for acting on what is to them a very important area. The budget delivers $2.2 billion over five years, including funding for 30 new headspace centres, bringing the national total to 90. One of those headspace centres will be in Parramatta and it will open later this year. The budget provides up to 12 additional youth psychosis sites, 40 more family support services, 425 more personal helpers and mentors, $344 million for new support services for the severely mentally ill and a National Mental Health Commission. It also delivers one-stop shops for people with mental illness. My electorate of Parramatta has a rather large population that suffers from mental illness, perhaps because of the history of the area, its location next to the Cumberland Hospital and its character as a CBD which attracts a large number of people who are homeless. So we, as much as perhaps any other area in the country, would certainly welcome one of those one-stop shops in our community. This budget also delivers for families, with family tax benefit A increasing by up to $4,200 a year for families whose teenage children stay at school, an effective tax cut for single parents and new approaches to help teenage mums finish school and give their kids the best start.
But you cannot just judge a budget on what it delivers. Budgets are very much about the times in which they are crafted. They show a government's response to the circumstances of the time and they carry within them the priorities of a government. Since coming to government in 2007 we have delivered four budgets, and I think it is fair to say that the last three have been crafted in very interesting times indeed. Each of them have been well and truly budgets for their time. They have introduced spending when it has been necessary to compensate for a contraction in the private sector. They have cut when it has been necessary for a government to pull back and make space for the private sector to grow. There are those, particularly in the opposition, who question whether that is the appropriate strategy and who question whether we should spend when the private sector contracts, but the proof is well and truly in the outcome over the last three years and well and truly demonstrated in these budget figures.
In spite of the global financial crisis and then the Victorian bushfires, the Queensland floods, Cyclone Yasi, the Japanese and New Zealand earthquakes and now, in a different way, the high dollar, the economy is in exceptionally good shape and it is an economic performance that most economies in the world would love to have. In fact, I know from talking to a number of my colleagues overseas that they look at us with some level of wonder. We have created 700,000 new jobs through that time, while 30 million jobs were lost around the world. We have an unemployment rate with a four in front of it when most comparative economies around the world sit higher than 8 per cent. We are one of only three advanced economies that did not go into recession and we have a debt that is very small relative to other advanced economies. We are well and truly on track for a return to surplus. We will bring this budget back to the black by 2012-13. The majority position of most economic commentators is that essentially that is the right thing to do. There is some discussion about whether it can be a year later, but essentially it is seen as the right thing to do. Even though it is quite difficult in the circumstances to achieve that, we will be bringing it back into the black by 2012-13.
There are of course arguments against that. One argument in particular that comes from the opposition is that we should not have spent in the first place. To that I say this: the stimulus package in my electorate—the Building the Education Revolution program and the public housing build—created jobs that accounted for three per cent of my workforce. My community has a very large construction sector, which was essentially flat. Even now the part of the construction sector that is not working on Building the Education Revolution projects is down to three-day weeks. We created enough jobs to add three per cent to the workforce during the two years of the Building the Education Revolution program. I do not know what those people would have been doing if they had not been working on Building the Education Revolution projects, but I am told that the likelihood is that they would have been unemployed. We would have seen contractors selling their trucks and spending substantial periods of time out of the workforce. As far as I am concerned, that is what you would call waste and mismanagement. If you were to add another three per cent to unemployment to an area like mine, it would see carnage, really. It is not to be imagined. Instead we stepped in as a government, we filled a vacuum, we spent when it was necessary to do so and we left behind a legacy in our school halls, in upgrades to our schools and in improvements to public housing, including some wonderful new public housing developments in my electorate. We did a good thing by keeping people employed and we left a legacy.
There are others who say that we do not need to pay down the debt quite so quickly. There are others who say that we do not need to return the budget to black by 2012-13. To them I say this from my heart: for a government that has already seen a global financial crisis and several catastrophes in a row, I am not sure that I trust that there will not be another one. So, for me, one of the reasons is that governments have an obligation to put themselves in the strongest position they can to safeguard the economy and the community in the future. But we also need to pull back to provide space for the mining boom and the rebuilding in Queensland. The incredible expansion that we are expecting with both activities—the building that will go on in the mining boom and the rebuilding in Queensland—will take a great deal of capacity, and we need to pull back as a government to provide space for that. Coming back to surplus by 2012-13 is absolutely the right thing to do and we are well on track to do that.
There have been many challenges that we have had to respond to, and we have. As a government, we can be proud of that. Without the heat of the political argument, I think that people will look back and give the government the credit that is due for shepherding the country through what have been incredibly difficult and volatile times around the world. But, underneath that, in the budget you can also see the character of the government and the priorities that it has. They show not so much in the headline announcements as in the consistent work that you can see done over several budgets and reflected again in the priorities in this budget. I am going to talk about one that is dear to my heart, and that is education.
When I first became the candidate in Parramatta, back in 2004, I was really quite appalled—and that is not too strong a word—to discover that the enrolment rate in universities in Western Sydney was 3.2 per cent, compared to five per cent Sydney wide. So it was significantly lower, at slightly over half the Sydney-wide rate. Over the 12 years of the Howard government, the gap between Western Sydney and the whole of Sydney had widened; it had not shrunk. In spite of 12 years of serious boom, the kind of time when you can actually make a difference to the most disadvantaged communities, the gap had widened and the enrolment numbers for people from disadvantaged communities had fallen, not risen. This, for me, was quite appalling.
I spoke to a number of colleagues, including one from the other side who said to me, ' Perhaps they're all going and getting jobs in the mines.' That might have been true, but I still cannot understand why the people from Western Sydney should get jobs with the mines as cooks, cleaners and small vehicle drivers, while others get jobs as engineers and heavy vehicle mechanics. That gap is unacceptable. No government that is worth anything should accept that kind of gap between Western Sydney and the rest of Sydney or any other area of Australia.
Equality of opportunity is something that Australians pride themselves on, and it was not being demonstrated. We really had to do something about that, and we have started doing something. For a start, the Bradley review back in 2008 talked about enrolments generally being in the doldrums. In 1996, 16 per cent of Australians aged 25 to 34 were university graduates; by 2006, this had risen to 29 per cent. But that still had caused Australia to move down in the ranking of OECD nations. We were down to ninth, because other countries, including New Zealand, had improved and we had not improved as quickly. The government then set a target of having 40 per cent of our population with a university education by 2025. That would put us back at the high end—but still not at the top—of the OECD. That is a big ask and a big challenge in such a small period of time. But to extend the prosperity and the growth of Australia beyond the mining boom and in areas other than the mining boom requires us to substantially improve our skill base and our education base within our population. This is a very, very serious part of it.
The investment in education has been increased substantially. The most recent analysis shows that the Commonwealth expenditure on higher education through funding for teaching, learning and research is projected to increase to $13 billion in 2012. That is up $5 billion from $8 billion in 2007 and is over $3 billion more than the projection to 2012 of the coalition's funding trend. That is a substantial increase in funding. If you remember back to 2004, one of the things that members of the opposition, as we were at the time, kept saying over and over in this place was that, at that time, the Australian government's expenditure on education was actually going backwards relative to GDP. That was a significant failing of the last government and one that absolutely had to be turned around.
For the last couple of years we have been supporting programs that assist universities to attract and retain people from disadvantaged areas. This is particularly important in the University of Western Sydney, in my electorate. They have been working for quite a few years on this, but the additional investment has made a great deal of difference, and they have been getting out there and turning those numbers around. Last year nationwide we saw enrolments from disadvantaged students rise by eight per cent. That is a great achievement and one that we should be proud of, but it is just the beginning. If we achieve that 40 per cent by 2025, we need to be sure that that 40 per cent comes from the full range of Australian society—from regional Australia, from disadvantaged areas, from the general community and from people who arrived here as children speaking English as a second language. We need to make sure that that 40 per cent draws from the broadest possible range of Australians. It is an important goal.
Next year in this budget the government will provide $177.6 million in equity funding to assist universities to continue to attract, support and retain students from disadvantaged backgrounds. There was a program under the former coalition government that was worth $11 million. This is a commitment of $177 million for next year. As a consequence of this investment, more Australians, regardless of their background or where they live, will have the opportunity to gain a university education, and we will have more students in Parramatta graduating, with the parents proudly yelling out and behaving in a particularly Western Sydney way because their children are the first generation in their family to get a university education. I am particularly proud of this. I am particularly proud that it has been a strategy of the government for several years, and we see it yet again as a quiet achiever sitting in the pages of this budget. I am really proud to be part of a government that puts this as such a high priority.
I rise to speak on the three budget appropriation bills that are being debated concurrently. They include Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, which is the primary budget bill to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of government and related purposes. The total appropriation of this bill is $72.85 billion.
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012 has two key purposes: firstly, to allow the annual appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for services that are not the ordinary annual services of government, including payments through individual portfolios to states and territories; and, secondly, to amend the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to increase the limit on the face value of stock and securities that can be on issue under the Treasurer's standing borrowing authority. The total appropriation being sought in this appropriation bill is $4.7 billion. In addition, this bill seeks to increase the government's gross debt ceiling from $200 billion to $250 billion.
Finally, there is the Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. The key purpose of this bill is to appropriate funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for expenditure within the parliamentary departments—the Department of the Senate, the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services. The total appropriation sought through this bill is $180.166 million. The appropriation breakdown is as follows: the Department of the Senate, $21.569 million; the Department of the House of Representatives, $23.253 million; and the Department of Parliamentary Services, $135.344 million.
To date we have heard from both sides of the House in this debate. We have heard somewhat emotional contributions that do little to speak to this budget but rather speak to the hypothesis and speculation of futuristic endeavours of a government that has spent more time alluding to a hypothetical fiscal position at some point in the future and receiving acclamation and joyful overtones from the fiscally illiterate backbenchers who will inevitably follow their leader to political oblivion on the issue of managing this nation's books—with the exception, however, of a few good members on the other side. I have heard allegations of mismanagement, fiscal indiscipline and shameful waste. I have heard quotes and references from the other side of the House to support their position of fiscal ineptitude, with little or no understanding of how to influence the trajectory of the debt curve and no comprehension of economic growth other than tax, tax and more taxes intertwined with spin, spin and more spin.
I debate this because I fear that the silent majority of our nation will just tune out. Who wants to sit and listen to a heap of politicians talk and argue about the economy? It is hardly riveting stuff. However, it is my intention to speak to the basic principles and fundamentals of this budget, and it would be wrong of me not to inform my electorate and the nation of its shortcomings.
This Labor budget delivered a $22.6 billion deficit. I do not want the people of my electorate and the nation to get deficit and debt mixed up. A deficit is like a loss on your profit-and-loss statement. It is when your expenditure is greater than your revenue. Often, when they talk about the promised land of a surplus in years to come, the government will spin and give the illusion about the increasing debt levels that we have that all of a sudden the debt will disappear. Well, it won't. When we get to a surplus—in the hypothetical situation of a three-point-something-billion-dollar surplus—that then becomes your equity with which you pay off your debt. So do not get them mixed up. All the government wants to do is talk about a surplus in the future, not next year but the year after that. We hear the Treasurer of the nation refer to this continually.
In the commercial world, when we hear guys refer to stuff they are 'gunna' do, we refer to them as 'gunnas'. I saw them firsthand in my business when we underwent mergers and acquisitions with other businesses that may not have been as successful. When we went through and asked for information on their businesses, we were often met with responses along the lines of, 'Oh, we were gunna get to that.' Unfortunately they never did, and as a result they were taken over by probably more fiscally prudent operations.
Let us test the credentials of the government's forecasting models. Between the November 2010 MYEFO and May 2011, the budget underlying cash deficit in 2010-11 blew out by $8 billion and the deficit in 2011-12 blew out by $10 billion, so there was a variation of $18 billion in just six months. The point I am making is that the government are trying to say, 'In three years time we're going to deliver a surplus,' but, if we go back through the history books and have a look at their capacity to forecast, it is atrocious. Eighteen billion dollars in six months, gone. In November we were told that the net debt would peak at $94 billion. On budget night it was revealed that the figure was now at $107 billion—not a huge period of time but a significant difference. Not only that; the debt is set to stay at over $100 billion for at least the next four years. Also with reference to forecasting, the NBN, promised to be $7.4 billion, was replaced by a $43 billion project, and there is even now doubt as to whether that figure of $43 billion, with the current civil works underway, is going to be realistic or not.
You see, this budget is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong in its forecast, it is wrong in its revenue and it is wrong in its receipts, because it omits the revenue of the carbon tax, which will start at the same time as the resources tax—and that appears in the budget. Equally and fairly, those on the other side of the House will say, 'The Howard government said the same thing with reference to the GST.' However, we tested that with the voting public in 1998 and took it to an election, and then we went back and introduced that legislation. This comes down to an issue of trust. It is difficult to trust the government and the Prime Minister when only days before the last election we were told, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' There was great relief amongst the Australian public and there was a swing in support which fell in behind the Labor Party. That phrase will haunt this government for many, many years to come until the Australian people get their chance to go back to the polls and have their say.
I would now like to talk about the debt. There are many types of debt—gross debt, net debt, public debt, private debt and peak debt. Unless you are on top of all the types of debt, when you hear the word 'debt' it is easy to get lost. You can understand why mums and dads tune out when politicians start speaking about the economy. I will try and give you a bit of an understanding. To try and make the net debt figures sound better than they are, they are turned into a percentage—7.2 per cent of GDP. That does not sound like much. It does not sound like $200 billion gross debt—and they are asking for an extra $50 billion to go out to $250 billion, which the last part of this bill speaks to. That in itself is absurd because the government is asking for an extra $50 billion on top of the credit card limit to return three in two years time. Think about how you would equate that to your own family budget. If you have a credit card limit of, say, $10,000, you are virtually asking to take that out to $15,000 so that in three years time you have enough money to take the kids on a holiday.
With that 7.2 per cent of GDP, we are often told that we are the envy of the developed world. I have with me a paper by Dr Ken Rogoff, from the Harvard University Department of Economics. He is an esteemed economist. Early on he served as an economist at the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and later he served as chief economist and director of the research department at the IMF up until 2003. This paper he prepared has only just been brought to my attention and it speaks about the cumulative increase in real public debt since 2007 for countries around the world. He produced a graph which shows how quick our uptake of debt has been compared to other countries. I was flabbergasted to find that Australia had the third quickest accumulation of debt in the developed world—third to Iceland and, surprisingly even more spectacular, third to Ireland. Our uptake of debt from 2007 has been faster than the PIGS of Europe—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain—and the UK, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, Brazil and Belgium. This is a very concerning upward trend in our debt level and there is little comprehension of how we intend to pay it down.
Whilst our debt is spiralling out of control, in the Reserve Bank's annual report published in March, the Reserve Bank governor said, 'Australia continues to benefit from exceptional terms of trade, the likes of which we appear to experience once or twice in a century.' That means that this is the crackerjack time for Australia to be putting money into its pocket. Our terms of trade, through China and India's demand for our resources, are putting us in a fiscal environment that we can only expect to see once or twice a century, according to the Reserve Bank governor. Doesn't that make you think that this is the time we should be putting the coin away because we will not see this sort of environment too often?
I also want to talk about the opportunity costs. With the talk of Australia being the envy of the world, what do we forgo as a community by having that debt, even though 7.2 per cent sounds like a small amount? I can tell you what we forgo. We pay $5.5 billion in interest to service that debt—and as it creeps out that figure will go out to about $7 billion. But just working on the conservative figure of $5.5 billion, we forgo 183 schools at $30 million a school every single year, we forgo 5,500 kilometres of roads at $1 million per kilometre—which is roughly from Cairns to Melbourne and back about to Brisbane in road systems—and we also forgo seven hospitals at $800 million per hospital. And that $5.5 billion in interest is every year. In closing, I do support some measures in the budget that address mental health issues. However, given the government's capacity to deliver on basic programs, I will believe in the programs appearing when I see it. In principle, the government had a pocketful of cash and the best terms of trade in 140 years and all it has done is tax and all we have seen is tax, debt and deficits.
I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012 and other related bills. The passing of these bills will see the federal Labor government delivering on its commitment to the Australian people to strengthen the economy and invest in our most valuable asset, our human capital. That is why the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, delivered a budget for 2011-12 with a sharp focus on skills and education. With the unemployment rate forecast to fall to 4.5 per cent by mid-2013 and a recognised skills shortage in many sectors across the country, we as a society need to do more to deliver a skilled workforce. It is Labor governments that pride themselves on investing in skills and training. This federal Labor government continues that investment and fulfils its ongoing commitment in building the productive workforce our economy needs.
Through the budget the government is making that investment by implementing a new approach to training, one that puts industry at the heart of the $558 million National Workforce Development Fund, which will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. The government will fund a national mentoring program to help 40,000 apprentices finish training. This $101 million investment will better meet the needs of industries and regions. The government will invest in more flexible training models so that apprentices can accelerate through their training at a pace which recognises their own ability to acquire the right skills. The government continues to invest in language, literacy and numeracy programs through this budget to ensure that potential workers have the essential skills for a job.
In recent times much more effort has been put in by governments, including the federal Labor government, to reinvest in apprenticeships and to promote a trade as a worthwhile career path. What we must now do, as well as continue our investment in new apprentices, is ensure that we get people, those individuals who commenced an apprenticeship but for whatever reason left that apprenticeship before it was completed, back into training. That is why the Gillard Labor government is investing $281 million in a support package for additional tax-free payments to encourage apprentices in critical trades to complete their qualifications. I have spoken much about significant investment in training and the funding allocation at a national level. Importantly though, what does this mean for my electorate? The great news is 1,750 apprentices in the electorate of Petrie may benefit from these investments.
I welcome these announcements by the Treasurer. I personally am a great supporter of education and training. By providing people with the skills needed by industries, we can better match the demand and supply of our workforce and provide greater opportunities for individuals. That is why it is essential to also ensure we are focusing on the need to invest in participation. In the 2011-12 budget, the Treasurer announced funding to get the very long-term unemployed into work. The Gillard Labor government will invest $233 million in new support programs and 35,000 targeted wage subsidies—encouraging employers to hire those who have not worked for more than two years. What this means for the 1,362 very long-term unemployed people in the electorate of Petrie is local support through local employment services to provide these 1,362 people with training and work experience. There will also be additional funds provided to grant a wage subsidy to support employers who give the very long-term unemployed a job. Getting people out of the cycle of long-term unemployment requires a multipronged approach to get real outcomes. That is why the government is tackling this issue from both the individual perspective and the business perspective.
It is not just the long-term unemployed who are being assisted through this budget. We will cut effective tax rates for 50,000 single parents by up to 20c in the dollar, invest $80 million in their skills, and transition more parents with high-school kids onto job search payments. We will remove incentives for young people to leave study for the dole queue by extending the earn or learn requirements to 21-year-olds and create new pathways to full-time employment for early school leavers.
I, like many members in this House, have areas of my electorate with a higher than average number of teenage parents. I watch these young parents do their best to provide for themselves and their young family. It is important that we as a Labor government address entrenched disadvantage by introducing participation plans for teen parents, with new requirements for jobless families and extended income management, and developing new place based programs to support local and regional employment.
I would like to take this opportunity to point out the terrific work being done by the Deception Bay Flexible Learning Centre through their parenting support. This centre allows young parents to bring their child to school while giving those parents the opportunity to continue gaining their educational qualifications. I also acknowledge the great work of the Deception Bay Community Youth Program. That also has a young mums program and is also doing work with young dads. The young mothers that I recently had the opportunity to meet showed incredible strength and were inspirational in their willingness to meet the adversities that life has thrown at them. These young ladies are all now working to help other young people realise the importance of making the right choices and the challenges that can be faced by being a parent at a young age.
As I have already stated many times in this House and throughout my community, my personal commitment is to education and training. I am extremely proud to be part of the Gillard Labor government, which is equally passionate and committed to investing in education and training. That is why it was of no surprise that the 2011-12 budget brought down by this Labor government would continue further investments in education. The Treasurer announced in this budget that $425 million will be provided to reward top-performing teachers. This will mean around one in 10 teachers will receive a bonus—about $8,100 for those with the most experience and around $5,400 for a teacher in the first few years of their career. The first bonuses will be based on performance in the 2013 school year and paid in early 2014. The Prime Minister, the Hon. Julia Gillard, when visiting the Turner Primary School in Canberra recently, said:
… this reward for our top teachers is another plank in the Gillard Governments’ commitment to ensure every child gets the best possible education no matter what their background or where they live.
She went on to say:
… nobody would deny that our teachers are vital to ensuring that our kids get a great start and that while few are in teaching for the money most people in our community would agree we should reward our best teachers.
I could not agree more with these statements.
Importantly, the method of assessing a teacher's performance, the Australian Teacher Performance Management Principles and Procedures, will be fair and equitable. Additional funding will be provided also to create new pathways into a teaching career through the Teach Next initiative.
Another funding commitment that I know is welcomed warmly in my electorate is the extended and expanded funding for the National School Chaplaincy program. Currently, 22 of the 36 schools in my electorate have school chaplains. It was a pleasure to have the Minister for School Education and Early Childhood, the Hon. Peter Garrett, at Bracken Ridge State School in the electorate of Petrie last Friday. We had the opportunity there to look around the school's facilities, including the new refurbished library and resource centre, and to view the amazing new multipurpose hall. We also had the pleasure of speaking with Rachael Bhatnagar, who is the school chaplain. I acknowledge the important work that Rachael and all of the other chaplains perform through the schools in Petrie.
It is not just investment in education and training that the government continues to deliver on. In the important areas of hospitals and health services, the government continues to make major investments. In the 2011-12 budget, the government has committed to over $3 billion in new initiatives over the forward estimates. This commitment includes $2.2 billion over five years to deliver on our commitment to make mental health a national priority and to take the first steps towards reform. The government is also investing $740 million over five years to give Australians affordable access to medicines and technologies. This includes $613 million for the latest medicines and immunisations and $104 million to expand access to magnetic resonance imaging services.
The government is also tackling the long-term challenges in dental health by introducing a voluntary dental internship year targeted at the public dental system. These commitments—and I have only mentioned a few—build on the government's national health reform, which has seen record investment in health since Labor came into government federally.
Last but not least, the federal government through the 2011-12 budget has continued to show its commitment to strengthen the Australian economy by investing in infrastructure across this country. Petrie has benefited from this investment, with the federal government announcing commitments in road and rail. Just last week the federal Treasurer and member for Lilley, the Hon. Wayne Swan, and I met with representatives from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads to get an update on the progress of the Gateway North upgrade. The Gillard Labor government is investing some $125 million in this project. This is an example of real funding getting real outcomes, with work commencing in 2012 to widen the road from two lanes into three on the northbound lane between Sandgate Road and the Deagon Deviation. This area is being targeted because during the afternoon peak hours traffic is affected all the way back to Nudgee. This section of the gateway is expected to be completed in 2013.
Another significant announcement in this budget for the people of Petrie is the decision to bring forward by three years funding for the Moreton Bay rail link. The Treasurer in the 2011-12 budget announced $133 million was being brought forward. This funding will allow the ramping up of preconstruction activities, including reallocation of public utilities as well as early works on road bridges. It will also open up the possibility that we will be able to go to the market earlier in search of a preferred builder. This highlights our determination to turn this rail line, first proposed more than a century ago, into a reality. I welcome this announcement to bring forward funding for the Moreton Bay rail link. This is another important step forward for this project and is a clear demonstration of the federal government's commitment to deliver the Moreton Bay rail link for our local communities.
It is also the first time in the history of the federal parliament that a federal budget has been handed down with funding being allocated for this important project. Many past members may have spoken about the need for a rail line from Petrie to Kippa-Ring, but it is this government, a Labor government, that not only committed to partnering with the state government and Moreton Bay Regional Council but, within less than 12 months from making that commitment, actually allocated government funds in the budget. We have waited over 100 years to see this happen, and I am certainly proud to be part of a Labor government that is making it a reality.
I have, in the time that has been allocated, spoken on just a few of the important initiatives that have been announced in this year's budget. It must be noted that it is this Labor government that has been able to hand down a budget that delivers investment in skills, participation in employment as well as education and health and continues to invest in infrastructure. The government is able to do this and ensure that we are on track to get the budget back to surplus by 2012-13.
What is the alternative to Labor's budget and commitment to get back into the black by 2012-13? Based on the Leader of the Opposition's budget response and responses by the shadow Treasurer, there is none. The opposition has no plan to get the budget back into surplus, no plans to invest in skills, training, education, health and infrastructure. The few glimpses of policy that have been released should concern the Australian public because the opposition is just ripping programs up and taking funding away. The negative approach of the Leader of the Opposition and the party that he leads is detrimental to our economy and our nation. Labor's budget is a strong budget based on sound fiscal policy that invests in our country's future and strengthens our economy. That is why I am pleased to commend these bills to the House.
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No.1) 2011-2012. This budget is truly a reflection of the Gillard government and, more importantly, its performance to date—bitterly disappointing. It is bitterly disappointing because again we have a tired and terminal Labor government plunging this country into net government debt and deficit. The Gillard government has set a new record for net government debt, which will be an astonishing $107 billion in 2011-12 and is forecast to remain above $100 billion across the forward estimates. This amounts to more than $4,700 of debt for every Australian. Sadly, due to a handful of Independent members of parliament representing conservative electorates, the Australian people again are subjected to the staggering economic incompetence illustrated in this typical tax-and-spend Labor budget.
By omitting any reference to the already announced carbon tax or carbon credits in this budget, Australians can rightly ask how the government and Treasury are laying the foundations for a carbon taxed economy next year. Will the rollout of the carbon taxed economy be another rushed job? Small business, individuals and families across Australia have borne the brunt of the Rudd-Gillard government's stuff-ups from pink batt rorts to the school halls fiasco. Labor's form for project implementation over the past three years hardly inspires confidence that they can handle major structural reform of the economy. The government needed to come clean with its carbon tax and credits proposal in this budget. Despite the lack of detail common to nearly all Labor announcements, such as the one on the carbon tax, towns and landholders in my electorate of Hume are already suffering from a shift to the green economy. Crucial to this new green economy crusade is the transition away from cheap, efficient and clean coal power technology to inefficient and expensive alternative energy sources such as wind turbines, all advertised as a means of reducing Australia's comparatively small CO2 emissions.
I have two major issues with the push towards greater wind turbine development, particularly in the electorate of Hume—firstly, claims that wind turbines are efficient and reliable and, secondly, the impact inadequately regulated wind turbine construction in New South Wales is having on the property rights of landholders, not to mention the predatory and clandestine practices of wind turbine developers.
The claim that wind turbines are a viable and reliable alternative to fossil fuels is farcical. Wind turbine technology has proven to be neither cheap nor efficient when compared with our baseload coal technology. According to the Auditor-General in Victoria, this year the cost per megawatt hour for wind turbine technology was between 80c and $1.20, compared with brown coal which cost 35c—so it is nearly three times more expensive. Make no mistake: there is a direct link between the construction of expensive-to-run wind turbines and the increases you are seeing in your electricity bills every month.
There appears to be a hidden agenda on the part of wind turbine developers centred around the federal government's carbon tax. Wind turbine developers are saying they are going to supply electricity, including enough clean energy to power up to 180,000 homes a year and preventing up to one million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution entering the environment. That information came from a Rugby wind farm press release of 17 May this year. What the developers and operators cannot and will not tell you is how they are going to produce that kind of energy when it has been proven that wind turbines operate only 30 per cent of the year. Nor will they admit that the wind turbine's inherent inefficiency is why permission is being sought in several shires in my electorate for gas-fired peaking stations, such as the one proposed in Dalton, to be built to top up the shortfall left by wind generators. A concerned constituent wrote to me recently and put it another way:
If I went to the Minister for Transport and offered to sell him a fleet of buses or trains, telling him that they would work only 30% of the time, he couldn't use them in peak periods because we didn't know when they would work and also he may find that they work when he didn't want them to (late at night or early in the morning)—what do you think the Minister for Transport would say?
The transition to inefficient, unreliable and expensive wind turbine energy production is occurring throughout the shires of the Hume electorate at an alarming rate—a rate that is preventing landholders and communities from taking stock of the full implications these industrial wind turbine developments will have on their families, their neighbours and their communities. Due to inadequate regulation under the former New South Wales Labor government, wind turbine developers have been able to override the property rights of individual landholders and communities. I have had lobbyists for wind turbines inform me of allegedly 'extraordinarily high' support for wind turbine construction in the New South Wales-ACT border region. This is not the message I am getting. Through extensive research I have uncovered the analysis of data from the ERM survey which the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage and wind turbine developers rely upon to show community support for wind turbines. The survey they rely upon was conducted over just seven days, from 27 July to 2 August 2007—four years ago—well before local landowners and communities were aware of the full implications of wind turbine construction.
It is also interesting to note that that ERM document refers in annexure B6 to 11 studies in the UK between 1990 and 1996 which contain similar figures to the 90 per cent support for wind energy quoted by the Australian ERM survey. It would appear the figures are a direct lift from the UK study. Furthermore, there is no evidence as to the survey methodology. For example, was it undertaken by post; was it by push polling over the phone; was it by direct visitation to local residents; did all of the respondents to the alleged survey live in New South Wales or within the local government areas where wind turbines are to be located or indeed within the boundaries of the Hume electorate, where hundreds of wind turbines are programmed to be constructed; how many individual respondents and/or businesses were surveyed; and where precisely were these respondents domiciled?
Considering the volume of concerns from affected landholders flooding my office and the well-attended public meetings held throughout the electorate of Hume, I would be very interested to see if a similar survey would yield a 9/10 approval for wind turbines today. My judgment is that it would not. I would, however, suggest conducting the survey a little better by directly surveying respondents who are affected—landholders who would be living next to these monuments to a misguided green-left ideology—rather than so-called distant semi-urban communities in Goulburn, Yass and Canberra, whatever that means. No survey can give us a true indication of the trauma, despair and hopelessness local landholders affected by wind turbine developments are feeling. The daughter of one elderly couple wrote to me earlier this month and said this:
I contact you now with a heart filled with anxiety, worry, disbelief and concern for my parents' future, as they have received a 'letter of acquisition' over their home for the purpose of the Gullen Range Wind Farm development.
She goes on:
The proposed turbines of particular concern would be placed at distances of just 500m, 600m and 800m from our family home. Mum and Dad have worked the whole of their lives to save for 'their joint dream … a home on a bit of land outside of town in the peace and quiet to enjoy their retirement ...'. Now they are being forced to have to make an unbearable decision of having to sell their home or stay on and suffer the effects of the turbines appearing around them. Dad is 80 yrs and Mum 72. It is heartbreaking to see them reduced to tears with the very notion of what it is that is being proposed.
There is also the case of the young couple near Crookwell who, after years of planning, saving and finally finishing building their dream home, have just been served with a letter of acquisition. What has happened to the property rights of my constituents? When did we allow their property rights to be usurped by carbon-credit-hungry wind turbine developers? Or a government hell-bent on steamrolling an ideological environmental agenda over the democratic rights of landholders in order to desperately cling to power?
These landholders, young and old, have also been subjected to the not-so-well-known clandestine and predatory practices of wind turbine developers. Discussions between landholders and developers are followed with the signing of confidentiality agreements, preventing neighbours discussing with one another developments going on in their own backyards. Alarmingly, I am advised that, when landholders threaten to take action against their neighbours, wind turbine developers have told these neighbours they will provide legal assistance to them.
Those who, despite hearing about all the health, noise and flicker worries, choose to host wind turbines on their property absolutely have that right—especially after a desperate decade of drought—but it should not be at the expense of their neighbours. The same common sense would apply if they were planning to build a 165-metre building immediately adjacent to their neighbour's residence.
The aspect of this issue that I find most disturbing is the response my constituents have received from those who constantly harp that they represent rural and regional Australia. I am disappointed that local state members, who gave people the impression they were going to do something for them at the last state election, appear to have compromised those undertakings in exchange for keys to chauffeur driven white cars. I was distressed to hear from a farmer who will be affected by a wind turbines development that he approached the Nationals leader in New South Wales regarding the seriousness of the problems I have been outlining only to be told that he could not possibly get a meeting for three months. This indifferent treatment of the democratic rights of my constituents may be politically convenient for a new government but it will not be tolerated by me.
Given the apparent contamination of the approval processes and the role played by the New South Wales planning department and other New South Wales government agencies, on behalf of my constituents I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and the Minister for the Environment, phoned the Minister for Resources and Energy, and most recently forwarded a letter to Premier O'Farrell requesting an immediate moratorium on any further wind turbine development in New South Wales pending a possible public inquiry or indeed, following on from preliminary investigation, a possible royal commission into the industry as a whole. I am not holding my breath, as indifference and arrogance has already surfaced in the six-week-old New South Wales coalition government.
Wind power generation is touted as a proven technology by its proponents, who conveniently fail to mention it has become a globally abandoned technology with developers walking away from so-called wind farms when government subsidies are reduced or removed. Regrettably, by this time the damage has been done—all the more reason to introduce a moratorium on any further development. I give my pledge to the 15 families that are faced with losing their homes that I will aggressively pursue this matter on their behalf, regardless of the politics of the government of the day.
I wish to commend the Australian government on this budget, which continues our tradition of sound economic management. It stands in stark contrast to the opposition's troubling lack of insight on this core issue.
Peter Costello is on the record as saying that an opposition leader's responsibility consists of going through the budget saying what the opposition agrees with and what it does not agree with; putting forward alternative tax proposals and saying when they would start and how they would be paid for; and saying what the opposition would do if it were bringing down a budget. Peter Costello was scathing of any budget reply speech that was short on detail or full of motherhood statements and cliches, which he believed let the Australian public down. What, then, are we to make of the opposition's budget reply?
The opposition say they would bring the budget to surplus sooner than Labor, yet they oppose and run interference on all of our savings measures, they produce no savings measures of their own and they even come up with more spending measures. They are not serious. Family payments is a classic example. The government will maintain higher income thresholds for certain family payments at their current levels. When the government announced similar measures two years ago, the opposition leader said they were soft and wanted the government to go harder. Now he wants to talk about the 'forgotten families' on $150,000 or more!
Analysis by Commonwealth Securities suggests that, on an Australia-wide basis, families with incomes above $150,000 are among the better-off families in the country. The average male income is currently around $57,500, with the average female income just over $38,000. Only three per cent of all taxpayers have an income above $150,000. In 2012-13, the number of people who will cease to be eligible for family payments will be less than two per cent. You would think, based on the scare campaign of the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer, that the government is running an assault on all families' standard of living. As Tom Dusevic identified in his article of 14 May in the Weekend Australian on the coalition's position:
Abbott and Hockey have lost the plot on the basic tenet of Liberalism. Unlike Menzies, who saw government handouts as helping hands to the destitute, the Liberals became the chief advocates for unsustainable middle-class welfare, which grew out of the revenue boost from the first phase of the mining boom.
Absolutely right.
I would like to acknowledge the measures in the budget to boost workplace participation and expand the economy's productive capacity. I agree with the Prime Minister that we do not want to see a situation where the economy is booming but where we still have long-term unemployed people who do not have a job and people on the disability support pension who want to work, who do not have the opportunity of a job. And the Treasurer is right when he says, 'Our economy can't afford to waste a single pair of capable hands.' In my electorate of Wills there are at present 1,397 very-long-term unemployed people who have been without work for two years or more. To help them prepare for and find work, the Labor government has provided in the budget an additional $2.7 million over the period 2012 to 2015 to support local employment services in Wills. This will provide them with training and work experience. Additional funds have also been provided for a wage subsidy to support employers who give the very-long-term unemployed a job.
An investment of over $1.6 million for Australian Disability Enterprises in Wills is also welcome. It will support the work of the Brunswick Industries Association, North West Employment Group, the Trustee for The Salvation Army Victoria Property Trust, and Yooralla.
The budget initiative establishing the $558 million National Workforce Development Fund will assist in responding to the most critical emerging skills needs facing Australian industry. This will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. The fund will be supported by the establishment of a new National Workforce and Productivity Agency, from 1 July next year, which will work closely with industry to identify critical skill needs and build a more skilled and capable workforce. The Labor government is improving support for Australians with a disability to help them into work where possible. I support these significant reforms to address the issue of workplace participation and skills shortages.
I do not, however, agree with raising the skilled migration target for the 2011-12 financial year to 125,850—a record level. I have seven objections to increasing skilled migration. The first is that it is the principal driver of Australia's rapid population growth. Only recently our population used to grow by 200,000 a year; now it is rising by a million every three years. The increase has not been driven by natural increase, refugees or family reunions. It has been driven by an increase in skilled migration from 24,000 in 1996 to over 100,000 now. This is the main reason net overseas migration is now 180,000 per annum and the main reason Treasury is using net overseas migration of 180,000 per annum to project that Australia's population will rise to 36 million by 2050. That is, it is giving us big Australia. I have set out in numerous speeches in the parliament and at public meetings my objections to big Australia: cost of living pressures and pressures on food, water, land and energy supplies, carbon emissions, housing affordability, traffic congestion, species extinction, loss of open space et cetera.
My second objection to increasing labour force migration is that there are people in Australia who want work and we should be getting them jobs. There are 500,000 people on Newstart allowance and 800,000 on disability support pension. These people should be our first priority. In the last decade the number of people receiving disability support pension grew around six per cent per annum in real terms. As Budget Paper No.1 outlines:
Past growth … reflects increases in the number of beneficiaries arising from population growth and changing composition of the population …
Population growth will continue to contribute to sustained real growth in the cost of this program.
As I mentioned earlier, I support the steps that seek to move people from these benefits to employment, but there needs to be jobs for them to go to. Cutting back workforce migration numbers will ensure there are jobs for them to go to.
Included among the people who are out of work and are deserving of our attention are quite a few skilled migrants already in Australia who are either not working at all or not employed in areas for which they are qualified. As reported by Michael Quin in the Melbourne Times Weekly, a local newspaper which circulates in my electorate, four out of five skilled migrants in Melbourne are unemployed or underemployed, according to a recent survey. The article outlined the case of Preston skilled migrant Natalia Garcia, who has applied for 17 engineering jobs in the past four months without getting an interview or feedback, despite speaking advanced English and holding an engineering degree and seven years industry experience in Colombia. Ms Garcia said:
We were told Australia was desperate for engineers and that we would find a job in a maximum of two months,
Ms Garcia is working as an office cleaner, and said most skilled migrants she knew were doing the same. It is highly revealing that a qualified engineer with seven years industry experience should be working in Australia as a cleaner. I suspect that quite a few of the business leaders who bang the drum incessantly about skilled migration know about this kind of outcome perfectly well. They are not so much interested in the skills of migrants as their potential to provide cheap labour in occupations such as cleaners and taxi drivers and in providing personal services like house cleaning and chauffeuring at cut price rates. So my third objection to the skilled migration increase is the treatment of, and outcomes for, many skilled migrants.
My fourth objection is that the skills shortage is overstated and is abused in ways which undermine the wages and conditions of Australian workers. National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Dave Oliver, believes the skills shortage issue is overstated and that successive federal governments have failed to deliver an adequate labour market testing system, which means employers can exploit the system. The AMWU has launched a skills register to give skilled workers and young people seeking apprenticeships the opportunity to register for work before employers are allowed to bring in workers on 457 visas. As Dave Oliver has said:
We do not deny that skills shortages exist in some areas, but they are being exaggerated by employers seeking to use 457 visas to undermine local wages and conditions and avoid the cost of investing in apprenticeships.
With apprenticeship completion rates below 50%, the long term answer to our skills problems cannot be importing workers from other countries on a temporary basis.
Employers can't complain about skills shortages while they are dropping their investment in training.
I encourage people who have skills which are not being made use of to make contact with the AMWU to get their details put on the skills register.
The fifth objection I have to increasing skilled migration is that we have become addicted to it. We need to do more to educate and train our own young people. Going back two or three decades, governments and employers dropped the ball on training. Governments closed technical schools and cut back on technical education. Private employers lost interest in taking on apprentices. We started outsourcing our requirement for training. This has been an addictive, self-fulfilling circle and we need to break the habit. Those countries which do not run a big migration program put more effort into educating and training their young people, and they have better participation rates as a consequence. The sixth objection I have to increasing skilled migration goes to the claim that this is necessary to avoid capacity constraints and bottlenecks in the resources industry. The truth is that running the resources boom as fast as possible has a number of economic consequences, not all of which are positive. Using the resources boom as a reason to ramp up skilled migration and staking a lot of our economic prosperity on Australia's high terms of trade overlooks some of the negative ramifications of the two-speed or multispeed economy. For example, as reported in the Australian in early May, hundreds of fruit processing workers face the sack if Coca-Cola Amatil goes ahead with plans to close parts of its SPC Ardmona division and capitalise on the strong Australian dollar by importing food from Indonesia. CCA chief executive Terry Davis has said one or two of SPC's three plants in central Victoria could be closed due to the strong Australian dollar putting pressure on the business. He said that the current strength of the dollar severely limits the potential for SPC Ardmona's export business, which produces some of the country's best-known canned fruit brands.
The strong dollar has been cited by the Reserve Bank as impacting adversely on manufacturing and tourism. A report in 2006 by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance on the previous mining boom used modelling to determine its impact on non-mining states and found that there were adverse consequences for Victorian exporting and import-competing firms. Their modelling results showed that the Victorian and New South Wales gross state products were about half a per cent lower. Most industries in these states contracted, apart from the mining industries.
I believe the relentless rise of the Australian dollar as a result of the resources boom presents a real challenge to the Australian economy. The current mining boom mark 2 represents the highest terms of trade in 140 years, so the pressure on manufacturing and other trade exposed industries not directly benefiting from higher commodity prices is severe. Retail, manufacturing, building and tourism are labouring under the weight of subdued sales, weak profits and low orders. We need to ensure that we do not become a one-trick economy and that the structural changes that occur as a result of this boom do not leave ordinary people behind. If the resources boom generates growth levels that cause the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates, then many Australian households and small businesses will suffer. As a nation, we need to be more sophisticated than simply trying to run the resources boom full throttle.
The seventh and final objection I have goes to the question of the morality of skilled migration. Last week I participated in a debate— (Quorum formed)(Time expired)
I am pleased to rise to speak on the appropriation bills that are before the House to do with the most recent federal Labor budget. I must say, this is an extraordinary budget. It is extraordinary because it gives the lie to the idea that Labor knows how to manage Australia's economy. Day after day we hear members opposite, and in particular the member for Lilley, the Treasurer, speak about his brilliance when it comes to economic management and speak about how Australia is situated with one of the lowest net debts in the world as a percentage of GDP. He speaks about how unemployment is low and speaks about how in some way the Labor Party was able to provide us with a road map that steered us through the GFC. For those of us sitting on this side of the chamber, when we actually look at what the Labor Party has achieved in four short years, the proof is actually quite to the contrary, because the current position of the Australian economy has much less to do with Labor Party policy and much more to do with the way in which the coalition left the Australian economy when we lost office in 2007. The reality is that this is a government that has overseen one of the biggest explosions in our level of debt in our nation's history. This is a government that has overseen one of the largest budget deficits in our nation's history. This is a government that has turned what was a 33-year record low in unemployment into a skyrocketing level of unemployment because of its policies and economic incompetence.
In reality these bills that are currently before the chamber do a number of very historic things. One is to increase the debt ceiling. This is the debt ceiling that the Labor Party needed to raise previously to some $200 billion. The bills that are before the House now push this debt ceiling up to $250 billion. We were told in November last year that this recklessly spending government had debt under control. They told us that we would see debt blow out to $94 billion. That was in November last year, and here we are now, with the budget only a matter of weeks ago, seeing that in truth net debt under this government will reach $107 billion. I grow tired of moving around my electorate and other parts of the country and seeing Labor members opposite standing up, chests puffed out, spruiking about their great vision and how they have delivered this project or that project. That is the most shameful aspect of it all.
In particular, I just recently went along to a primary school where we saw the opening of yet another so-called Building the Education Revolution designed project, another one that the government have put out there and provided funding for. It was amazing because there was a letter spruiking the government's virtues and how much they have done for the children of Australia under their BER program. Standing there in that primary school, surrounded by several hundred primary school children, I thought to myself, 'I hope they get value out of it because those same primary school children will be paying that debt off for the next 20 or 30 years. Those same children will be forced to repay all the debt that this government incurred in four short years.'
We spent 12 years paying off $96 billion of debt—12 years of hard work, 12 years of difficult policy decisions and 12 years of saying no to the kind of largesse and reckless spending that Labor so embraces. We did it because we had the belief that we have a responsibility to hand this nation over to our children who follow us in a better condition than in which we received it. But that is not Labor's policy when it comes to economic management. They are very happy to take what they have and bastardise it. They are happy to leave our children with $107 billion of debt. They are happy to leave our children with a debt that will take decades to repay so that they can run around the countryside and spruik about what economic geniuses they are and what vision they have.
If that is vision, I do not want anything to do with it. Is it vision to waste $50 billion on the NBN and so-called nation-building projects like that when Telstra announced today that they are privately rolling out in four cities a 4G network that provides 100 megabits per second, the same maximum speed that you will get under the NBN? The government are spending $50 billion on a project that is still 12 years in the making and we have a private operator using shareholder and equity funds—and perhaps debt funds too—to roll out the same thing.
It is an indictment on the Labor Party, and these budget bills speak the truth about the Australian Labor Party. It is the same old Labor budget that we saw under Whitlam. It is the same old Labor budget that we saw under the Hawke and Keating governments. It is the same old Labor Party that basically comes down to a couple of key features, and that is that this is a Labor government that taxes big and that spends big. That is it. It is Labor DNA to tax and spend every step of the way.
Queensland in particular but also parts of Victoria just had an extraordinary amount of tumult over the summer season. We saw devastating floods and we saw the impact of Cyclone Yasi. We saw challenges across the length and breadth of the country but in particular in Queensland and Victoria with the flooding. This caused an incredible amount of damage. Families had to rebuild. Businesses had to rebuild. What we saw was that, out of a $300-odd billion budget, the Labor Party had to impose a new tax to raise $1.7 billion to help pay for it. Out of a $300 billion budget, this government are so useless that they could not actually find $1.7 billion to spend on reconstruction and they had to impose a new tax. They had the political cover of saying, 'We have to do this because it is part of every Australian putting their shoulder to the wheel to look after those less fortunate.'
I have a better idea, as does everyone in the coalition. How about this government tighten its belt? How about this government not waste billions upon billions of dollars on useless programs like Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch and its failed border protection policy. On every measure, this is a government that has let down the Australian people, and it shows as Australians turn their backs on this Labor Party because this Labor Party offers them nothing. Most importantly as well, they can see straight through this Prime Minister. They know that this Prime Minister will say and do anything if she thinks that there is a vote in it. They see straight through it, and that is why the Australian people are walking away from this Labor Party. It irks me, and I know it irks my constituents and everyone on this side of the chamber, that the Australian Labor Party will raise $1.7 billion in new taxes and in the same budget allocate an extra $1.7 billion for border protection because of its useless, failed border policies which have now seen a nearly $2 billion blowout in the budget to try to do something about our ballooning detention centres and the ballooning number of asylum seekers. This is from a government that would lecture the coalition about how insensitive we were and how much we lacked compassion when it came to asylum seekers. In 2007, there were something like six people in mandatory detention. We now have some 6½ thousand. We now have in excess of 220 boats and we have a government that slugs people who may have been affected by the floods themselves with a new tax to raise $1.7 billion out of a $300 billion budget. Then, to rub salt into that wound, this government goes and spends an extra $1.7 billion on so-called border protection because it has lost control.
This is the same government and the same Prime Minister who, only eight days out from election day in 2010, looked down the barrel of the camera and promised, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Then, with the puppeteer Bob Brown over her shoulder, this Prime Minister turns her back on that solemn promise only eight days out. She said it because she knew she had to to get elected but had every intention to change it once elected. This Prime Minister now just walks away from that promise, having completely fooled the Australian people. As the old saying goes, you can fool them once but not twice. I have no doubt that the Australian people recognise that this Labor government has done an incredible amount of damage in only four short years.
In my city, the Gold Coast, the damage is being felt profoundly. Because of this government's inability to appropriately manage taxpayers funds, we are now seeing the Australian dollar, due to upward pressure on interest rates and forecast interest rates to come, reach 106c to the US dollar—$1.06. It has been as high as $1.10. It is forecast to stay in the vicinity of $1.06 or $1.07. For a city like the Gold Coast—a city of 500,000 people that is built on services industries, that is built on tourism and that is built on construction—this government's policy settings could not be any worse. Because of this budget that is going through the chamber as we speak, we continue to see upward pressure on interest rates. Because of this government borrowing $135 million each and every day, we continue to see upward pressure on interest rates. Because of this government's reckless spending, because of $107 billion of net debt, we continue to see the crowding out of private operators in the debt market who are so desperately in need of finance. Each one of these directly goes to the economic viability of a city like the Gold Coast. Each one of these has a material impact on the ability of our city's developers to secure finance for their projects; on the confidence of consumers to be able to purchase, for example, apartments and to drive the second biggest industry in our city, which is the construction industry; and on the ability of Australians to choose to holiday in Australia rather than abroad because the Australian dollar is sitting at $1.06.
We reached this stage because of the rampant appreciation of the Australian dollar as a consequence of interest rate increases and forecast increases. There are now more Australians travelling abroad than there are international visitors coming to Australia. The impact on a city like the Gold Coast is that unemployment skyrockets. In my own constituency we see its impact. That the unemployment rate climbed to nearly eight per cent, and it still currently sits around that figure, is the consequence of Labor Party policy. We see the consequence in the small business sector, a sector that this government has turned its back on. This party preaches its concern for workers, but unfortunately this party only believes that workers are employees. This party is blind to the fact that employers are workers too, that employers drive wealth generation, that employers drive jobs and that employers drive economic activity. That is part of the reason why between 2007 and 2010, Labor's first term in government, we saw 695 small businesses close in my electorate. If every one of them employed only one person, between the owner and the employee you are talking close to 1,300 people all out of work as a direct result of this government's economic incompetence.
Most distressing is that the government have not learned anything. After the failed programs of GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, the pink batts disaster and the school halls disaster, you would think the government would start to get the message. Instead, they budget to spend $400 per pensioner for a set-top box for their TV when Harvey Norman can install and provide a set-top box for $168—less than half price. You can buy a new TV for less money than the Labor Party is budgeting. On every measure, this is a government that is completely blind to what makes the Australian economy tick. To all the children of Australia, to those children who are under 21 who will be paying off the debt as a consequence of the reckless spending and largess of this government: I am sorry that the government have had the power, as a consequence of their poor decision making, to put you some $5,000 or thereabouts in debt for the next couple of decades. It is a great shame.
I am very pleased to be speaking on these appropriation bills because this year's federal budget is a strong nation-building budget that continues to build upon this government's commitment to deliver for all Australians. It is a budget that supports a strong economy for all Australians and it is getting us back to surplus on time and as planned. It is a budget that invests in training, gets more Australians in jobs and drives opportunities for all Australians. Whilst many countries around the world are still dealing with the impact of the GFC, Australia's economy is strong and unemployment is low.
This budget builds upon the previous Labor government budgets, when the government took decisive and immediate policy action to protect jobs from the impacts of the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. The centrepiece of this response, the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, helped support jobs and invested in future long-term economic growth. The fact is that we would not be in this position if it were not for the very decisive actions of the Labor government during the crisis—actions that saved Australia from the recession during the GFC. The $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan was designed to provide a boost to the economy at a time when the global economic outlook was rapidly deteriorating, as well as investing in Australia's future.
The plan made critical investments in rural, regional and urban infrastructure and made Australia one of the only advanced economies in the world to avoid economic recession. These actions had a major impact on jobs and infrastructure development in my electorate of Richmond. In fact, the Building the Education Revolution has delivered more than $115 million for over 200 projects in 90 local schools. In total for Richmond, the Gillard government has provided more than $133 million through this economic stimulus plan for 464 projects to support jobs and improve local infrastructure. This has made a massive difference to the north coast in keeping people in jobs and providing really important infrastructure right across the area. The fact is that more than 750,000 Australians are in jobs today than when the government took office, in stark contrast to the 30 million jobs that were lost across the globe during the aftermath of the GFC.
In fact the 2011-12 budget further builds on Australia's strong economic record, with a continued focus on jobs, skills and training, and with investments in health, education, infrastructure, roads and regional development. The budget recognises that training our bigger workforce is vital for the strength of our economy and the living standards within our community. I am very pleased that this budget includes new measures to help with the cost-of-living pressures, particularly for Australians on low incomes and families with kids at school. We are making very important changes to the family payments system to make them fairer, to make them simpler and of course to ensure long-term sustainability of the family payments system. This will have a major impact upon many families in Richmond, particularly increasing by up to $4,200 the annual rate of family tax benefit A. (Quorum formed)
I am pleased to continue to tell you about the great initiatives delivered by this government in this budget. There is so much to go through. I have mentioned family tax benefit A, under which payments will be increasing by up to $4,200 to help parents keep their teenagers in school or vocational training. That is vitally important. We are also extending the education tax refund and giving parents a choice to have their childcare rebate paid fortnightly, which will cut down on upfront costs. This budget also has a lot of focus on education and training. We know that investing in our productive capacity must include strengthening our skills base and education system. The budget recognises that. It will drive opportunities by these investments. The Australian government are providing an additional $1.2 billion to the Australian Apprenticeship Incentives Program to develop a more skilled Australian workforce.
This budget builds on the government's commitment to ensure all schools provide a quality education. It has delivered $876 million for initiatives that will help ensure that our kids continue to have access to a world-class education system. Those measures include providing $200 million in funding for the More Support for Students with Disabilities initiative, which will benefit students, teachers and their families through many new services. More schools will now have access to chaplains under the $222 million boost to the popular National School Chaplaincy Program. This is in addition to the 2,700 chaplains already operating in our schools. In fact, in the electorate of Richmond 14 schools already employ chaplains, who play a vital role in supporting our children. Another great initiative is the Teach Next program, which has received $18 million over four years to help create postgraduate training pathways for teachers, specifically targeting maths and science. This all builds on the Labor government's many commitments to improving our education system. As I mentioned, in my electorate the BER has delivered more than $115 million for over 200 projects in 90 schools, and I have seen firsthand the great impact this has upon our kids in terms of their being able to access 21st century education systems. We have taken this action because we are committed to providing every student with a world-class education.
The budget builds upon our support for seniors. In previous budgets, we have delivered pension increases for our seniors, and what a vital difference that makes to older Australians right across the country. This budget includes a new work bonus for pensioners, so they can now keep more of their pension whilst working part time. There is $30 million to help mature age workers formalise their trade skills, and there is continuing support for Broadband for Seniors, which is vitally important.
Rural and regional Australia is critical to the Australian economy, generating 60 per cent of our export income and driving Australia's resource and agricultural industries. This budget continues to provide record investment in rural and regional areas. Because we have such a strong commitment, we are delivering over $4.3 billion in new investments. We have further funding to Regional Development Australia to increase the great role they play. And the budget provides a further $20.3 million to strengthen our Regional Development Australia network over the next four years, in addition to our previous funding for RDAs.
I would also like to touch on the issue of roads funding. This government's actions to improve the Pacific Highway have greatly improved the lives of people on the North Coast. The vision of a better, safer and fully duplicated Pacific Highway is much closer to becoming a reality, with the Gillard government prepared to increase our investment in this road by $1 billion as part of this budget. This is vitally important. Our funding for the Pacific Highway needs to be matched by the New South Wales government. It is vitally important they liaise with us and match that funding to make sure we have a shared commitment to completing that highway.
The additional funding contained in the budget brings the total federal investment in the Pacific Highway under the Gillard government to a record $4.1 billion over seven years. This is compared to the former Howard government's record of just $1.3 billion over 12 years. When I look at my electorate, I can see firsthand the difference this has made, particularly the upgrade and realignment of the road at Banora Point, the Sexton Hill upgrade. The federal contribution is $347 million. That is due to be completed in 2012, and it will make a huge difference to be the local community.
Also, work will be starting on the duplication of the road between Tintenbar and Ewingsdale during the coming financial year. The federal contribution is $566 million. This will make a major difference to the North Coast, and it shows how committed the Labor government is to improving the Pacific Highway. As I say, we need to have that funding matched by the New South Wales government.
We are also making significant investments in health. (Quorum formed)
That is the second time the opposition have tried to shut me down while I have been speaking about what we have delivered in this budget—what we have delivered for regional Australia, what we have delivered for education, what we have delivered for health, what we have delivered for roads, what we have delivered right across this country and the difference it is making to families, to seniors and to all areas across Australia. Twice they did not want to hear it. They did not want to hear about the improvements that we are making in people's lives with our massive investments in all these vital areas. They are not interested, and twice they have tried to shut it down.
The fact is that this budget and previous Labor budgets have made a real difference and had a positive impact on the lives of Australians, and this budget builds upon that by providing economic security for all Australians across all areas. It is disgraceful, particularly when I was talking about regional development, that they tried to shut me down. They do not understand regions. They do not understand what is important. It is the Labor government that is investing in our regions, in infrastructure and roads, and providing for them. (Time expired.)
I want to speak tonight about the government's well-framed budget, brought down two weeks ago. I want to speak about the government's excellent management of the economy over the last 3½ years. And I want to speak about the impact of one aspect of that excellent economic management in my electorate, specifically the new school buildings which have been built under the Building the Education Revolution program. There have been a large number of buildings. I hear constantly from parents at these schools and I hear from people who have worked on the construction programs at each of these schools just how beneficial those buildings built under the Building the Education Revolution program have been for the schools and how beneficial they have been for employment in our local community.
Two weeks ago, the Treasurer brought down his fourth federal budget in this House. This year's budget was framed at a defining moment for our economy against a backdrop of natural disasters at home and overseas, softer economic conditions in the near term and a return to boom conditions that will stretch our economy's capacity over the coming years. In the face of these complexities, the government's focus with this budget has been clear: to bring the budget back to surplus, to invest in skills and training and to get more Australians into work. This budget lays out our path for returning to surplus in 2012-13 as we committed to do. It does so despite the large downgrades in revenue flowing from the global financial crisis and the natural disasters and as a consequence of our patchwork economy.
There has been an extraordinarily inadequate response from the opposition to the budget brought down by the Treasurer a couple of weeks back. The opposition front bench in fact can barely bring themselves to mention, for example, the global financial crisis. We had last week from the member for North Sydney, the shadow Treasurer, the extraordinary description of the global financial crisis as a 'hiccup'. This 'hiccup' is something we might like to put in context. It is a financial event that saw global output fall for the first time since the 1930s. None of the events of the past seven decades had ever caused global GDP to fall—not World War II, the 1970s oil crisis, Black Monday in 1987 or the Asian financial crisis—but in 2009 the collective output of the world's economies went backwards. And in the shadow Treasurer's mind this constituted a 'hiccup'.
We faced in our country the sharpest, deepest, most synchronised global economic recession in 75 years. On some accounts, by the end of 2010, the loss in global output arising from the shock to global growth could be around US$4 trillion. The number of jobless people worldwide rose by more than 30 million in the past two years, and the destruction of wealth was unprecedented in peacetime. If the shadow Treasurer in this country believes this level of disaster to be a hiccup, I would hate to be around when anyone in the opposition burps. This demonstrates yet again what a risk the member for North Sydney and, I could add, what a risk the Leader of the Opposition would pose to our economy if they were ever to move to the government benches.
The global financial crisis, which the shadow Treasurer chooses to describe as a hiccup, made a $130 billion hit on Australian government revenues. Relative to other industrialised economies, Australia faced the global crisis from a position of considerable strength. We implemented timely and targeted fiscal stimulus packages at the height of the crisis to restore confidence, support investment and minimise job losses.
To speak of just one of those stimulus packages, one part of the government's timely and well-sized stimulus packages, I mention the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution program, which is still delivering 23,693 projects in 9,501 schools across Australia. It is a program that has already provided much-needed infrastructure to Australia's schools and to their communities and at the same time protected Australian jobs during the economic downturn. The vast majority of schools and the vast majority of communities in which those schools stand are overwhelmingly happy with the Building the Education Revolution program.
Just to make the point about the timeliness of this stimulus program, which of course has delivered all the time and is going to continue to deliver benefits to schools across Australia, as at 31 March 2011, 90 per cent of all BER projects had been completed. To date the Australian government has paid $15.4 billion in BER project funding to state, Catholic and independent education authorities. Of course, the government has been committed to providing BER funds to the education authorities with both bilateral agreements with state governments and funding agreements with block grants authorities, they being the non-government education authorities.
The Building the Education Revolution program has delivered vital infrastructure to school communities on an unprecedented scale. Indeed, it is a historic investment in the modernisation of Australian schools. Of course, there have been some criticisms. To deal with those criticisms, the government very properly commissioned Mr Brad Orgill and the Building the Education Revolution Implementation Taskforce, which delivered its first report on 13 December last year. I think it says it all just to quote the key conclusion expressed by the chairman of the task force, Mr Brad Orgill:
… the vast majority of BER projects across the country in the government and non-government systems are being appropriately and successfully delivered. This has resulted in quality and, from our observations, generally much-needed new school infrastructure, while achieving the primary goal of stimulating economic activity.
I turn now to what the results of the Building the Education Revolution program have been in my own electorate. I will just go through some of the wonderful new buildings that I have been able to open on behalf of the Commonwealth government in my electorate. I say very directly to those opposite that they should perhaps attend some of these openings and hear directly from the schools which are benefiting from this program just what they think of the value that has been given to the Australian community in general and the value that has been given to particular communities from this program. I will start with one of the earlier openings. I had the great privilege on 28 April 2010 of opening the new early learning centre at Mentone Girls Grammar School. A new foyer for the assembly was also part of that project. It is a wonderfully innovative early learning centre. These facilities will continue to serve that school for many years to come. Fran Reddan, the principal, spoke in one of our local papers about the federal government's contribution and said:
Of course we would not have been able to have these projects ready for 2010 without the incredible contribution of the Australian government.
Another early opening in my electorate was on 25 June 2010 when I opened a wonderful building known locally as the sports stadium and community centre at St Joachim's Catholic Primary in Carrum Downs. Desmond Noak, the principal, said that the school could never have afforded to fund these facilities and expressed his gratitude to the federal government for taking the initiative to invest funds in schools.
I go next to the Resurrection Primary School in Keysborough, which I opened on 27 June 2010. It involved almost a complete rebuild of the school but centred on a library and learning centre. The school community was so excited by the results that Steve Bellescini, the principal, produced a booklet on the success of the school's Building the Education Revolution project. Australia's education magazine, Teacher, the national education magazine, published an article on the success of this project. In October 2010, Steve said:
As you know our BER project was a great success thanks to your Government and other factors.
On 5 August 2010, I opened a facility at the Lighthouse Christian College in Keysborough. They received a learning resource centre and library. It is a school with both primary and secondary facilities. They obtained $2 million for their primary facility and were successful in obtaining a grant for the secondary school under the science and language components of the Building the Education Revolution program. Tim Rogers, the principal, said that the entire building project had been on schedule and to budget. He said this very proudly at the opening on 5 August. One of our local papers published a picture of the students at Lighthouse with the caption, 'Students at Lighthouse Christian College couldn't hide their delight when new buildings were opened at the Keysborough school last week. The structure was paid for by the federal government's Building the Education Revolution program.' I recall this opening very sharply because it was at this opening that one of the representatives of the construction companies involved in the project said words to the effect that the stimulus program had kept not only the building going but also his company afloat during the global financial crisis.
On 13 August, I had the pleasure of opening the Skye Primary School's new facility at the southern end of my electorate. People in the school community said to me at the opening and since just how greatly needed those improvements to the school were. (Quorum formed). Those opposite do not want to hear about the success of the Building the Education Revolution program.
The other schools that I have had the great privilege of opening new buildings for in the last several months are: Carrum Downs Primary School, St Anthony's Catholic Primary School, Patterson Lakes Primary School, St Louis De Montfort's Primary School, Rowellyn Park Primary School in Carrum Downs, Berry Street in Noble Park, Aspendale Gardens Primary School, Chelsea Heights Primary School, St John Vianney's Catholic Primary School in Parkdale, Dandenong South Primary, Chelsea Primary and, just last Friday, St Brigid's Primary School in Mordiallic. At every one of these schools parents, teachers, children and the whole of the school community expressed delight at the results of the Building the Education Revolution for their local community. I will end with the words of the chair of the school board at St Brigid's Mordiallic who, in his speech last Friday, said:
I would dread to think how many fundraisers the school would need to have had to raise the monies to actually do this building program and in all reality it would never have happened without the generous assistance of the Federal Government.
It has been a pleasure to be a part of a government, and I am proud to be part of a government, that has contributed in this way. (Time expired)
I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012, the amendments that have been put forward and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012. One hundred and seven billion dollars or $107,000 million—or about $5,000 for each member of the Australian population—is what the budget says the Australian government will owe on behalf of the Australian people in 12 months time. We are still borrowing $135 million a day. That $135 million a day means that we are going to pay $7 billion a year in interest. The government should really send a bill to the people of Australia so they understand the debt that they have run up on their behalf.
We remember well, when the Rudd Labor government was elected, the promise of surpluses; they were committed to surpluses—'we believe in surpluses'—but, as the member for Longman pointed out in this House the other day, it is, in fact, 21 years since a Labor government delivered a surplus. Now it appears as though the Treasurer knows that as well, even though it took him a day or so to catch up.
But it is worse than that. The NBN, on which the government says it will spend $36 billion, will, in fact, cost $50 billion they have not included the money for Telstra in that sum. The government will borrow $18 billion over the next four years, over the forward estimates, and it is off budget. I know this is technically correct but it is morally dishonest. That is why the government now seeks to lift the borrowing limits of government from $200 billion to $250 billion. Some experts believe that once the $50 billion NBN is completed it may be worth less than $20 billion. Worse still, there is a hole at the heart of the budget and that is the fact that the carbon tax has not been factored in. To propose you can levy an $11 billion tax on the Australian public and business and that it will have no effect is not believable.
One of the things my colleagues have raised is the price increases this will see right throughout the Australian community, the cascading effect of the tax. I am more concerned about the incentive to shop overseas. In fact, the only way to avoid this tax is to buy something that is not made in Australia. That is my chief concern. We are talking about carbon leakage on a grand scale. Paradoxically, the mining tax is in the budget but it is still not in legislation. So we have not seen the mining tax and we have not seen the carbon tax, but the mining tax has been put into the budget. We well remember that after the appointment of the Prime Minister by the Labor Party one of the very first things she did was claim victory in the mining tax negotiations. Here we are, some 11 months later, and still the tax is unsettled.
And the events of the last week would suggest that the tax is more unsettled than ever. When the Western Australians proposed a lift in the royalty rates, which will take $2 billion out of the government's mining tax—if, in fact, it is ever presented in the form they moot—this was so totally predictable. Not only was it telegraphed to the Treasurer but it was totally predictable. As soon as a government says to a state government, 'Look, you can levy whatever tax you like and we'll pick up the bill,' what would you expect to happen? But it was all based on trying to get a quick resolution to get the subject off the front page of the papers. Of course, that has been the modus operandi of the government: so often we have seen things announced before the detail has been worked out. The mining tax is just another example of it. We have seen it with the ETS and we have seen it with the NBN. Remember the $4½ billion model that was announced? That detail was not worked out. East Timor and Malaysia—more announcements with no understanding about how these policies would be implemented, so it was: 'Oh, that will all come later. We'll sort it out then.' Well, it is not easy to sort it out later because expectations are raised in the community and then you have to come back and disappoint someone.
The budget also fails to recognise the supply pressure in the economy. We already have the highest interest rates in the OECD and that supply pressure is goading the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates further, but still the government have borrowed an extra $50 billion in the last 12 months to pump into an economy already reaching capacity constraints. This year they will borrow another $22.6 billion to pump into an economy reaching capacity. As I said, the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is daring the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates.
The government has failed on many programs. There has been rampant mismanagement. All have been listed again and again in this House and it takes some running through: the pink batts, the green cars, the cash for clunkers, the green loans, the school halls, the solar panels, the $900 cheques. Those $900 cheques are still recalled with absolute disbelief in the community. There are some other things happening in the budget over which I am starting to have great concern. Take Regional Development Australia—and it is good to see you here, Minister Crean. I am pleased you are here to hear what I have to say. I wrote an article 2½ months ago concerning about whether or not regional Australia will actually see the promised billions. There are 55 RDAs in Australia, as the minister knows, competing for what they thought was $10 billion. In fact, $4 billion of that has been allocated to hospitals, and I thank the Treasurer for the money invested in the Port Lincoln hospital.
So we are talking only about a figure of $6 billion. Of the $6 billion, Regional Development Australia boards have been told: 'We need a great list: I want you to prioritise all these things around Australia so that we can select the most worthy projects.' They have been out there feverishly beavering away, trying to bring some discipline to the situation. Many of them think most of these projects are going to be funded, but in fact we find that only $573 million is available for the RDAs to compete for. There are 55 RDAs in Australia and, incidentally, 11 of them have their headquarters in capital cities. In the budget we find—and I think it was pre-announced—that $480 million of that $573 million is going into Perth Airport. Perth Airport is undoubtedly a worthy project, but it is hardly regional. The minister seems to have signalled that metropolitan Australia is regional and should feel free to apply for these funds as well. There is a growing concern out there that the money promised is not actually going to materialise.
Go back to the regional rorts, you reckon, under your government.
I was not here, the minister might realise.
I'd be ashamed of it.
There was, of course, the $800 million regional priority fund that RDAs could also apply for, but $350 million of that was also lost in the wake of the floods in Queensland. Many people in the community on these RDAs who are giving of their time are expecting to see something better for the future, because that is what the government has promised them. I hope that materialises; I am not sure it will.
I said I would come back to the carbon tax because it is the biggest single threat to my electorate. As I mentioned it is not factored into the budget. I have three companies in my electorate that qualify as major emitters of carbon. One is a lead-zinc production platform in Port Pirie named Nyrstar, OneSteel has a steelmaking enterprise in Whyalla and Alinta runs a coal-fired power station in Port Augusta, producing 40 per cent of the state's capacity of electricity.
Taking Nyrstar first, I was looking at some figures the other day on zinc production and, in Australia, we produce about 50 per cent of the CO2 per tonne of zinc production compared with the Chinese average. If this company were to fail—and I can tell you there are some major investment decisions to be made there in the near future—and if it was to decide that it no longer saw Australia as a safe and profitable place to produce lead and zinc, there is no doubt that capacity will pop up in China or in a similar country. If that results in double the amount of CO2 being emitted it could not possibly be a good thing for the environment, for CO2 production around the world. What it will do is make sure that we have major areas of unemployment.
Regional unemployment is one of the most difficult problems to solve. I look at the OneSteel operation in Whyalla. For the information of the House, when steel is made around 80 per cent of the CO2 produced comes from the process of putting carbon in with the iron to turn it into steel. You simply cannot avoid it. It is a fact of life: if you want to make steel you have to put carbon in with the mix. Taxing this means that ramping up the cost our steel for absolutely no gain, because the process cannot be avoided. The only way you can avoid the tax is to take your industry somewhere else.
I mentioned the coal-fired power station at Port Augusta. There are some big decisions to be made there about opening up new coal pits for the future. It is all very well to talk of the production of CO2 from coal-fired power stations, and probably quite rightly, but the fact remains that that power station produces 40 per cent of the state's electricity. Even in Hindmarsh, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, we might find the lights going a bit dim if we pulled the plug on it, so there has to be a plan for the future.
On a local note concerning the budget, on 24 March this House of Representatives unanimously approved a motion that asked the government to intervene in the case of the Ardrossan, Keith and Moonta hospitals and restore some funding the state government had removed—by reducing the state's specific hospital grants—and paying it directly to the hospitals. Exactly the same motion was moved in the Senate on 12 May, but at this stage we have seen no action from the Minister for Health and Ageing.
I hoped that I might have seen something in the budget and, as there was nothing, I am beginning to wonder what the attitude of the Minister for Health and Ageing is to the will of the parliament. The motions were passed by 100 per cent of members—there was certainly no dissent from either House—and it would indicate to me that the members of this place feel quite strongly about this subject. I call on the minister once again to intervene in the situation. I have said repeatedly that I can understand if the minister would not want to do exactly as the House and the Senate proposed but, as the major provider of finance to the state, it is in the minister's power to pick up the phone to the state government and say, 'Fix the problem.' We are talking about a little over a million dollars a year. In the overall scheme of things, this is chicken feed.
In closing, this is a budget built on optimism. It is optimistic that China will continue to boom. It is optimistic that the European debt crisis will not lead to a lack of confidence around the world. Every day when we pick up the papers one would have to wonder what is going to happen next. A budgetary situation can deteriorate quite quickly because, remember, just six months ago we were expecting a deficit of $41.5 billion. Now it is $50 billion—a deterioration of $8½ billion or $47 million a day. This budget is based on an extreme dose of optimism. It will be lucky if it can face the test of the next four years. (Time expired)
I am here today representing the people of Macarthur and raising their concerns about the budget and its impact upon their lives. These are serious concerns because they have been neglected for too long. The decent, hardworking people of Macarthur, the forgotten families of south-western Sydney, are really doing it tough and the government is not paying attention. Not only are these people reeling from cost-of-living pressures but also they see no relief in this budget from a government that has lost touch with everyday Australians. They are also frustrated at the lack of infrastructure being delivered, given the growth that is occurring in our region which will result in our population doubling in the next 20 years.
Next month I will be convening a meeting to discuss infrastructure funding for the region and identifying specific projects with newly elected members for the state seats of Campbelltown, Wollondilly and Camden along with all mayors and general managers for those local government areas. One can only hope that the new direct phone line that New South Wales Premier Barry O'Farrell has to the Prime Minister's office–the bat phone, bypassing the boy wonder of infrastructure—will deliver the appropriate infrastructure to sustain the growth that will occur in our region, because that appropriate infrastructure is something that is sadly lacking and not identified in this budget. Let us hope Infrastructure Australia and Infrastructure New South Wales are on the same wavelength and address my community's needs.
Everywhere across this nation, hardworking Australians are feeling the pinch as they try to keep up with increasing cost-of-living pressures and with tax increases in the form of the compulsory flood levy and the looming carbon tax. With the budget as it is, families in Macarthur will feel the pinch even more as family tax benefits are frozen and tight thresholds are introduced. Increases to the fringe benefits tax will also hit the hip pocket of workers and tradespeople in Macarthur as the government continues its systematic crackdown on honest, hardworking Australians.
The Treasurer would like us all to believe that this budget is a responsible reduction in government spending. However, in reality under this budget we will still be borrowing at least $135 million each and every day. The hardworking families of Macarthur, and indeed Australia, are already facing substantial cost-of-living pressures at the current level of interest rates. The increased upward pressure on wages, the sustained high value of our dollar and the excessive amount of government expenditure that has characterised this government is forcing the Reserve Bank to consider raising interest rates in the coming months. This will be detrimental to the wellbeing and quality of life of many families in my electorate if this occurs. Many families in my electorate are already in mortgage poverty and face losing their homes if there are further interest rate hikes. There have been seven interest rate rises in a row, which has increased average mortgage repayments by more than $500 per month. How much more pain is this Greens-Gillard government going to inflict on hardworking Australians?
This budget does not go far enough in reducing wasteful government expenditure to relieve this pressure on interest rates. For example, the government has allowed a budget blow-out of $1.75 billion to deal with the illegal boat people crisis and detention centres, and there is a $21 million advertising campaign for a carbon tax, yet that tax does not even rate a mention in the budget. Such continued wasteful expenditure by this government will only place pressure on interest rates to rise further, placing even more strain on the families of Australia.
The people of Australia are making the tough decisions to tighten their spending in the face of higher costs of living, so why can't this government do the same? In respect of taxes, has the Treasurer considered the huge financial burden that a $26 per tonne carbon tax would add to the already stretched budgets of average Australian families? Most people in Macarthur are conscious of their environmental footprint and want to ensure that there is sensible and practical action taken to minimise our impact on the environment. But I cannot honestly say that there are many people in the electorate of Macarthur who believe any good will come out of this carbon tax. As the Hon. Tony Abbott recently said:
The smart way to improve the environment is not to impose a new tax on the way every Australian lives and works but to reduce emissions via common sense environmental improvements that everyone can support.
This carbon tax is starting to echo past failed policies shamefully pushed to the back of the Treasurer's sock drawer—policies like the bungled home insulation scheme, the massive BER rip-off, Australia's border protection and detention centre crisis, the mining resource rent tax, the computers in schools blow-out, the Green Loans program, cash for clunkers and now the embarrassing set-top box fiasco, just to name a few.
The Prime Minister has thrown around the idea of compensation for low-income families but what compensation is there for a dad who's just lost his job because his manufacturing plant cannot compete with cheap imports from cutthroat overseas competitors? What compensation is there for communities that may lose their main source of employment in mining areas such as the Wollondilly Shire or manufacturing hubs such as Narellan, Smeaton Grange and Williamson Road in the Macarthur region?
While I do welcome initiatives to help welfare-dependent teenage mothers get back to school, along with the support to help long-term welfare recipients get back into the workforce, I believe it is a shame that the government is only trialling these measures, as they could potentially bring positive change to so many struggling families within the Macarthur region. For too long the people of Macarthur have been stereotyped and it is a shame that the pilot program for teenage mums will not be trialled in my electorate even though it was announced in Ambarvale by the Prime Minister. The tough love announcement was not very well received by community leaders. Why announce it in the Macarthur region and then not trial it there? Just using the people of Macarthur as tools to promote policy and then not spend a cent to assist them is beyond comprehension. The Benevolent Society, although welcoming the Prime Minister's announcement, also criticised the removal of payments to parents supporting young children as not helpful under any circumstances.
While I would welcome any money for mental health in the Macarthur region, in reality the government is only providing $47.3 million in new funding for mental health in 2011-12 while cutting $62.8 million from existing programs. The government's policy is heavily back-ended in relation to mental health funding, with 74 per cent—which is $481 million—to be spent in the last two years of the five-year program. The coalition has announced that it will spend $1.9 billion on mental health. This is real money and offers targeted, strategic and real reform.
The Australian Medical Association is concerned that a big slice of the new funding for the mental health package has been cut from existing general practice mental health services and related psychological services. These services are evidence based and were recently positively reviewed, but the money has been reallocated to other programs which are less evidence based. The association would prefer that the funds were reallocated from less critical areas such as the GP superclinic program and the untested Medicare Locals program or the set-top box program than from GP services which help the neediest patients. I agree with the Australian Medical Association that mental health is an area which requires additional investment, not reallocation of funds. It is too simplistic an approach to shift funding from one needy group of patients to another. This is a stealing from Peter to pay Paul policy. Small businesses are the foundation of our economy and need to be supported by the government. Now more than ever they need our support. Small businesses provide a substantial amount of employment and economic activity in Macarthur and I am proud to say that the coalition is committed to annual reductions in red tape for small business as well as lowering the costly burden of regulation. This red tape costs industry more than $1 billion each year.
The coalition is, and always has been, a strong supporter of small business. In Macarthur, small businesses provide the bulk of employment and nationally 95.6 per cent of all businesses are small businesses . B e they farmers, sole traders, cafes, manufacturers, hairdressers, retailers or financial service providers , small businesses are vitally important to Macarthur's success as a region and Australia's su ccess as a nation. In 2008- 09 , small businesses employed roughly 4.8 million people, accounting for 48 per cent of private sector employment .
I would like to digress for a moment and tell this House what a number of small businesses in the Macarthur region have done w orking hand in hand with a group of passionate , dedicated and extremely hard working mums in my electorate. I ha ve spoken about th ese exceptional ladies before. T hey are the mums of The Right Start Foundation and they are working towards building Australia's first Down Syndrome specific centre in the Macarthur region . Glenda Graban , Darien Gray and an army of mothers have banded together with Steve Wisbey from My Gateway , Pro Corp , Ray Hadley from 2GB, Macarthur Credit Union and more than 30 local busin esses to build a beautiful four- bedroom home at the new Oran Park Estate. This house was recently sold for $521,000 and will see $100,000 profit go towards building this much needed Down Syndrome c entre in the Macarthur region . I am very proud to be a supporter of T he Right Start Foundation. My community finds it extremely alarming that groups with special needs such as The Right Start Foundation struggle to obtain funding, but this government sees fit to allocate $10 million to the unions to establish a website in this budget. It is very hard to explain to my community.
I would like to convey a message I received from a constituent in response to the proposed changes to the fringe benefits tax thresholds. He proposed that , instead of punishing tradies , shift workers and commuters who have to drive more than 120 kilometres a day to get to and from work , the government should target investment towards creating productivity centres in and around major population centres.
In my electorate, Campbelltown City Council just held an employment land review to create employment opportunities for people to live and wor k in their own community. It is anticipated that the south-w est sub region of Sydney will need to create 141,000 new full- time jobs by 2036. Federal investment is needed to create these employment lands.
It is vitally important for the Macarthur region to align job growth to population growth and to grow and develop our local skills base to provide more opportunities for growing advanced services such as business and technology parks. A vast majority of employed people in Macarthur have to commute out of the area for work. By investing in local productivity centre s, be they commercial business parks or scientific and high- tech manufacturing hubs, we could not only ease congestion on our major arterial routes but also give many workers a better work- life balance with less time spent on the road reducing their rising petrol bills.
Unfortunately for my constituents , the people of Macarthur have been saddled with a big - spending government that likes to talk the talk but will not walk the walk of responsible fiscal policy. If this government were serious about giving hard working Australian taxpayers real value for money from their taxes , they would no t be throwing away $350 for a set- top bo x which Harvey Norman can supply and install for nearly half the price. What a ridiculous policy.
If this government w ere serious about addressing environmental issues , they would no t be spruiking expensive and untested pet projects s uch as the carbon tax without fully exploring what benefits it will reap for the environment. If it were serious , it would take the time to understand what implications a great big new tax like this has for the Australian economy.
If the government w ere serious about helping Australia's forgotten families , they would not be cutting and freezing muc h needed family payments, n o r would they be treating tradies and workers who live in outer suburban areas like tax cheats and increasing the fringe benefit ta x rate for people driving more than 45,000 k ilometres a year.
If the government were serious about protecting our borders , we would no t be facing a $1.75 billion blow-out in costs for managing detention centres. And now the government has decided that swapping the boats is easier than stopping the boats and is preparing to foot a $70,000 per person bill for illegal immigrant boat people under their new Malaysia scheme. Imagine the good work a number of our local charities could do if they were given that kind of funding. Sadly , I do no t believe that this government is serious about getting Australia back on track. This budget represents a failed government that is leading Australians down a very dark garden path and placing Australia's economic prosperity in peril .
This is a budget hand crafted by a government that has no scruples about openly lying to the Australian people , introducing crippling carbon taxes for which they have no mandate. It i s time that the Australian people had a government that is competent, responsible and effective , a government that Tony Abbott and the coalition can and will deliver.
Our budget is about opportunity. As Treasurer Swan said in this place on 10 May, this budget is built on our firmest convictions. Our plan begins with a new approach to training. In my opinion, this is long overdue. We are putting industry at the heart of a $558 million National Workforce Development Fund that will deliver 130,000 new training places over four years. For businesses in my electorate, as well as for kids who are hoping to gain apprenticeships when they leave school, I am sure this is welcome news.
We are also better meeting the needs of industries in regions with a $101 million national mentoring program to help 40,000 apprentices finish training. We know that at the moment only half of those who start an apprenticeship actually finish it, so this move is very important. We are also accelerating apprenticeships, letting apprentices progress as they acquire the right skills, by investing $100 million in more flexible training models. People learn at different paces, so this is a solid move. We are investing $1.75 billion in addition to our existing $7 billion investment to leverage ambitious reforms to the vocational education and training system.
I am pleased to note that we are also funding 30,000 more places in language, literacy and numeracy programs to provide the basic skills essential for a job. We believe our economy cannot afford to waste a single pair of capable hands. All Australians should be afforded the dignity of work. In my electorate of Bass, there are at present 1,793 very-long-term unemployed people who have not worked for two years or more. This budget offers opportunity for these individuals and their families. Our strong economy is boosting incomes and creating jobs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I need to draw your attention to the state of the House.
The bells being rung—
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is the view of the government that if the opposition do not wish parliament to continue then that is their decision. If they want to shut down the parliament, that is a decision they can wear. There is no intention on the part of the government to continue the parliamentary sitting this evening if that is the view of the opposition.
On that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is not the intention of the opposition to shut down the parliament. The intention is to abide by the standing orders, and the standing orders say that if at any time attention is drawn to the level of a quorum—
Order! The member for Paterson will resume his seat. A quorum has been called. When there is no quorum in the House we can call a quorum. I inform members that, once you have entered the House to form a quorum, you should not leave the House.
(Quorum formed)
Under standing order 32(a), I move that:
The House do now adjourn.
Question put.
The House divided. [9.32 pm]
(The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins)
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 21:40
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Navigation Act 1912, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for other purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum (Royalty) Act 2006, and for related purposes.
to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to offshore resources, and for other purposes.
to move:
That:(1) a Select Committee on The Crisis in Australia's Immigration Detention Network be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) the riots and disturbances in detention facilities on Christmas Island commencing 12 March 2011, and Villawood from 19 April, 2011, in particular:
(i) the nature and circumstances of these events;
(ii) the nature and adequacy of the response of Commonwealth agencies to the events;
(iii) any warning, briefings or advice that had been provided to the Government by agencies and individuals in the lead up to, during and after the events and the nature and adequacy of the response to such information;
(iv) the adequacy of security protocols, procedures and resources to mitigate the escalation of tension and conflict in the detention network;
(v) the extent and cost of the damage to facilities as a result of the events; and
(vi) any other matter deemed relevant by the Committee to understand why these events occurred; and
(b) the performance and management of Commonwealth agencies and/or their agents or contractors in discharging their responsibilities associated with the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;
(c) the health, safety and wellbeing of employees of Commonwealth agencies and/or their agents or contractors in performing their duties relating to the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;
(d) the health, safety and wellbeing of persons detained within the detention network;
(e) the level, adequacy and effectiveness of reporting incidents and the response to incidents within the immigration detention network, including relevant policies, procedures, authorities and protocols;
(f) compliance with the Government's immigration detention values within the detention network;
(g) any issues relating to interaction with States and Territories regarding the interception, detention and processing of irregular maritime arrivals or other persons;
(h) the management of good order and public order with respect to the immigration detention network;
(i) the standards and adequacy of facilities and services and access to these facilities and services provided to detainees within the detention network;
(j) the total costs of managing and maintaining the immigration detention network and processing irregular maritime arrivals and other detainees;
(k) the expansion of the immigration detention network, including the cost and process adopted to establish new facilities;
(l) the length of time detainees have been held in the detention network, the reasons for their length of stay and the impact on the detention network;
(m) processes for assessment of protection claims made by irregular maritime arrivals and other persons and the impact on the detention network;
(n) the management of minors within the detention network, in particular children aged under 13;
(o) impact of existing and prospective Government policies with respect to irregular maritime arrivals and other persons detained within the detention network; and
(p) the implications of the matters considered by the Committee for the management of Australia's immigration detention network;
(2) the Committee consist of 10 members, 4 Members to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 4 Members to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and two non-aligned Members;(3) every nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the Committee hold office as a select committee until presentation of the Committee's report or the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier;
(5) the Committee elect a Government or a non-Government member as chair at its first meeting;
(6) the Committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the Committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the Committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the Committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(7) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(8) 3 members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member and 1 non-Government member;
(9) the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;
(10) the Committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(11) 2 members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee;
(12) members of the Committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(13) the Committee or any subcommittee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(14) the Committee or any subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(15) the Committee or any subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives;
(16) the Committee may report from time to time but that it present its final report no later than 7 October 2011; and
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
to move:
That this House:(1) notes that:
(a) 2011 marks the fortieth anniversary of the Ramsar Convention and the establishment of a list of wetlands of international importance; and
(b) the existence of 64 Ramsar-listed sites in Australia covering 8.1 million hectares; and
(2) highlights the:
(a) social, economic, environmental and cultural importance of conserving wetlands through wise use and management; and
(b) need for ongoing Commonwealth funding to other agencies, including volunteer organisations, which play an important role in educational initiatives and practical environmental projects to protect and enhance Australia's wetlands.
to move:
That this House:
(1) expresses:
(a) its condolences to the family of Australian citizen Mr Greg McNicol who was shot while helping to transform a run-down apartment block into a family building in Detroit;
(b) its gratitude to the City and Police Department of Detroit for the speed with which they have apprehended the alleged killer, and urge that the investigation is continued until such time as police are certain that no other parties were complicit; and
(c) our great respect for the people of America and in particular those engaged in the great renaissance of Detroit; and(2) respectfully call on the Mayor and City of Detroit to create a public park in the vacant land adjacent to where Mr McNicol was both working and lost his life, with an appropriate recognition of Mr McNicol's vision for a better local community.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms A E Burke) took the chair at 16:00.
On Saturday, 14 May it was my pleasure to attend the Mount Evelyn Football Club for a very special celebration for a great club builder and stalwart in Ted Jenkinson. Ted started playing at the club in 1946. He became a club member in 1945. The Mount Evelyn Football Club was founded in 1931, which means that Ted Jenkinson has been part of the club's history for 66 of those 80 years. Not only did he play with the club, he has been instrumental in the club's development of nearly seven decades. He was the inspiration behind the founding of the junior football club back in 1970. He has been on the club committee too many times to remember. He is, of course, a life member of the club. He has been one of the key organisers of the club's website with the history of the club. It was a very special occasion for the Mount Evelyn Football Club and the Mount Evelyn community.
My friend, the member for Holt, who I know spends a bit of time like me looking at history would be interested in an anecdote I pointed out: if Ted started playing in 1945, two great things happened in 1945. One, of course, was the end of World War II. The other was Carlton defeating South Melbourne in the bloodbath grand final played at Princes Park. I pointed this out to Ted—he is not a Carlton supporter—but now we know three great things happened in 1945.
Ted has put in a wonderful contribution to the club and it was great to see all of his family there: Jennifer, Robyn, Aaron, James and Daryl, who came along for the special occasion. To the club President, John Stroud, who does a wonderful job, and the club committee: congratulations on a wonderful day. It culminated with the presentation to Ted of a plaque and the opening of the Ted Jenkinson Wing, known as Pinky's Wing, where he has watched countless games of football over many years. There is a sign on the wing at the Mount Evelyn football ground to mark his great service over the last 66 years to the Mount Evelyn Football Club.
I am very pleased to provide the House with an update on some of the things that have been happening in my electorate in relation to the very significant commitments made by this government in the area of health and particularly mental health. Last week I had a great opportunity to visit Casey Hospital with the Minister for Health and Ageing to deliver some more very good news about health services for my electorate.
Casey Hospital will benefit from a funding boost of $22.2 million as part of the federal government's national health reform measures. The funding will have a very direct and very practical effect for Casey Hospital, which is located in Melbourne's south-east growth corridor. It will deliver 30 inpatient sub-acute beds, which will have an extremely positive impact in a range of areas including rehabilitation for patients, mental health, geriatric care and palliative care. Very importantly, it will also have significant impact upon alleviating pressures facing local emergency departments.
I also had the opportunity to visit the site of the Berwick GP superclinic at the same time last week, which is now partially constructed. The federal government has committed $2.5 million to that project, which is located in the grounds of Monash University's Berwick Campus. The superclinic will mean that additional primary care services are available for local residents and certainly reinforces this government's focus on primary care in localities such as mine. It will also have a focus on chronic disease treatment in respect of diabetes.
The new beds at Casey are particularly important in the southern growth corridor, where the population is increasing, as will the Berwick superclinic, when it is finally finished. We know that the population increase requires additional health services and I am very pleased to be part of a government which has so comprehensively responded to that in its last two terms and particularly in the latest federal budget. On a similarly positive note, last week I also had an opportunity to visit the MadCap Cafe, which is near the border of my electorate, together with the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. MadCap Cafe is a relatively new business venture and it is operated by the Eastern Ranges Mental Health Association. It provides a safe, flexible and understanding work environment for people with mental illness. I and the minister both learned about the training program that they run and the prospects for those who have gone through that training. Many of the trainees go on to take up paid work in other cafes or very valuable voluntary work in our community. MadCap does fantastic work to support local people who are experiencing mental health problems. It also has its eye firmly on issues of corporate social responsibility and supports fair trade. The minister and I had an opportunity to speak to the operator of the business and to its staff about the commitments made in the federal budget to boost community mental health services by over $269 million, a very significant amount of funding for a very significant project. (Time expired)
I rise to inform the House of the recent 111th year celebrations at the Boonah show. Boonah is a community in my electorate of about 2,800 people situated roughly an hour and a half south-west of Brisbane. The community is in a predominantly rural precinct and has no ties to the resources sector. Before I go on I must say that two members of the parliament, Senator Ludwig and Senator Ian Macdonald, were both educated in Boonah, so it has a high output of quality personnel. I believe the health of a community is gauged by two things: whether or not you can get a park in the main street and the attendance rate at their agricultural show. This year was an outstanding success for the Boonah show, having over 7,000 entrants through the show gate.
Before I go on, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the show committee— the president, Jim Harvey, the two vice presidents, Anthony Niebling and Trevor Collins, followed up by the secretarial work of Beth Hern, who does an amazing amount of work not only for the show society but also in the community. They also have a very interactive and aggressive junior show committee, which is made up of the president, Sarah Ziebrath, the vice presidents, Brett Brassington and Lyndell Peters, and a list of other members as well. They had a very aggressive show ball this year, which was attended by about 240 people, where I crowned the Miss Showgirl, Anna Hartley, and the runner up, Helen Sanderson. The Show Princess was Kloe Brassington and the runner up was Kimberley Navie. It is a crying shame that our city cousins in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide may go through their lives as Australians and never experience the wonderful pleasure of progressive barn dance in a small community hall.
As I alluded to earlier, there were about 7,000 people through the gate, a record for the Boonah show, and all sectors of the show were aggressively patronised. In the rural sector the quality of the stock was fantastic during some of the biggest droughts and floods that we have seen up there. It was marvellous to see the community bounce back. The show was also pleased to host the HiLux Heroes. The word was that the HiLux vehicles in the centre ring were actually better than they were at the Sydney show. I commend Boonah as a community for the wonderful work that they do with their show.
I had the pleasure last month, on Saturday, 9 April, to officially open the latest state-of-the-art development at Casey Fields, the Casey Fields Regional Athletics Centre, on behalf of the Australian government. The first of many athletics and little athletics events took place under the centre's new floodlights, although the weather was fairly inclement. That was thanks to the funding contributions from the Commonwealth government, the Victorian government and the City of Casey. There is absolutely no doubt, particularly following the feedback from people that attended the opening ceremony, about the fact that this is going to be a central hub for athletics activities run by both little athletics and senior athletics clubs. Under this project the federal government invested more than $8.9 million through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.
It makes Casey Fields in Cranbourne—and I proudly say this—a premier and world-class athletics facility. This project continues. The federal government's investment in Cranbourne and the Casey region—which is the third-fastest growing area in Australia—continues. Already, $5 million has been spent on the state-of-the-art aquatic centre, which is a water harvesting facility. We have also spent $1 million investing in a new Casey Fields recreation and playground area, which was officially opened in December 2010. Importantly, particularly given the circumstances at the time when the federal government made the investment into Casey Fields, there were 100 jobs created during the construction of this particular project as a whole.
Casey Fields is located in Cranbourne East, which was once farm land. The site had been developed by the City of Casey over several years to become basically the premier outdoor facility in Melbourne—or one of them—and particularly in Melbourne's south-east. It has a football ground, tennis courts, a number of recreational facilities and now this world-class athletics facility on top of that. It is particularly well located, given the number of young people who live in the area. One of the great things about this official opening ceremony, particularly given the community support, was seeing Olympic gold medallist Cathy Freeman and also the 2010 Commonwealth bronze medallist Dale Stevenson at this event. It was particularly great seeing Cathy, given that she was shortly due to give birth to a child when she attended.
This athletics facility—and let me not understate it—is world class. It has a fantastic synthetic track, grandstand seating for 1,000 people, toilets, kiosks, first aid rooms, event control rooms, committee meeting rooms and a community room. It is a great facility. It is going to be used by the Cranbourne community. It is an icon in the south-east of Melbourne. (Time expired)
Euroa is a small, tight-knit community and beautiful town on the banks of the Seven Creeks. Euroa has always been a special place. I am pleased that it is now within the new boundaries of the Murray electorate. I want to acknowledge the uniqueness of Euroa and district in having some three winners of the Victoria Cross, our highest award for bravery in the field of battle. Only 99 of Australia's soldiers, sailors and airmen have been awarded the VC, so for three to have been awarded to people from this same small community is quite exceptional and something that the community is enormously proud of.
Euroa wants to honour their three sons who showed this extraordinary courage. They are aiming to do that with three special bronze statutes, which they aim to erect on the banks of the Seven Creeks near the current RSL. That involves a lot of fundraising, so we will be trying to help them as much as we can so that they can raise the funds to make sure that these three VC winners are properly acknowledged and never forgotten.
The first of these winners was Lieutenant Colonel Leslie Cecil Maygar. He now has a hill named after him on the Hume Highway. Some people will recall that hill. He was awarded the VC during the Boer War and was one of six Australians to receive that award. He then enlisted in World War I. He was further decorated and mentioned in despatches, but sadly died at the age of 49 on 1 November 1917, a proud member of Eighth Australian Light Horse. He is buried at Beersheba.
The second and third heroes, these two VC-winning young men, were in the same Lone Pine action at Gallipoli.Neither soldier survived the war. Lieutenant—later major—Frederick Harold Tubb displayed exceptional bravery at Lone Pine on 9 August 1915. He had with him, and I am sure that they were very great mates, another local man, Corporal Alexander Stuart Burton VC. Both of these men were well known in the district. Their families continue. Burton Stores is well known as an iconic shop in the town of Euroa. I want to commend this small town for not forgetting its exceptional heroes. I want to commend their fundraising efforts. It will be an exceptional effort to raise the $300,000-plus required. But these three VC winners will be cast as bronze likenesses. They will stand forever on the banks of Seven Creeks under the beautiful shade trees. Also a memorial avenue will be rehabilitated to make sure that the other great heroes of this area, the other returned servicemen and servicewomen, are never forgotten. We do not celebrate war in Australia, but we never forget.
On 1 May I went to Manoora Centenary Park. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know if you know where Manoora is. It is a small town in the Clare and Gilbert Valleys. It is a wonderful little town. I went there to open an oval irrigation project, for which $108,500 was received as a grant as part of the government's $530 million Water for the Future program, which helps communities around Australia secure their water supplies. The grant paid for the installation of a storage tank and an overflow line as well as for a subsurface irrigation system at Manoora oval.
Manoora is a great little town. I grew up in the country town of Kapunda and I know that the social life of towns typically revolves around the oval, around footy and cricket. One of the problems with Manoora oval in its previous iteration was that it could be used for only three months of every year because of its hard playing surface. This project has meant that the oval can be watered and used all year round and does not put at risk the welfare of the players. The excess water, which will be stored in the town reservoir, will be used as a supplementary water supply for roadworks and for the local CFS brigades. The project is part of a million-dollar grant for which the Clare council put together an application for a number of small projects, and it has provided a number of benefits for the Clare township and for other townships in the area, like Riverton. It has been an important and good use of public moneys to secure the townships' water supplies.
I want to thank Rob and Anne Willmott, who own the farm from which the water comes. It comes off the top of haysheds, believe it or not, and it flows down to the town. I want to thank Liz Calvert and Pat Quick, who wrote the grant application; John Quick and Daryn Quick, who are their long-suffering partners; John Hogben, who is the President of the Manoora Centenary Park Committee; and also my parliamentary colleagues Geoff Brock, who is the state member for Frome, and Mayor Allan Aughey, who is the Mayor of the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council. Obviously this is a pretty important project, and it was great on Sunday to go up to Manoora, share their hospitality and see their good works.
I rise today to talk about the importance of manufacturing in regional Australia and in particular its importance to my electorate of Wannon. The Australian manufacturing industry is at the core of our country's economic and social wellbeing and underpins our standard of living. It creates the businesses in our regional communities from which jobs and revenue are generated. It is the basis of Australia's productive capacity and one of the cornerstones of our future prosperity.
In my electorate of Wannon I recently welcomed the announcement that the Department of Defence would enter into a short-term agreement to purchase 101 Bushmaster vehicles from Thales in Bendigo. AME Systems, which is based in Ararat in my electorate, supplies the circuitry not only for the Bushmasters but also for Kenworth trucks. AME Systems is Ararat's largest manufacturer and employs 250 people. It has been in business for 34 years under the stewardship of the Carthew family. I would like to recognise in particular the contribution that Peter Carthew has made to the company and also to the Ararat community. This short-term commitment by the Gillard government is welcome, but given Labor's string of manufacturing policy backflips and unravelling promises the Gillard government needs to commit to supporting the local defence industry and to providing some certainty to the manufacturing industry in western Victoria. The Gillard Labor government needs to make a decision regarding the Land 121 phase 3 and phase 4 projects for a range of protected and unprotected medium to heavy vehicles to ensure the long-term viability of manufacturing jobs in western Victoria.
It is of particular importance that the Gillard government does this. Rather than introducing a carbon tax which is likely to threaten jobs in regional manufacturing industries, we need some sign of leadership from this government to show that it cares about manufacturing jobs in regional country towns. If they commit to phase 3 and phase 4 of the project, we will see certainty for jobs not only in Bendigo but also in Ararat. So drop the carbon tax, get with the game and get behind defence industry in regional Australia.
The last four years have seen an unprecedented investment in schools across the nation by the Labor government. In my electorate alone we have seen $65 million invested in school buildings and state-of-the-art facilities. This has undoubtedly been a golden age in federal government funding of school classrooms, which were absolutely needed in many electorates across the country because of our growing population and the growing number of youngsters who need proper schooling. It has helped with the enrolment levels in Port Melbourne and investment in new school campuses in particular.
In 1990, the Kennett government closed three primary schools in the South Melbourne and Port Melbourne areas. As a direct consequence, the remaining schools, such as the Port Melbourne Primary School and the St Kilda Primary School, are now struggling to cater to an ever-growing school population in my electorate. Due to zoning, which restricts schools to enrolling students only from within a designated local area, enrolment levels have put undue pressure on both these schools. Enrolments at the Port Melbourne Primary School jumped from 122 in 2001 to 445 in 2011, and are projected to go to 900. A survey commissioned by the City of Port Phillip predicts that unless more primary schools are established, the Port Melbourne and St Kilda Primary Schools will be unmanageable in the numbers of enrolled students they will have to take under these zoning laws.
The federal government, together with the former Brumby government, injected over $6.5 million to rebuild Port Melbourne primary to meet the growth in the school population. Despite this, the new Baillieu state Liberal government has refused to give a commitment to build a new school in the Southbank-South Melbourne area, despite the fact that the Minister for Planning wants to make that area a growth zone. The local member for Albert Park, Martin Foley, has written to the state Minister for Education requesting that the government fund a study provided for in the 2011 budget to search for a new campus for the students in the Southbank, Port Melbourne and South Melbourne areas. The response of the state Minister for Education was pathetic. He has offered extra portables to support the growing school population—an outrageous short-term bandaid.
The state government clearly hopes that this issue will go away, that it will be swept under the carpet and forgotten. Frankly, it is an insult to all the people in Southbank and Port Melbourne to suggest that more portables will combat the population growth that the very state government is fostering. I do not mind their fostering it. I am in favour of population growth because it leads to economic vitality in Australia, but we have to build infrastructure with it. This is a very short-sighted attitude by both the previous Kennett government and the current Liberal mob in Victoria.
The state government has announced that it intends to establish an inner urban growth corridor at Fishermens Bend. How can the Baillieu government justify investment in new growth corridors when it does not invest in schools in those areas? The most egregious thing about this refusal to fund a new facility is that the local state Liberal members are at every school opening that I attend—from Caulfield to St Kilda they tour all of the new facilities in the BER that they curse, but they will not build a new school for the area. (Time expired)
In a week where we saw former Australian Olympic champion Ian Thorpe return to the Adelaide pool where his career started, I am pleased to raise the important issue of aquatic centres in my electorate of Swan. Australia has a proud tradition in this Olympic sport, with Australian swimmers credited with pioneering the freestyle discipline. Our culture is perhaps best expressed by the millions of Australians who swim for fun and fitness every week in our swimming pools. I am pleased to announce that I have started a campaign to see a public aquatic facility within the City of South Perth area. This week, in the community news edition for the City of South Perth, Tristan Lavalette wrote that Manning ward councillor Travis Burrows said he believed the George Burnett Leisure Centre could be suitable for an aquatic centre. He said that the leisure centre is set to be expanded under the Manning community hub proposal and an aquatic centre would be based there. The facility is lacking, particularly in the Manning area, and I think it would benefit the local community enormously. The local councillor obviously has some vision and understands what his community needs.
Most of the councils in my electorate provide their ratepayers with public aquatic facilities. The City of Belmont Oasis Leisure Centre is located next to the council chambers in Cloverdale and the town of Victoria Park runs the highly regarded Aqualife Centre, which opened in 2006. The City of Canning is currently constructing a Leisureplex in Queens Park with bipartisan federal support of $7 million, which I am pleased both parties committed to at the last federal election. I imagine many of my constituents in Beckenham and Langford will use this facility when it opens, due in part to it being closer than the City of Gosnells facility.
Many residents, particularly in the Manning, Como and Salter Point area have contacted me about the issue of an aquatic centre. They say they would value having access to a local public aquatic facility. The only one locally in the South Perth area is at Wesley College, but it is not available during the day because the school is open. I happen to agree with the residents that they are missing out on the benefits that the facilities would provide, and it is certainly somewhat of an anomaly that such a well-established area does not have such a facility.
As for the location, I did suggest that the aquatic centre could be coupled with the George Burnett Leisure Centre in Karawara. This would be right in the heart of the Waterford, Karawara, Manning, Salter Point and Como communities; however, the council may have better options available. But there is a higher level of aged care people in that area, so it would make it easier for them to travel instead of having to go to other community centres.
I look forward to keeping the House informed of the progress of this campaign and, hopefully, one day the people of the City of South Perth will have access to a terrific local public aquatic facility.
Last Wednesday I visited Budgewoi Public School on the Central Coast to open six new classrooms that were built under the Building the Education Revolution program. The school actually spent $3.2 million under both the National School Pride and Primary Schools for the 21st Century components of the BER program. It was wonderful to see these absolutely fantastic classrooms and to see the young people in those classrooms in a quality learning environment.
Everywhere around Australia. It is fantastic.
Everywhere around Australia. Previously they had been in rusty demountables that leaked. And when they heard about the Primary Schools for the 21st Century they thought that maybe they might get some of the state-of-the-art demountables that are now available. But when they learnt that they were getting these six absolutely fantastic classrooms, they were ecstatic. But I might add that they were not as ecstatic as they are now that they are learning in this wonderful environment that promotes quality learning.
One or two of the classes in those classrooms are special ed classes. I spent some time with the young students in those classrooms. They took great pleasure in showing me how they can write and the type of the activities that were taking place in their classroom. I had some words to say at the opening of these classrooms at Budgewoi Public School but, unfortunately, I was unable to use these words because I followed the school principal, who said: 'This is the best thing that has ever happened to my school.' She talked about how there were over 124 people employed on the building of the project at the school. She talked about how it had come about as a result of government's response to the global financial crisis: they looked at what was needed in the community, they created jobs and at the same time they delivered these wonderful facilities to the school she is principal of. I thank the government on behalf of the school for investing in their school and providing these students with such a quality educational facility.
Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
In rising to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011 I indicate to the House that the coalition supports this bill.
Government members interjecting—
Do not get too excited! We do not support the government's approach or, more accurately, the lack of a detailed approach to antidumping more generally. To put it bluntly, there are a series of problems that are plaguing the current operation of antidumping arrangements in Australia. While Australian industries and Australian workers are rightly objecting to what is happening, Labor is simply not listening. If passed, the bill currently before the House will change the way in which antidumping measures are reviewed and revoked. The coalition believes that this does represent an appropriate response to the full Federal Court's decision in the Minister of State for Home Affairs v Siam Polyethylene, also called the Siam decision case.
We agree with the government that the ways in which Customs powers relating to revocation were interpreted in that case are problematic and we share its view that as a result of the Siam decision it is now significantly more likely that a finding of no dumping or no injury during a review period will lead to revocation. We are fearful about the impact that that might have on Australian industry and we are of the view that it is difficult to predict or pre-assess the likely ramifications of the removal of antidumping measures, especially the potential for the subsequent resumption of dumping causing material injury.
The idea that is at the heart of this bill, that the current revocation test should be strengthened to give Australian industry greater redress against unfair trading practices, is not contentious as far as we are concerned. Nor is the more general principal that improvements to the review process under the current system are necessary in order to strike a better balance between the interests of foreign and local companies.
We also believe that the changes that are being legislated through this bill are consistent with Australia's World Trade Organisation obligations and the current practices of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. But we will naturally reserve our rights to make amendments following the Senate committee's review process that is not due to be completed until later this year. We make the broader point that the introduction of this bill really represents nothing more from the government than the application of a bandaid to a gaping wound. Whilst it will legislate for an improvement to one facet of Australia's antidumping system it is a move of small consequence when set against the government's complete unwillingness to engage in the broader debate about how effectively the overall system is working or, as the case may be, is not working.
What is long overdue is far more widespread serious and lasting action. For way too long—in fact, for close to the entirety of its time in office—this government has simply sat on its hands when it comes to antidumping. Under the Howard government, changes were made to the arrangements to try and ensure that they appropriately kept pace with broader trends in the manner in which goods were being imported into Australia. We did this on the basis that it is important to keep monitoring the operation of the system on a regular basis and making changes where they are necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.
Is the member for Indi willing to give way?
No. These reviews are necessary on a regular basis but the Rudd and Gillard governments have opted for quite a different approach. Minister Bowen, in his previous role and during days that were far less fraught for him, told everyone who wanted to listen after a COAG meeting in 2008 that Labor would act to amend the system. But Rip Van Winkle might as well have inherited the mantle of implementing government policy after that, because we have witnessed a trademark tale of Labor inaction when it has come to any kind of serious policy reform in this area.
Following Mr Bowen's announcement, Labor dragged its feet and shuffled the matter off to the Productivity Commission in early 2009. When the commission's report came back at the end of 2009, Labor dithered again—so badly, in fact, that it then sent the matter off for an internal review of some kind so it could postpone doing anything until after the 2010 election.
In trademark Labor tradition, the sad reality was that the government was far more interested in attempting to take the political heat out of the issue than making constructive policy changes in the national interest and in the interests of Australian industry, particularly Australian manufacturing. Inevitably, that has not done anybody any good, because the government has essentially been fiddling while Australian businesses have been suffering. All you need to do is go to any business that is affected by imported goods that are dumped and they will tell you about their frustration at a system that does not work and the impact on Australian industry, Australian manufacturing and how that is affecting investment decisions today.
In many ways, it is quite ironic that we should be having this debate so close to this year's budget. Because, even after all of this inactivity from Labor and after all the time that has passed without any decision whatsoever, it put its hand on its collective heart a few months ago, and said, 'Okay, we'll do something and we'll announce it as part of the 2011 budget'.
At least two ministers—the minister with the responsibility for Customs, and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—publicly stated that this would be the government's approach. There could well have been others as well, but you will have to forgive me for not exactly hanging off every worthless word of most of the senior officeholders of this government.
What have we seen? To our surprise, when looking through all the budget papers, we found nothing. Yet again, there was nothing. Again there was a shirking of the responsibility to look at this issue of antidumping.
Of course, this did not come as a particular shock or great revelation to anyone who is interested in this area of policy because, whenever anyone has tried to alert it throughout its time in government to the range of problems, to the flaws in the national anti-dumping regime, the Labor government has alternated between rolling its eyes, feigning concern, gazing uncomfortably at the ceiling or looking down at its shoes. And it has not done anything to address the very real and very serious issues involved.
Either it has not even recognised that significant problems exist in the system and that substantial remedies are needed or it has recognised them but it simply is incapable, unable, too frightened, weak or indecisive to do anything about it. I am not sure which one of those is true, but either would be equally as damning.
It is sobering to note that in his second reading speech on this bill, the Minister for Justice, responsible for Customs, said that the government was committed to an anti-dumping system that effectively addressed injury faced by Australian industry as a result of unfair trading practices.
In a panicked response to calls from the AWU and the coalition to reform the arrangements, he also admitted in mid-February that the government 'believed that there are improvements to be made.' One could say that it was nice to hear that coming from the minister, but I am afraid it has remained little more than a quick confessional and just a passing admission of failure. Ultimately, nothing more than lip service has been paid to the idea of genuine reform.
Unlike the government, we on this side of the House want real and practical reform. That is why the coalition antidumping taskforce that I lead is already working on developing an anti-dumping policy that we will be ready to implement and to act upon as soon as we are elected to government, whenever that time may be. This was foreshadowed during the last election. This was our policy. We committed to doing this and we are following through with that. We have been saying consistently for some time that some foreign goods are being sold cheaply in Australia on the back of government subsidies from their origin nation. This is unfairly distorting our domestic market, harming Australian businesses and ultimately, and gradually sometimes, costing local jobs. You do not see it immediately but you do see the impacts over several years of job losses and businesses either closing down or going offshore. Plainly Australian businesses are frustrated with an inefficient, ineffective and very expensive antidumping system. There need to be reductions in the costs, the complexities and the time that businesses confront in seeking remedies under Australia's current anti-dumping system.
In response to those problems and others like them the coalition has been on the record for some time about the need to take action to ensure that Australian manufacturers' products are not undercut by imported subsidised products. We do not believe that foreign governments should be in a position to distort our domestic market. That was our clearly stated position during the last election and we have built on that. It is essentially an important position to take at a time when Australian business and Australian manufacturing is looking for sensible, practical support from government as they confront the combined weight of factors like rising national debt and deficit, the prospect of further rate increases and the apparently inexhaustible appreciation of the Australian dollar. We understand and we appreciate that battling against unfairly priced imports is yet another pressure that they simply do not want or need or quite often can afford.
By contrast, the government has said nothing serious or of substance about this particular issues. Its policies and programs that affect Australian manufacturers consistently have the same effect. They put manufacturers under siege. They put businesses struggling on wafer-thin profit margins under even more pressure. And they reflect a desire, whether it is intentional or otherwise, to give foreign companies more power in the marketplace than Australians.
This approach infuriates manufacturers across the nation and that is why so many of them are beginning to speak out publicly. Workers across this nation are fearful about what it means for the long-term viability of their jobs and businesses, whether small, medium or large, and are absolutely volcanic with fury about the lack of vision and inaction the government is showing regarding the broad concerns of manufacturing in this country. It is why Graham Kraehe, the chair of Australia's largest manufacturer, BlueScope Steel, says that manufacturing is on the wrong side of Australia's two-speed economy and this difficult economic position is now being exacerbated by political expediency. It is why BlueScope's CEO, Paul O'Malley, says that the policy framework at the moment is wrong and that it seems to be captured by people who do not care whether there are manufacturing jobs in Australia. It is also why he speculates that there is an antimanufacturing focus in Australia at the moment. Let some be reminded that there are one million Australians employed in the manufacturing sector in Australia.
We go on to hear from OneSteel CEO, Geoff Plummer, when he said that a number of the government's projected actions make competing internationally difficult and that this company is concerned about things that either have been introduced or are speculated to be introduced which will significantly disadvantage Australian manufacturers compared to offshore manufacturers. It is why the Australian Food and Grocery Council CEO, Kate Carnell, has been moved to ask whether policymakers even want a food and grocery manufacturing industry in this country anymore. And it is why the CEO of Coca-Cola Amatil in Australia, Terry Davis, says that an urgent review of the future of manufacturing in Australia is required. It is why even trade unions are vociferously calling for more support from this government for manufacturing and less of its inactivity on subjects like antidumping. Admittedly these are only a small representative sample but these views are nearly universally shared by thousands of others. Does any manufacturer take seriously a government that spins lines about a new program in the budget called 'Buy Australian at Home and Abroad' that is supposedly meant to encourage the purchase of local products, yet at the same time plunders the manufacturing sector for all manner of other budgetary savings and is planning to impose a toxic tax that will send manufacturing offshore and export Australian jobs? Regrettably, while it ploughs most of the money into measures that, like the one mentioned, create more bureaucracy, it does absolutely nothing whatsoever to provide even the most miserable counter to the impact of punitive, job-destroying measures like the introduction of a carbon tax and cuts to the R&D tax concession. Embarrassingly, it also seems to think, if it merely slings another $10 million at a program to help business in a geographic area where another firm has already been severely affected by its inaction, that might kill two birds with one stone. It might get some positive media coverage and its difficulties from its inaction on antidumping might go away. This is breathtaking arrogance and breathtaking stupidity.
Make no mistake about it, the manufacturing industry is under serious threat in Australia, but all the government does is sit idly by. It almost always fails to consult and even on the rare occasions when it makes a half-hearted effort to do so, it inevitably breaks its commitments anyway, leaving those who have given their valuable time to this sham consultative process wondering why on earth they wasted their time in the first place. It puts in place pathetic policies that not only fail to arrest the decline of jobs and the loss of businesses offshore that have already occurred under its watch but actually accelerate these trends. You would think that members of this government, or at least some of them, would be proactive and have some empathy and some concern for what manufacturing businesses are telling them in their own electorates. You would think they would muscle up and honour all the rhetoric and promises they have made to the manufacturing sector about creating a more promising future and valuing their innovation, which has been so integral, particularly from the small- to medium-sized manufacturing sector, to the technological advances and innovation in larger companies in Australia. Even after around 90,000 manufacturing jobs have already been lost in Australia and a string of businesses in the sector have gone to the wall under this government's feeble watch, it is almost like they wear it as a badge of honour and they are resisting all calls for them to fix this mess. I am not sure how loud the calls have to be from everyday Australians, from thousands of businesses and their workers, from the coalition and from independent members of this parliament, for them to actually start listening and to start delivering on policies like antidumping that will help the nation, that will say to hardworking businesses who are not subsidised and do not have the protection of tariffs: we value what you do and we are not going to allow the distortion of the domestic market to your disadvantage and the advantage of a foreign company.
For the moment, the coalition will give its in-principle support to this bill as a means of helping the Labor Party takes its first baby steps in the long and arduous task it has created for itself if it is to sensibly enhance our antidumping system. But at the same time we also call on the government to abandon its ineptitude and inactivity as well as its general indifference to everyone who is willingly providing it with sensible suggestions and solutions. Pretending there are no problems regarding antidumping and manufacturing does not make it so. It does not matter how loudly you say it; it does not matter how often you say it. It is time to face the reality of the problems that dumping is causing in Australia and the stress under which it is putting very successful and innovative Australian businesses. It is time to actually stand up for something and it is time to actually start doing something.
I was just amazed by the use of the slogan 'it's time'. I seem to recall that from a campaign in 1972—a great campaign. I am most pleased to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011 today, which will amend certain provisions of the Customs Act 1901 concerning reviews of antidumping measures. The legislative measures to counter dumping have been in operation since early last century. The first country to introduce antidumping legislation was Canada, in 1904. Australia's legislation dates back from the Industries Preservation Act 1906.
In brief, the amendments contained in this bill will clarify the circumstances in which the minister may revoke antidumping measures. Australian antidumping laws, which broadly follow the World Trade Organisation AntiDumping Agreement, aim to prevent the dumping of imports found to cause or threaten 'material injury'. Although dumping is not specifically prohibited, competition from imports can be considered by the Commonwealth to be unfair in certain circumstances and remedial action can be taken.
Dumping occurs when an overseas company exports its goods to another country, oversupplying it at a price that is below the price it charges in its home market or is below the cost of production. Antidumping measures are imposed to prevent an importer from unfairly damaging Australian manufacturing. Australia's antidumping and countervailing system is an important facet of our trade environment and helps to protect local industry and jobs. That is why this bill is so important. The Gillard Labor government supports local industry because local industry is important for our nation. It is important for Australian families.
The bill responds to a decision from last year of the full Federal Court in the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Siam Polyethylene—the Siam decision, as it is called—which considered the review provisions and, in particular, the test for determining whether antidumping measures should be revoked. As the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Justice, outlined in his speech on this bill, the government believes the Siam decision will lead to outcomes inconsistent with the objectives of Australia's antidumping system, and it is appropriate that we seek to rectify it.
Minister O'Connor detailed how the Siam decision is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the case highlighted a lack of clarity in the current review process, where affected parties must request one of three things: (a) a complete revocation of existing antidumping measures, (b) an adjustment to existing measures or (c) a revocation or, failing that, an adjustment based on changed circumstances. Secondly, the court in its decision formulated a new test for determining whether antidumping measures ought to be revoked. The formulation will likely lead to measures being revoked where they remain warranted.
This government believes that the court's interpretation of the test would lead to antidumping measures being revoked where Australian industry remains at risk of being damaged by dumping. That is why this bill is so important. We need antidumping laws that are consistent with world best practice and the best interests of the Australian economy. If a party wants antidumping measures to be revoked they will have to provide evidence that the measures are no longer warranted. The bill clarifies that if a party wants the minister to revoke antidumping measures it must initiate the request or apply for it within 40 days of a review commencing. This move will make the review process more open and transparent. It will also give Australian manufacturers adequate time to respond to an application for revocation.
The amendments make it clear that, if affected parties want the minister to revoke measures, they must apply for it and they must do so at the outset of a review process or within 40 days of a review commencing. The amendments cement the existing practice of Customs to treat revocation reviews as different in kind from reviews adjusting or updating the level of the measures, and will require an affected party to provide evidence that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that measures are no longer warranted. The amendments will also improve procedural fairness by giving affected parties advance knowledge of the process for seeking the revocation of measures and will ensure that investigators have time to consider the issues before reporting to the minister. Importantly, the amendments will give interested parties adequate time to defend their interests.
The proposed amendments also insert a new test, which will provide that the Customs CEO must recommend that the minister revoke the measures unless satisfied that the removal of measures would lead, or would be likely to lead, to a continuation of, or recurrence of, the dumping or subsidisation and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent. Ultimately, it is a clear test which will avert the unnecessary revocation of effective antidumping measures.
The Australian Labor government is committed to its antidumping system. These amendments will ensure, where measures have been put in place to address injury faced by Australian industry as a result of unfair trading practices, those measures remain effective. Members of the chamber, may I say: it is vitally important that laws in this area are clear, for the good of Australian industry and for our international trade relationships. I say to those opposite in this chamber: local industry is worth defending. Australian manufacturing employs at least five times the numbers in our mines. Including agriculture, it is close to seven times that number. Most of our manufacturing sector and agriculture is almost entirely trade exposed. This industry deserves fair treatment in international rights and trade. They need to be afforded a level playing field.
As stated in the AMWU, CFMEU and AWU roundtable paper on antidumping, a better deal for consumers is an illusion. Short-term price cuts come at the expense of local jobs and increase prices over the long term, as the local competition is killed off. The manufacturing industry is an important part of our nation. In terms of employment, our manufacturing industry directly employs 1.1 million Australians, around 12 per cent of the workforce. Tasmania has a small but vibrant manufacturing sector. In my capacity as the member for Bass I will do all I can to encourage this sector and to protect jobs.
Another aspect to look at is the gross domestic product, gross value-added, in the manufacturing sector. According to Manufacturing Skills Australia, as at July 2009 manufacturing, including beverage, timber and paper products, contributed almost $107 billion, 12 per cent of the value of the Australian economy. This is certainly significant.
The Gillard Labor government want Australia to be a high-tech, high-value producer, paying good wages and offering a good standard of living. That is the future we are aiming for. It is the future that Australia deserves. That is why we are delivering the biggest infrastructure program this nation has ever seen: the National Broadband Network. This government are about protecting workers' jobs and their rights into the future. The government are about providing Australian children with the very best of education. The government are ending the blame game with the states when it comes to health, so we can deliver the best outcomes for patients. The government are about tackling climate change. We do not have our heads in the sand; we are not a complacent government. The Gillard Labor government have created more than 300,000 new jobs in the last year alone—and 98 per cent of these jobs were full time. Unemployment is below five per cent. When I studied economics, that was full employment. We have raised pensions. Age pensions are $128 a fortnight higher for singles and $116 a fortnight higher for couples since 2009. Our stimulus packages staved off the global financial crisis, helped families with the cost of living and built new infrastructure in our cities and country towns. Where the Liberal government provided flagpoles, the Labor government has provided jobs and infrastructure in education for the 21st century. Our terms of trade are the best in 140 years, with record returns for our export industries. Let us keep Australia strong. I am pleased the opposition are going to support this bill.
I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. The bill before the House will change the way in which antidumping measures are viewed, and it is supported by the coalition. This bill has its origins in a recent High Court decision. Although the coalition does not oppose the bill, the bill shows how confused and contradictory the government's policies are.
Dumping is defined as an act by a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at a price that is below what it charges in its home market. Also, dumping has to cause a material injury to the local industry. It is very important to note that the test to prove dumping is not one where the goods are sold below cost and it is not one where the purpose of the dumper is to damage or eliminate a competitor, nor is there any need to demonstrate a substantial lessening of competition, as there is in many other competition laws. The only test required to establish dumping is that the goods are sold below the price that they are sold at in the home market.
It is easy to understand the logic of antidumping legislation. If a producer is large enough that they are able to divide up markets on a geographical basis and then discriminate in price between the different markets without facing different costs of supply, such a practice results in cross-subsidisation from one market to the other. This distorts the efficient operation of markets and it is clearly an unfair trade practice, one which we rightly condemn. In reality, dumping is just another name for international geographic price discrimination.
If we are to condemn geographic price discrimination on an international basis, where it causes or threatens injury to small competitors, equally we must condemn geographic price discrimination within a nation's borders. In the home of free market capitalism, the USA, geographic price discrimination has been considered an anticompetitive evil for over 100 years. Back in 1911, the US Supreme Court broke up the Standard Oil Company into 34 independent companies, and one of the reasons the court cited was that Standard Oil had engaged in geographic price discrimination. As the court noted:
The evidence is, in fact, absolutely conclusive that the Standard Oil Company charges altogether excessive prices where it meets no competition, and particularly where there is little likelihood of competitors entering the field, and that, on the other hand, where competition is active, it frequently cuts prices to a point which leaves even the Standard little or no profit, and which more often leaves no profit to the competitor ...
In 1936, when America's anti-trust laws were strengthened, they included a specific provision against geographic price discrimination which was known as the Borah-Van Nuys amendment. It stated:
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce … to sell … goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States ...
and that law remains part of US law today.
However, under our Australian competition laws we have no provision to deal with the problem of geographic price discrimination. With such a glaring hole in our competition laws it comes as little surprise that over recent years the Austrian supermarket duopoly has used geographic price discrimination to destroy competition. In one recent highly disturbing case exposed by the major TV networks it was shown that one member of the supermarket duopoly was engaging in a practice of charging altogether excessive prices in markets where it had little or no likelihood of competitors entering the field and that, on the other hand, in markets where competition was active they had cut prices to a point which drove a small competitor out of the market and as soon as that smaller competitor left the market prices were jacked up again. All this occurred right under the nose of the then competition minister, a stone's throw from his own electorate office.
While the practice of dumping has damaged many industries, I would like to share a classic tale of the dangers of dumping with the story of Herbert Dow, the founder of the Dow Chemical Company, and his battles with the Germans in the market for bromine. Bromine is a valuable chemical that has many commercial uses, including as a sedative, a flame retardant and a bleaching agent. It is also used to disinfect water and to make chemicals that work as pesticides and pharmaceuticals, and was also used in the making of film. However, since bromine was first mass-marketed in the mid-1800s the world production of bromine was controlled by a cartel of German firms who, with the German government's support, pursued an aggressive policy of dumping bromine to destroy competition from any foreign country that tried to set up to manufacture it itself.
Herbert Dow, born in 1866, was a technical whiz and an entrepreneur. During his senior year at school he watched the drilling of an oil well outside Cleveland and at the well site he noticed that the brine had come out to the surface and the brine was what the oilmen considered to be a nuisance. Dow took a sample back to his lab and tested it to see what it contained. He found it contained both lithium and bromine. So this set Dow to wondering whether the bromine could be extracted profitably from the abundant brine in the Cleveland area, as he knew that if he could find an economical way to separate the bromine from the brine he would be able to market the bromine throughout the world and break the German cartel. After many years of failure Dow developed a method of using electrolysis to produce bromine and sell it profitably for 36c a pound when at the time the Germans through their price-fixing cartel had established a worldwide price of 49c a pound.
With their monopoly threatened by this new source of supply, the Germans made it clear to Dow that if he tried to sell bromine anywhere in the world other than the USA they would dump unlimited quantities of cheap bromine on the American market and drive Dow out of business at whatever cost. But one of Dow's greatest strengths was that he was stubborn and he hated being dictated to by a bully. So he took on the German cartel and sold bromine back into Europe at 36c a pound, undercutting the German price which had been established at 49c. As soon as the Germans discovered what Dow was doing they dumped bromine into America at just 15c a pound, well below the previous world price of 49c and also below Dow's 36c, determined to drive Dow out of business. But rather than bowing down to the Germans and withdrawing from the world market because of this dumping practice, Dow had his agent in New York discreetly buy up hundreds of thousands of pounds of the dumped German bromine at the 15c price. He then repackaged it and sold it back to Europe, including Germany, at 27c a pound, making a tidy profit along the way. Dow then diverted all his US production to supply foreign demand throughout the world at 36c a pound, taking further market share from the Germans.
Expecting to run Dow out of business, the Germans were befuddled and Dow only became stronger. So the confused Germans kept dumping bromine into the US at lower and lower prices, first at 12c and then 10c a pound, trying to run Dow out of business. Meanwhile Dow kept buying all the bromine he could, repackaging it and selling it back into Europe for 27c a pound, pocketing an even greater profit at the expense of the Germans. Once the Germans finally discovered what was going on it was too late. The Germans had lost millions, depleting their ability to develop new products. Meanwhile Dow had more capital courtesy of the Germans' dumping. That enabled Dow to expand his business and challenge the Germans' dominance in many other chemicals. For example, Dow entered the dye industry and began producing indigo more cheaply than did the dominant German dye cartel. During World War I, when Germany quit trading with the allies, Dow was able to produce products such as aspirin, phenol for explosives and chemicals used to strengthen aeroplane wings, and he did so more efficiently and at lower cost than the previously dominant Germans had. One of the great counterfactuals of world history is what would have happened if the Germans' plan to maintain their worldwide monopoly in bromine and other chemicals had not been thwarted by Herbert Dow.
While this bill is concerned with goods being sold in Australia at prices below those at which they are sold in other countries, what Australian consumers should really be concerned about is goods being sold in Australia at prices far in excess of those available to consumers in other countries. Take the example of Coca-Cola, a commodity that is sold in supermarkets in almost every country throughout the world. One would expect that there would be only marginal differences in the prices of such a popular product in supermarkets throughout the world. In Australia, the 'everyday low price' of a two-litre bottle of Coca-Cola currently being offered by the supermarket duopoly is $3.65. Yet a quick check on the internet shows that consumers can buy the same two-litre bottle of Coca-Cola in England for the everyday low price of $2.48. In the USA they pay the equivalent of $1.83. Even in New Zealand, at Woolworths supermarkets the everyday low price is the equivalent of $2.66; in Hong Kong, just $1.65; in South Africa, $2.22; and in Singapore, $2.25—in comparison to Australia's $3.65. It not just Coca-Cola. Compared to countries elsewhere throughout the world, Australian consumers pay grossly excessive prices for many basic supermarket items. So either Australian consumers are the victims of reverse dumping or there is something fundamentally flawed in the competition in our supermarket sector.
The government has failed miserably and repeatedly to protect competition in Australian markets. Before the last election the government made a big song and dance about lack of competition, but all we have seen since it has been elected is a shameful whitewash of the grocery inquiry. Its only initiative has been the high farce of GroceryWatch, the most useless website every created. Now, to show what the government thinks of competition, instead of being a ministry competition has been downgraded to the level of a parliamentary secretary. And this is all before the introduction of a carbon tax, which will push up the price of goods for all in Australia. It is a tax that will place Australian products at a significant competitive disadvantage. The real impact of a domestic carbon tax will be that overseas goods will be shipped into Australia at lower prices than those for which similar goods can be made in Australia. It will damage Australian manufacturers 100 times more than will the problem of dumped goods.
So, while we should be rightly concerned about goods being dumped onto Australian markets below the price at which they are sold in other countries, our real concern should be the fact that Australian consumers are currently paying significantly higher prices than consumers in the rest of the world do. This problem will only be made worse by the carbon tax, irrespective of any changes to our laws on dumping.
The bill before us, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011, is a really important bill, because it is actually about this Labor government getting serious on dumping and it is about fixing some of the long-term problems and established mechanisms that have been part of the market for quite some time. It is also about making sure we get the balance right between our WTO and free trade obligations, supporting local industry and making sure consumers get a fair price. It is not just about a cheap price; it is about a fair price—an equivalent price.
While I appreciate the comments and the history lesson from the previous member speaking, the member for Hughes, what he said really does not put into context the issues he raised—or dumping issues or the complex and sophisticated nature of what occurs today compared with what used to happen in the 1800s. But I do appreciate what he said. I thought it was quite interesting.
This bill clarifies for the first time when the minister may revoke antidumping measures as a consequence of a particular review. It responds to a very important decision of the full bench of the Federal Court—the Minister of State for Home Affairs v Siam Polyethylene Co Ltd, referred to as the Siam decision. This is really important, because the decision set up a catch-22 mechanism, which is quite dangerous and very problematic. What it meant for the minister was that he was compelled to act in a particular way which would not be in the best interests of this country or of industry in this country. It actually would have led to more frequent revocations and an inconsistency in the way that we dealt with antidumping in this country.
It is good to acknowledge that the opposition support this amendment we are putting forward today. They could not oppose it because it is a really good amendment and it has been really good work by this government in terms of getting this right. We are proposing to insert a new test that will provide that the Customs CEO must recommend the minister revoke measures unless he is satisfied that the removal of those measures would actually lead to continued dumping, further dumping or new dumping. I think it gives the right balance, particularly with reference to dumping, the recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and whether there would be material injury, which the antidumping measures are intended to prevent.
There are a whole range of technical issues all revolving around the capacity for the minister and the CEO of Customs to get the balance right and make those decisions in the right way. For me, it is about making a better and clearer process. It is about getting it right and doing that in the best way that we can. If you have a look at the antidumping measures and the processes attached to them, they are quite involved and quite complex and people would understand why there is the necessity for change. We just need to make it a workable and practical process that recognises the difficulties that Australian industry faces when it is up against actions that are really difficult to prove or interactions at arm's length in another country that might be dumping here in Australia. This amendment will also provide fairness by giving parties advance knowledge of the process for seeking revocation. It will give investigators time to properly consider the issues before reporting back to the minister. One of the big problems has been that not everyone gets the same access to information. That actually causes a problem, particularly for those who are seeking to amend or get right the antidumping measures or countervailing measures.
These amendments are sensible and they take us forward on the really complex matters of antidumping and how Australia plays a fair and robust role in the application of these measures. It is my view, and I would say it is the view of all of us in this place, that Australia has a great track record on these matters. We play a fair game. We seek to trade freely across the globe. We seek to interact with our trading partners on that basis. But the reality is simple—that is, dumping is real and does occur. At a simplistic level, dumping occurs when a foreign company sells products in Australia below the price they sell it for in their own country. It is a bit more involved and complex than that, but as a basic approach that is what is about. Let us understand that this occurs regularly and that it has an enormous impact on our industries, on our jobs here in this country, on our capacity to manufacture, to produce and to keep prices down and on our capacity to make sure that the Australian consumer has the best possible access to good quality products that meet our requirements at good, fair and cheap prices. If we do not get that balance right, it makes it very hard for Australian companies to compete with dumped imports. I hold firmly to the view that Australian companies ought to compete. They ought to innovate and do everything they can. They should not use dumping or antidumping as a surrogate for not fulfilling their part of the bargain, which is that they have to work hard and make sure that they can compete against equal products. If they are being provided fairly and cheaply in this country then we need to be able to compete with that. But as I have said a number of times, we want free trade that is also fair. It has to be a two-way street.
This is not just an Australian problem. Dumping is bad for any nation in which it occurs. When I say it is bad, it can mean the end of an industry altogether, particularly where that industry is a 100 per cent import replacement industry. Whether such an industry survives or not hinges on getting that balance right in terms of antidumping. You cannot come back from that position. Once an industry disappears, you cannot rebuild it. The capital cost and the fear of investment and everything that is attached means that once we lose a particular industry then it is gone and it is gone forever. There is plenty of evidence of that happening in this country. In fact, the Productivity Commission report shows a really interesting graph which they say shows that there is less and less need for antidumping measures because there are fewer and fewer cases. But if you actually track that through history you find that the fewer cases represent less being manufactured in this country. There are fewer cases to compete against because we have less manufacturing. I do not want to see that graph get to a point where there are no cases of antidumping because nothing is produced or manufactured in this country any longer. I think the Productivity Commission actually got that part of it wrong when they looked at what that meant for Australian industry and for competition.
This bill is about strengthening our antidumping legislation. It is about making certain it is fair, free trade that we are dealing with. It is about making clear, for all affected parties, the process to be followed in giving all affected parties more opportunities to have their voices heard when a review does occur. Dumping is complex. It is complex in a whole range of areas. It is complex because not everyone plays by the same rules and in the way they apply those rules. For example, Australia does recognise China as a market economy, whereas the US, Canada and the EU do not. That sets up a whole range of circumstances which make it much more complex for the Australian market and manufacturing and industry in Australia.
Australia must, under the rules, use Chinese domestic prices when establishing whether dumping is occurring. All other information available to make sure that dumping does not occur does not necessarily play a role, which makes it very complex in determining whether dumping is or is not occurring and, for that matter, whether there is material injury to a particular organisation or company or the wider market. As other countries do not recognise China as a market economy they use a proxy or a surrogate price, which can often be a more representative value of the cost in-country compared to the cost in our own market. Because of this, Australia often becomes the target market for dumped products, and this has been evidenced by a whole range of recent incidents. Basically, we are seen as a soft touch in a whole range of other areas.
I know the Senate economics committee is currently considering a separate bill sponsored by Senator Xenophon, which is aimed at strengthening antidumping provisions. While there may be some debate about all of the terms and what those provisions might be, I broadly support what Senator Xenophon is trying to achieve and I appreciate the work that he has done with this bill. I look forward to reading the report by the Senate economics committee on this legislation.
The reality is that we can do more to strengthen our antidumping legislation while still meeting our WTO obligations, because of the flexibility and judgment that is allowed by the current regulations to respond to genuine cases. We need to make sure that we get that right.
I have been saying, 'Let's do the right thing by industry. Let's do the right thing in terms of consumers as well, to make sure they have access to good-quality and cheap products.' But let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let us not kill our industries on the basis of inflexibility in terms of our regulations. There is plenty of evidence to support that case. As one submission to the committee points out:
The current provisions within the antidumping system, for example tariff measures, that may be applied to international companies' exports into Australia are less than those which would apply if the same anticompetitive and predatory pricing activities were undertaking in Australia between Australian domiciled companies—for example, as contained within the Trade Practices Act or the ACCC regulations.
To put it simply, we are harder on our own than we are on foreign imports.
I also want to take this opportunity to look at the real impact of dumping by bringing some other examples to the table. I want to mention the very good and serious work and the good campaign that is being carried out at the moment by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union and the Australian Workers Union to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics. It is a really good submission, which really takes this issue seriously because it affects so many workers and so many people across industry. And it will have a long-term affect on consumers in this country when certain industries are no longer with us.
In particular I want to raise the issue of Capital Limited, which over the past 10 years has been competing against Chinese imports, particularly on subsidised aluminium extrusions, which have taken a substantial market share in Australia. Capital, like many other businesses, are competing internationally. They are competing globally. They produce a fantastic local product but find it very difficult to compete where there are cases of dumping.
The reality is that we did find dumping. As a result of that dumping occurring, action has been taken. Unfortunately, in most cases, that action took place way too slowly and way too late. The damage has already been done or the size of the antidumping measure or countervailing measure was just too small. There are also the cases of Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts, Big River Timbers and Boral in the Australian plywood production market, which has contracted by more than half since 2000. Dumping was also identified in that market, and measures were put in place against imports from China, Malaysia, Chile and Brazil. The reason I mention this is to make the point that this is real stuff that happens every single day. We need to ensure that our antidumping measures are responsive to what actually happens in the marketplace—and that is harder to prove. I am talking about situations where countries provide free products or do not act at arm's length in their in-country transactions, and that makes it very difficult for Australia to compete.
This is not a question of protectionism versus free trade; it is much more complex than that. I think we all agree that, being a globalised country which has formed the basis of its wealth creation on trade, we believe in free trade and that we are a robust trading nation. But trade has to be fair; we cannot be the soft touch—the patsy—allowing the dumping of products in this country. There are plenty of examples of good, strong manufacturing—globally competitive manufacturing—in this country having been put out of business because of cheap imports.
I am all for consumers having access to really good, cheap products; I have spoken on this in the House before. I do not mind cheap imported cars—I do not care how cheap they get—but I think there needs to be a fairness about the way it is done. We cannot just be used as a dumping ground for other people's exports and prop up their industries while ours suffer as a consequence. I think we need to get that right.
I believe very strongly that this country and our response ought to be as courageous in supporting industry and jobs and fair trade as we are in supporting free trade globally, free trade agreements and World Trade Organisation rules. I commend the bill to the House.
It falls to me to do a bit of filibustering, if I might use that word, until the next speaker comes before the Committee. We are dealing with a bill, the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011, to introduce procedural requirements in order for the Chief Executive Officer of Customs to recommend, and for the minister to declare, that antidumping measures be revoked at the conclusion of the review and to insert a legislative test outlining when the CEO may recommend that the minister revoke antidumping measures. The position is that it is a fairly uncontroversial bill. There is no need for me to say much more, because I think have summarised it, and the next speaker has arrived.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. My electorate of Tangney has two strong industrial manufacturing regions: Canning Vale and Myaree. Many residents of my electorate are employed in each of these regions. As well as heavy industry and manufacturing, Canning Vale especially—but also Myaree—has small- to medium- sized enterprises and many mum-and-dad industries. Why is strengthening antidumping laws important?
Recently a number of business owners and operators have approached my office to discuss how the flood of cheap products and materials into the market is affecting the competitiveness of their businesses. These local businesspeople feel cheap imports are undermining their profitability and in some cases their very survival. Each and every individual felt they could identify a case of dumping that was directly responsible for hurting their business and few felt they would get fair judgment of their case under current antidumping laws. All agreed that stronger and more flexible antidumping laws are a welcome measure for business in Tangney.
Complaints from local businesses in my electorate demonstrate that the present system is too cumbersome and that it places the onus of proof on domestic business rather than on their competitors. Other complaints are that it applies retrospectively, often after irreversible damage has already been done, and that it is generally prohibitively expensive to access. Make no mistake: while the businesses in my electorate thrive and encourage open and free trade, a foreign manufacturer or producer exporting product into Australia below the price it charges in its home market is the unfair predatory pricing that dumping creates. As many of Tangney's businesses are trade and import exposed small- to medium- sized enterprises, I am certain many more businesses than have come to see me are directly affected by dumping, with little recourse.
Dumping is a modern form of protectionism with many international trade experts citing it as the most serious impediment to international trade. Many countries, especially in the EU, have over the past 20 to 30 years increasingly turned to dumping in order to offer protection to import-competing industries. Yet, while Australia's industrial products market is one of the most open markets in the world, the government only pursues a small number of dumping cases. Antidumping measures allow our government to apply for countervailing duties on goods that have been subsidised by the government of the country of export. Where dumping or subsidisation results in material injury to local industry, antidumping or countervailing duties can be applied. To demonstrate its seriousness, since 1980 GATT and WTO members have filed more complaints under the international anti-dumping statute than under all other trade laws combined. Further, more antidumping duties are now levied in any one year worldwide than were levied in the entire period 1947-1970.
Dumping hurts the competitiveness of businesses in my electorate and I welcome these changes. From an international law perspective we must be aware that, while the Australian antidumping system is based on agreed WTO rules and procedures, these measures only benefit a small number of import-competing firms while imposing greater costs on the rest of the economy. In short, international trade policy has little effect on antidumping legislation. Foreign industry can almost guarantee it will not be subject to antidumping tariffs if it charges high enough prices in its export markets. Domestic industry might resist lowering its prices because doing so improves its chances of winning an antidumping case. The same domestic industry might also lay off more workers than expected because doing so indicates injury. My point is, the intricacies of antidumping measures are immense and that is why the Productivity Commission was asked to investigate our current regime in 2009.
The Productivity Commission's report looked at some of the ways the current antidumping laws impact on the wider economy, with certain antidumping measures too easily becoming akin to long-term protection measures or becoming outdated in the face of changing market circumstances. The task force will examine the problems with the current regime with the aim of developing substantive policy designed to stop foreign companies dumping cheap products on Australian markets. The task force honours a coalition election commitment to ensure that Australian manufacturers' products are not undercut by imported or subsidised products or by products that do not comply with appropriate quality standards. Again, as the federal member of an electorate with a heavy import orientated sector, I am proud to say the coalition is standing up for local industry. The establishment of this task force also acknowledges the widespread call from industry groups for improved access to the current antidumping system. Worldwide dumping concerns are not new, and Australia is playing catch-up to the European Union, Japan and the United States. This coalition task force represents the most serious attempt to remedy what is a huge issue for industry in Tangney.
I noticed the budget contained no new money to combat dumping, as was pointed out by the Australian Industry Group CEO, Heather Ridout. If the Labor Party is serious about antidumping measures it should listen to AWU secretary Paul Howes, who has called on his members to write to their local member about dumping. I welcome Mr Howe's sentiment, but, given his influence in the Labor Party, I wonder why he is putting the onus on his members to force change. He also has not committed his union to the measures in this bill.
Questions I believe we need to address include whether antidumping action should be available in response to imports that only threaten to cause material injury to an industry, the period Customs have to investigate cases, and whether the minister should be expected to take action where dumping is found to exist.
Competition is good for consumers and drives business innovation. But I am not confident this bill amends all the problems with the existing scheme. Opposition leader Tony Abbott has highlighted two high-profile examples of dumping. In 2008 and last year we saw a situation where toilet paper from overseas was coming into this country at up to 45 per cent below cost. Initially, antidumping action was taken, but then the government failed to proceed with the case. Another situation saw biodiesel coming into this country at, it is believed, 40 per cent below cost. A Customs report highlighting this dumping case has been sitting on the minister's desk since late last year. I understand no action has been taken.
I do not think any Australian manufacturer objects to strong competition, but it has to be fair competition—and when you have materials coming into this country well below the cost of manufacture and transport that is dumping. Australia must make sure that our manufacturing industries and producers are not needlessly put at risk by an ineffective antidumping regime. Free trade requires a level playing field, again something I am not confident this bill provides. Local business in Tangney is not looking for a handout or a hand-up, simply the freedoms needed to compete in the local market. I do not think this bill goes far enough to address dumping, but it is a start.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas. Before I start my discussion of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011 I will just inform you that we had the Paniyiri Festival in Brisbane on the weekend and your name was mentioned, and I did mention you in my speech to the crowd—you and Maria Vamvakinou rated a mention.
I rise to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. As we have heard from other speakers, Australian manufacturers have been doing it tough lately. They have been copping it from all sides. We see the drop in demand for manufacturing exports as a result of the global financial crisis and flowing on from that the rising dollar making it harder for our manufacturers to compete because our wages and costs are that little bit higher. In my electorate of Moreton, manufacturers are just starting to get back on their feet after the January floods wiped out much of our industrial zones in Rocklea, Archerfield and Acacia Ridge and even in patches of my home suburb of Moorooka. Over 1,000 businesses had water over the floorboards and many of those were manufacturing businesses. Obviously it is relatively easy to move transport or even to move stock to higher parts with forklifts and the like but with some of the heavy engineering equipment it is different. There was a sad story of the business I visited with the Prime Minister and they had a $2 million piece of engineering equipment that they just could not physically move, even though they knew the waters were coming. Even with insurance paying, it takes six months or a year to bring out something like that from Germany as a replacement piece of equipment. So manufacturers in my patch and around Australia are doing it tough.
As this legislation has indicated, they are also particularly under threat from overseas firms who dump their products in the Australian market at short-term lower prices that undercut and damage Australian manufacturers. Previous speakers mentioned lots of examples but the most appropriate one when we are talking about dumping was the toilet paper that had been on the market at 40 per cent below the cost. I have spoken to unions about this, and particularly unions such as the AMWU, who say this has impacted particularly on the steel, aluminium, paper and paper products industries, and some of those are in my electorate.
By dumping products on the Australian market, overseas manufacturers are trying to gain market share and put Australian manufacturers out of business. Once they achieve this and claim the market share, they then bump the prices back up, and obviously in the long run Australian consumers lose out. Dumping presents a clear and present danger to Australian firms and Australian manufacturing employees. I would stack our Australian companies up against any manufacturer in the world. We can match them in terms of innovation and in terms of the sweat of employees. However, the reality is that dumping is an extra danger for them. The last thing our manufacturers need is to be undercut by overseas firms, especially those that have been propped up artificially by foreign government money. What we obviously need is a level playing field and that Australian can-do attitude and Australian initiative can come to the fore. It does Australia no good in the long run if our manufacturers are forced to shut down, to put their employees out of work merely to make way for cheaper overseas products in the short term, especially, as I said, if the prices go up once the Australian company is out of business. It is quite simple, really: we make it here or jobs disappear. That is why we need strong and effective antidumping measures in place. Obviously some people rather simplistically say that we can just impose duties on imports to get them back to a fair value with local products. But the Australian Labor Party see Australia as fundamentally a nation that believes in free trade, and that the tit-for-tat duties and levies help nobody in the long run. That way trading madness lies. This bill is urgently required to overcome the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the Federal Court decision in the Siam Polyethylene case. The court determined that, in the absence of a legislative test to determine an application to revoke dumping measures, the minister must revoke measures unless the dumping would cause material injury to the Australian industry. The problem with this ruling is that where dumping measures are in place there should be no material injury to Australian industry. Therefore, this commonsense bill before the chamber amends the Customs Act 1901 to clarify the circumstances in which the minister may revoke antidumping measures in light of a review of such measures. It introduces a new test where the Customs CEO must recommend that the minister revoke measures unless satisfied that the removal of the measures would lead, or be likely to lead, to a continuation of dumping and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent.
As I said from the outset, Australian manufacturers and their employees face many threats. Who would have thought back in your younger days, Mr Deputy Speaker, when you might have been travelling around Europe, that we would have the dollar at $US1.05 or US$1.06. When I was backpacking in Europe in 1988 it was completely different. You used to have to work for a month just to be able to buy beer or something like that. Now the dollar has completely changed. While it is good if you are going on a holiday overseas or buying stuff from overseas on the web, it does not help our manufacturers or even our farmers or our miners in certain circumstances. Dumping is only one of the challenges that we face but it is a very significant threat to the manufacturing industry. That is the industry I am particularly keen to make sure that we look after as much as possible. There are other challenges of markets being rattled by the global financial crisis and, in my local area, the flood damaging so many businesses. Also we have got those circumstances where, since the floods and cyclones and the GFC, I think it is true that many Australians are knocking off their debt, which is a good thing; we see credit card debt coming down. But the problem for retailers, part of the chain that manufacturers supply to, is that people are not digging into their wallets and their pockets to spend money, which is a problem for many of our retailers. The amendments in this bill are separate to the government's consideration of the Productivity Commission's recommendations. That work is still ongoing but these amendments are urgently required in response to the Federal Court decision.
I have not had a tour of the factory yet but I have certainly had a meeting with one of the manufacturers in my electorate that makes doors. I cannot remember the name of the factory and I do apologise, but I have had a couple of meetings with them. Many of the doors in new estates come from this factory in Rocklea, but they were unfairly targeted, I would suggest, by something as close to dumping as you would get from the Thai industry. But for the intervention of the minister, it would have meant that this factory would have closed down and its jobs would have gone and so too the quite significant skills associated with carpenters, joiners, fitters and turners and the like to make these doors that then go out into people's homes. It is the case when something like this happens that you do not just set up a door assembly plant overnight; it is expensive equipment and costs a lot of money. If they are not able to turn over enough, Australian wages being what they are, it is hard to keep workers at a factory if they are not selling enough doors. We have already got enough problems with building downturns in Queensland at the moment and there is not a lot of money flying around. There will be some renovations that come with the flood recovery effort, but too many people in my electorate are having trouble waiting for the insurance companies to make a decision one way or the other. At least if they get a no they can then go off to the Queensland Premier's Flood Appeal and maybe get some money through there. If they get a yes then hopefully there will be more doors made from the factory in my electorate.
It has always been the way of the modern Labor Party that we need Australia to be much more than something that sells materials overseas that come back to us as manufactured products. We believe in skills, the high road. We believe in Australia being much more than just a quarry and a farm. We need to turn those things that we dig out of the ground into products that we can then send around the world, which is good for our balance of trade and is good not just in terms of skills but in terms of defence, where you need to have certain skills. I am sure that as a South Australian MP, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you are aware of the important role that the car industry plays in terms of making sure there are sufficient skills that can then lead on to defence type skills. That is the smart road, the high road that the Labor Party believes Australia should go down. That is why the NBN is such a priority for us. We believe in services that can be sold around the world. I remember during the election campaign those on the opposite side laughing and asking how we could become a focus for money, banking services and the like. But now look at what we are doing in terms of the funds that have been administered and in terms of superannuation. Places like Sydney, and hopefully Brisbane as well, will have a rightful role in showing the rest of the world that we can look after and provide services to the banking industry and the like.
Before becoming a lawyer my background was in education. We have such a great story to tell in providing a great example around the world of how we educate people, not only at the school level but also at the university level and in between, in the TAFE sector. Australia has that proud role, going back to the Colombo Plan. So often we have been able to provide a great education to people who then go back around the world. We have some of the best universities in the world; certainly in my electorate of Moreton, Griffith University is well known throughout the world as a great leader in innovations in health and the environment. I commend the bill to the House.
I thank the member for Moreton for his assistance in this rearrangement.
I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, for filling in because of the rearrangements of speakers we have had up here. I rise in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011. Before I speak about the changes the bill will make I will make a few observations to relay to the House concerns that are repeatedly expressed in my electorate office by members of the Hindmarsh constituency and community and, of course, by the wider population. These concerns have as their route insecurity stemming from a dynamic, competitive global economy and the continual shifting we have seen in the last 20 or 30 years of global capital and manufacturing from country to country and region to region.
Just looking at the electorate of Hindmarsh I can name half a dozen businesses—manufacturing industries—that were there but are no longer there. They have disappeared over the last 20-odd years. We had a great employer, Clarks shoes, in the electorate, in the suburb of Marleston. They moved offshore about 10 years ago. Approximately 300 people worked in that particular factory. We also had Griffin Press, who used to print all the Mills and Boon novels—which is a little hidden secret in Adelaide—for the Asian market. They have now moved their printing overseas as well—another 200 jobs there.
So we have seen a huge shift of global capital and manufacturing moved from country to country and region to region over the last couple of decades. But people have an insecurity from this changing profitability of domestic and local production; the questionable sustainability of old, long-held jobs, the divergence of which industries we have and what we consider normal and good and, ultimately, insecurity breeding fear of change and loss, which is often a consequence of change.
Our community has inferred over many years what Australian industry is—what our industrial landscape should consist of and what jobs should be expected to remain open to successive generations. In South Australia, as we heard earlier, we have the car manufacturing industry, which has employed thousands of people over the years. In South Australia we saw Mitsubishi close down a few years ago with the loss of 1,000-odd jobs. If we have not imported a pest or disease with foreign apples or pears for a certain period of time, should we discard our quarantine and inspection services? Certainly not. The purpose of Australian law is not only to stop a proscribed activity already commenced but to prevent a proscribed activity, the threat of which hangs over us waiting for an opportunity.
The law we address here today is that of the Customs Act 1901, which became the unwitting victim of our legal system. The Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Justice, the Minister for Privacy and Freedom of Information, the Hon. Brendan O'Connor, explained in his second reading speech on the bill the unfortunate situation that arose from the judgment of the full Federal Court last year. We cannot have a situation in which a law devised for the proper implementation and enforcement of trade rules is undermined or removed from potential application simply because there has been no unlawful activity in the recent past. We have the law not only to enforce proper behaviour when a party is tempted to cross the line but to establish acceptable behaviour and to proclaim what is right and what will not be tolerated. So I would fully expect all members and senators to get behind the government on this matter and to support the community in its concern for the maintenance of fair trade and antidumping rules within our states and cities and within our wider jurisdiction.
In South Australia, an antidumping case recently took place involving one of the big toilet paper manufacturers in the south-east. The company bringing the products in was found to be dumping. That finding was appealed and the case was upheld. The problem is that we have many cases around the country similar to that one that, for whatever reason, are extremely difficult to prosecute. We need good laws for the protection of our businesses and all the manufacturers to ensure that we keep those very important jobs in our cities, in our electorates and in our wonderful country.
I could not go on without mentioning a particular manufacturer in my electorate, Rossiters Boots. They have been manufacturing boots there for over 100 years now. Through difficult circumstances and difficult times when manufacturing is becoming unprofitable, Dean Rossiter, the owner of Rossiters Boots is determinedly persisting and continues to produce boots in the suburb of Hilton in my electorate. I have had discussions with him over the years. It would be very easy for him to get up and move overseas, as other shoe companies have done in the past. But he is persisting and persevering, employing people locally and trying to do the best that he possibly can. In fact, in some cases, he has second and third generation people working in the shoe factory where their grandfathers and their parents were employed. They produce a very good shoe, a great product.
A few months ago, I was in Bali. We saw massive shoe production factories everywhere. People were working for $70 a week. You can see how difficult it is to compete with those lower wages in some of those countries, where these same products are being made. You can also see the temptation of those particular companies overseas to come into our market. They know that they can sell the product cheaper. They can also dump the product on the market, bringing the prices artificially low and therefore sending businesses out of business.
I am very pleased that this bill has been introduced. It will amend certain provisions of the Customs Act. The bill responds to, as I said, a decision last year by the full Federal Court, which considered the review provisions and, in particular, the test for determining whether antidumping measures should be revoked. The proposed amendments in this bill insert a new test which will provide that the Customs CEO must recommend that the minister revoke measures unless satisfied that the removal of the measures would lead, or be likely to lead to a continuation of, or recurrence of the dumping and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent. It is a clear test which will avert the unnecessary revocation of effective antidumping measures.
The government is committed to its antidumping system. These amendments will ensure that where measures have been put in place to address injury faced by Australian industry as a result of unfair trading practices that those measures remain effective.
As I said earlier, I would fully expect all members in this place to get behind this bill, to support the community in its concern for the maintenance of fair trade and antidumping rules within our jurisdiction and support the government's bill. I commend the bill to the House.
These proposed amendments to the Customs Act seek to clarify the circumstances under which dumping measures should be revoked. These amendments are sought to address the unintended consequences of a decision of the full Federal Court–the Siam decision–which formulated a test for revocation that will lead to outcomes inconsistent with the objectives of the antidumping system.
As a result of the full Federal Court's decision in Siam, it is much more likely that a finding of no dumping or no injury during a review period will lead to revocation. This outcome would be inconsistent with the objects of the antidumping system. The review provisions therefore need to be urgently amended to clarify the revocation test. These amendments would clarify that the Customs CEO may only examine whether the measures should be revoked where affected parties provide sufficient evidence in the approved form that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that the measure is no longer warranted, or where the minister requests such a review.
The amendments would also insert an express revocation test. Once the evidentiary requirements for initiating a revocation review have been met and a revocation review has been notified the CEO must recommend that the minister revoke measures unless satisfied that the removal of the measures would lead, or be likely to lead, to a continuation of, or a recurrence of, the dumping or subsidisation and the material injury that the antidumping measures are intended to prevent.
It is imperative that the legislation governing reviews of antidumping and countervailing measures is amended in order to minimise the number of existing measures that are revoked which would not otherwise be revoked under the proposed changes that clarify and restore the intended operation of the review provisions.
I believe that it is very timely that the issue of antidumping measures is before the House. I believe it is a very important and serious issue, especially at a time when Australian exporting and import-competing firms are struggling under the difficulties of the high Australian dollar. The Australian Workers Union has launched a campaign to raise worker and community awareness about the damage that illegal dumping is doing to Australia's manufacturing industry. The AWU says that there has been dumping of a wide range of finished goods competing with Australian producers. It says that products like solar panels, rail track, wind towers, mining infrastructure equipment, steel frames et cetera are being produced overseas, primarily by China, and dumped on the Australian market. The AWU has resolved to call on the federal government to establish an independent commission to investigate dumping allegations and to legislate to enable affected groups and unions to ask for investigations to be undertaken by this body.
The union has warned that the sustainability of Australia's manufacturing sector is under threat, and has also called on the Australian government to help local industry by adopting a strict rule-of-law approach to illegal trade practices consistent with our WTO entitlements. The AWU has informed a Senate enquiry that Australia's commitment to a global free-trade regime should be on the basis that all our trading partners consistently apply World Trade Organisation trade laws and regulations. As the AWU has stated, it is committed to free trade. Over the last 30 years, coinciding with the reforming Hawke-Keating governments, this union has played its part in ensuring the benefits of trade liberalisation. This is shared by AWU members—along with the nation as a whole—in increased investment, job creation and national income. The benefits of free trade are not in doubt. Reciprocity of access to foreign markets has also been a key driver to enhancing the competitiveness of many of the trade exposed industries represented by the AWU including, steel, aluminium, plastics, petrochemical, agribusiness and horticultural industries.
However, just as with other activities in the marketplace, rules about free trade should apply, and trade on any terms does not constitute free trade. Unfortunately, in Australia there is a lack of regulatory action and oversight, which means Australian companies are ripe for exploitative trade practices aimed at dominating local markets through a range of subsidies and dumping strategies.
In a submission to the same Senate inquiry, the AWU spoke of its national Don't Dump on Australia campaign, which was launched earlier this year. In the submission the AWU outlined the following priorities to address product dumping: first, a properly resourced and independent antidumping agency responding proactively to dumping and subsidy complaints; second, improving the culture of Customs and compliance with Customs decisions; third, that Chinese exports by state owned enterprises should be treated like other state owned enterprises in other developed countries, notwithstanding China's market economy status; fourth, reflecting WTO rights in full in Australia's antidumping and countervailing system as trade defences rather than industry protection; fifth, amending the Customs Act to acknowledge that unions should have the right to petition for investigations; and, finally, strong local content requirements. Stronger local content requirements would serve to limit subsidised imports taking market share from local suppliers.
I support the AWU campaign. I believe that national self-sufficiency is important and I want Australia to continue to have a vibrant manufacturing industry. It is therefore important that our 'level playing fields' are genuinely level.
The fate of Australian workers in trade exposed industries rests with the creation and enforcement in Australia of a strong antidumping regime in order that nations do not take advantage of our generosity of spirit in trade matters. Many governments and in particular the Chinese government intervene directly and extensively in their economy to benefit their own industries. According to the WTO rules, however, WTO members including China can only do this in a manner which does not cause or threaten to cause injury to foreign suppliers of like goods. Of all the WTO members, China faces the most antidumping actions because of dumping of product below what is regarded as normal value and for recourse to export subsidies. There are two main ways Australian manufacturers of like goods are injured or threatened with injury by Chinese exporters assisted through government policies: first, by dumping and, second, by industry subsidies. The AWU submission says:
There is widespread evidence that China is engaging in a range of illegal practices to stimulate and protect its domestic producers of green technology, from wind and solar energy products to advanced batteries and energy-efficient vehicles.
These practices are enabling China to emerge as a dominant supplier of certain green technologies. They also have facilitated the transfer of manufacturing and research and development investment into China, costing otherwise efficient Australian companies and workers the green profits and high-skilled jobs of the future. Many of these practices are direct violations of the obligations China undertook when it joined the World Trade organisation.
The Australian Workers Union wants the federal government to understand that manufacturing workers take the brunt of deliberate Chinese government policies are not based on supply and demand, not based on WTO rules, but rather on a model of state capitalism aimed at winning dominant market share, by subsidising below the normal costs of production and giving other assistance at the expense of international competitors.
Our manufacturers should be well placed to exploit the economic opportunities available from the growing clean energy global economy. In order for Australia to do this, though, we must ensure that we have an equal opportunity to compete where all nations observe the global free trade rules. Sadly, our manufacturers are not competing on a level playing field with Chinese competitors. Chinese competitors can offer dump prices in Australia, not because they are better at making certain products than Australia but because their state owned or state linked enterprises sell the inputs to their industries at less than the cost that it takes to produce them or their normal cost of production. China manages its exchange rate, and the yuan is undervalued by approximately 20 per cent to 40 per cent, affording yet another advantage. Many of the dumping and subsidy practices of the Chinese have been challenged by other jurisdictions, including the US, Canada and the European Union. The WTO has defended their right to take action, because these practices clearly disadvantage industries and workers.
In recent months, both the United States and Canada have begun to adopt a more aggressive position on China's disregard for WTO rules. If they can act against dumped products then Australia should be able to follow that lead. As the AWU has pointed out, we should not worry about claims that a strong antidumping regime is simply a new form of protectionism threatening free trade. Free trade is in reality being threatened by China's flouting of the WTO rules. If we do not act now then products that once were dumped in the US and Canadian markets will be redirected to naive Australia and we will suffer even more. China needs to abide by the international rules governing trade, investment and labour standards. To allow them to do otherwise would be to allow them to play us for economic mugs. As the Australian scholar Christian Jack said, accommodation of China does not necessitate abandonment of Australia's core values. Australia must enforce its right to apply effective antidumping and countervailing measures to prevent injury and loss to Australian industry and workers. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
On behalf of the opposition, it is my pleasure to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 3) Bill 2011. As with all tax law amendment bills, this makes some amendments to the existing tax law. It does so in two regards. Given the situation here in the Main Committee, it might suit my friend the member for Holt if I go into some detail for a period of time on this bill—at least until the next speaker arrives.
This tax law amendment bill has two schedules. It firstly provides a 12-month GST-free export period for new recreational boats from 1 July this year. The measure is obviously designed to assist Australian exports of recreational boats. Those following the Main Committee closely, Member for Holt, will note that two members of the other side have been so keen to speak on this aspect of this bill that they actually spoke about it during the debate on the last tax law amendment bill, which did not contain this provision. But nevertheless this does. The Hansard record will show their keenness to speak in favour of it ahead of the legislation coming before the Main Committee. This tax law amendment bill will make that amendment.
The other schedule of this bill amends the Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 with the aim of overcoming certain technical problems with the imposition of the general interest charge in certain circumstances. The coalition will not be opposing this bill. We support the intent of both schedules. In each regard, clearly the government has been consulting. With respect to the second schedule, it is obviously a technical refinement, and this is something that is regular in all of our tax laws amendment bills. The first schedule, dealing with recreational boats, has obviously been under contemplation for a period of time. This tax laws amendment bill, as I have said, has the support of the coalition. We will not be opposing it in this House. As my friend the member for Blair has just arrived and will speak on this bill, as is often the case, I will wind up my remarks by commending the bill here to the Main Committee.
) ( I am very happy to speak in relation to this particular piece of legislation, the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 3) Bill 2011. The Rudd government and now the Gillard government has been a government of significant reform. The shadow minister mentioned the technical aspects of this bill. I do not intend to go through those, but I want to say a couple of words in relation to the reforms we have undertaken with respect to tax.
Those opposite have criticised us for being a government of big tax. They have criticised us for being a government that imposes tax regulations. In fact, many of the regulations that we have deleted and many of the tax reforms we have undertaken have made a significant impact. We accept that those opposite, for example, made changes in income tax when they were in government. They reduced the level of income tax. So did we. We acknowledge that the whole thrust of reform to tax laws in this country has been to ease the burden on Australian taxpayers, streamline the systems, make technical changes and do it by way of schedule, as the shadow minister said today.
One of the things we have done in relation to this matter is simply to put a big focus on tax laws amendment in this budget. I have spoken many times, as the member for Casey correctly pointed out, on tax laws. In fact, I think at times he has made shorter speeches than I have and at other times I have made shorter speeches than he has. Often there are technical things. Sometimes they are particularly unsexy, particularly uninteresting, but they make an impact. They make an impact on people's lives, they make an impact on business and they make an impact on farms. Some of those things have been exempting Australian government disaster relief payments from income tax, for example. There are disaster income support things. You may ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, why we would do those sorts of things, In reality, making a difference through tax laws amendments to people who have been flood affected makes an impact.
These changes were outlined by the member for Casey and, as the member for Lilley, the Treasurer, said in his budget speech, they do make a difference to people's lives. This legislation, though technical, as the member for Casey said, really has an impact on our overall corporate system. It makes an impact by creating consistency and it makes an impact on the way we actually run our system. We need integrity in our system and we need operational effectiveness. I think both sides of politics accept that. If people have faith in the tax system, they are more likely to pay tax. They see the value of it in health, education and roads. So I am happy to support this legislation. I am pleased the opposition is in support of it and I commend the legislation to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011 and, in so doing, I want to outline, firstly, just what the bill means and why it is necessary. The bill contains amendments to the Customs Act 1901 and obviously concerns antidumping measures. On the face of it, it seems like a simple measure but it is not that simple when you actually read the number of amendments that are required. The amendments will actually clarify circumstances in which the Minister for Justice may revoke antidumping measures as a consequence of review.
Currently, there is no legislated revocation test. The existing legislation does not set out the grounds upon which the minister should revoke measures following a review. The bill responds to a decision of the Federal Court in the Minister of State for Home Affairs and Siam Polyethylene case. In the absence of an express revocation test, the full Federal Court imported the same test that applies before measures can be imposed following an initial investigation. That caused lack of certainty and a lack of clarity. With any legislative framework, particularly when you are dealing with customs and antidumping, you cannot have that lack of clarity and lack of certainty. Everybody needs to know exactly what is going on and what will happen, particularly when you are dealing with procedural matters.
The upshot of the Federal Court's decision was that the minister must be satisfied that if measures have not been taken there would now be grounds to impose them. In a sense, the finding creates a problem because if measures are in place and effective there may not be current dumping or subsidisation causing injury. The outcome could mean that it would be inconsistent with the objects of the antidumping system. That is really the upshot of the Federal Court decision, because there was what they construed to be an absence of this legislative test and the court said that that needed to be fixed.
These amendments will clearly clarify that. The minister, in his second reading speech, addressed the problem. He said that the amendments will cement the existing practice of Customs, which would treat revocation reviews as different in kind from reviews adjusting or updating the level of the measures. In essence, that is what the Federal Court decision changed.
It will require an affected party to provide evidence that there are reasonable grounds for asserting that measures are no longer warranted. The amendments clarify that if affected parties want the minister to revoke measures they must actually apply and must do so at the outset of a review process or within 40 days of a review commencing. It would not be something that could be imposed as a right without them applying for it. They could end up with it being applied when they do not really want it and they have not requested it.
As the minister said, the Siam decision is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, the case highlighted that lack of clarity in the review process that I referred to and, secondly, a new test was formulated through the court's decision. It was not that the court actually formulated a new test, but the upshot of the decision was that a new test was put in place. The minister also referred in the second reading speech to the established practice for the Customs and Border Protection Service. He said that, prior to the Siam decision to conduct reviews consistent with the nature of the review request, if there was no request for measures to be revoked Customs would not consider whether measures ought to be revoked. I covered that in the beginning, and that is the thing that creates the uncertainty and the lack of clarity, and that is what this amendment actually sets out to fix and correct. That formulation is a problematic one, and it is necessary to have this amendment so that is all put beyond doubt. It will be a clearer test and it will revert any unnecessary revocation happening.
There are some other issues that have arisen. Some people have said, 'Is this related to the Productivity Commission?'—they are being asked to review the antidumping system—but it is not. It is a separate thing. It was a problem that was thrown up, arising out of a Federal Court decision. This amendment will correct that and put that beyond doubt. I note that the opposition announced a coalition task force looking at antidumping policy but, again, I do not see that related to this either. This is just a pretty straightforward measure to correct the uncertainty that has been thrown up.
Firstly, I thank the House for its rearrangement of business. As many members would know, the member for Page, the member for Forrest and I were in the selection committee meeting, which is actually a very important part of the parliament because it decides when debates happen, and it is something we cannot really get out of. So I do thank both the members here who have been arranging the business of the House in our absence and making allowance for this problem. It is very much appreciated by all of us—and I note the member for Page was saying the same thing as well, and I am sure the member for Forrest appreciates the fact. I also thank those other speakers who thought they might have been on and have had to wait a little bit longer. We really do appreciate the effort that the House has gone to to ensure that we can continue with this.
The Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011 is a very important bill. There are several reasons why I wanted to speak on this bill. The first is because businesses in my electorate of Barker have been harmed by foreign imports dumped in Australia. This is not a thing about cheap things coming into Australia; this is actually where it has been proven that the products have been dumped in Australia at less than the cost of production. Under the World Trade Organisation rules we had every right to penalise the dumpers of those products, because we need to have fair trade. Certainly businesses in my electorate have been harmed by these foreign imports that have been dumped—another reason I like to buy Australian. I think everyone likes to buy Australian if they possibly can, and we do want to protect Australian industry, within reasonable WTO guidelines. I want to highlight this because the Gillard government has not lifted a finger towards fixing the problem of this product being dumped in Australia. It is frankly a disgrace. It is a very important industry—I am referring to the Kimberly-Clark plant in Millicent in my electorate, which makes a lot of tissue paper. It has had to try to compete with unfair imports from other countries. One of those countries is, I believe, Indonesia. Another is Thailand. It was a bit of a shock to us in my electorate and to those in the company. In fact they have had to lay off over 100 people—that is a lot of people who have lost their jobs as a result of the inaction of this government.
The government had many chances to take action and many reasons to want to fix this. There were many warnings to the government about the effects this dumping would have. Despite ongoing pressure from the coalition and the calls for help from national and local businesses and local government to do something, this Labor government seems totally oblivious or is just plain ignorant about the issue.
The coalition has set up an antidumping task force and certainly the coalition can see that there is a real problem here that is taking its toll on Australian businesses, on jobs and on the communities that rely on the businesses and the jobs. We want to make sure that Australian businesses are protected so they can continue to do what they do best: manufacture goods so that consumers can actually buy Australian made products. Consumers want to walk into their local supermarket and see 'Australian made' on the shelf. Tradies want to use Australian made steel to build homes and Australians want to buy Australian made products. That is what it comes down to.
The problem is though that the Labor government just does not seem to grasp the concept that if you do not protect Australian industries they will just not be there in five or ten years time. In the case that I quoted, it has obviously had a pretty drastic effect immediately.
I am not saying that we should not have competition. We as a party believe in competition, but, when it is unfair competition and it forces Australian businesses to close or shrink, then there will be no choice to buy Australian made. Not all competition is unfair. The coalition supports healthy competition. It is good for consumers and drives business innovation. However, selling foreign goods cheaply into Australia at below the cost of production is not healthy or fair competition. The consumer might be happy for five minutes when they are buying the cheap steel or the cheap milk, but after the local steel company or the local farmer has closed up shop there will not be any more Australian made product and it might be your brother's or neighbour's job that is lost. It may not be there anymore because they have had to sell the farm and move.
This is what will happen under this government, because it fails Australian businesses. It fails to protect them and fails to act. But not the coalition. We have taken measures so that this sort of thing will not happen under a coalition government. My colleagues are working hard so that a coalition government can hit the ground running and have sound policy to protect Australian business against unfair competition. I do not see the Labor government doing anything like this.
What the government has done is lie to the Australian people. They have promised action and delivered nothing. On 27 May last year the Minister for Home Affairs and the Assistant Treasurer released a statement about the Productivity Commission's report. This was nearly a year ago, almost to the day. The minister said that the Productivity Commission has made recommendations about changes to the operation of the current system. He then went on to say:
… the report contains recommendations that need to be carefully considered.
Then, later in the release, he said that the government's response was to be:
… developed and considered in the 2011-12 budget process.
Here we are, just after budget week in 2011-12, and there is nothing in this government's budget about improving Australia's antidumping regime, nothing at all. The government must think it is okay that Australian businesses have to close down because of product being dumped here, because there was no response to the Productivity Commission report in this budget the Treasurer handed down. There is nothing in this budget to combat dumping in Australia. After three years of talking about it, this government has failed Australian industries yet again—no claims from this government, in this year's budget, to support businesses.
During the 2010 election, the coalition announced that we would act to improve Australia's antidumping regime. Unlike Labor, we then took action. Yes, we were as good as our word and acted on that when we established a coalition task force, unlike the ignorant Labor government that has once again been all talk and no action. The coalition task force has been working hard to find out the key issues with the current arrangements and what needs to be fixed. One of the issues with the current arrangements is that businesses are faced with large bills and spending a lot of time internally to prove that their businesses have been retrospectively harmed by product being dumped in Australia. 'Retrospectively' means that the damage has already been done—irreversible damage, more often than not—and then, on top of that, a business has to spend time and money to prove its case. I do not think this is good enough, and Australia should be acting before the fact to protect businesses. This is the coalition's plan.
Many businesses have voiced their concerns that the current arrangements are too cumbersome, place the onus of proof on domestic businesses rather than on their competitors, and are generally prohibitively expensive to access. Foreign goods sold cheaply into Australia unfairly distort the marketplace, harming Australian businesses and ultimately costing jobs.
I have an example of this in my electorate of Barker, as I said: the Kimberly-Clark mill in the township of Millicent. Millicent is a town with a little over 5,000 people, about 700 of whom are employed in the Kimberley-Clark factory—so you can understand how important the Kimberley-Clark mill is to the people of Millicent. The factory uses a lot of our wood products, which we also grow in the local area, and it is a very strong part of our whole economy down there. In fact, the forestry industry is worth more than $2 billion a year to the local economy. It is not just a very substantial part of the direct local economy around Millicent; it is also important to the area for another 100 kilometres around it, where there is a lot of forestry.
This factory uses those products and makes tissues, toilet paper and those sorts of things. The Productivity Commission report showed that there were other countries dumping tissue and toilet paper in Australia to quite an extensive degree, at up to 60 per cent below the cost of production—not five or 10 per cent but up to 60 per cent below the cost of production. When faced with that sort of evidence that product is being dumped in Australia—which affects what is produced in Australia—and is competing unfairly with what is produced in Australia, I would have thought that the government would have said, 'We're going to impose some penalties in the form of tariffs,' or whatever, 'on the tissue that is being dumped in Australia.' But the Labor government did not take any action, which was very disappointing, I have to say.
The local community was hugely concerned about job losses and the effect they would have on this small country town of Millicent that relies so heavily on the mill. The Gillard government were not interested at all in hearing about the Millicent community's concerns. That was evident when they took no action then, and they still have taken no action over a year later.
I have stood in the House before and spoken of the problems Kimberly-Clark are having. The government has been well aware of examples from around Australia of businesses struggling with the unfair competition. Labor cannot plead ignorance on this issue. I brought the plight of Kimberly-Clark to the government's attention some time ago, but here I am in this House again speaking about Kimberly-Clark and about dumping in Australia, because the government is failing Kimberly-Clark and Australia's industry. What the Labor government have done is to offer a patch up solution, and that is simply not good enough. This week the Labor government announced that the budget would contain an initiative to support workers at the Kimberly-Clark mill who have lost their jobs, but I think it is a bit cute to come along and say, 'We'll provide training because we actually didn't act in the first place to stop those jobs being lost.' We have a bandaid solution: 'Yes, we'll provide all this retraining'. We have a great government announcement: 'Aren't we such a great government because we're going to try to help those people who have lost their jobs.' But we have both of these because the government refused to act when they had the chance to act. I am hugely concerned that this funding is a patch up job, and the funding would simply not have been needed if the government had done its job in the first place.
This is a trend I have identified with this government—they fail to take the right action to start with and then when it all goes bad, as it so often does under this government, they have to run around patching up all the holes. One only has to think of things like the Green Loans or the Home Insulation Program, as a result of which 200 houses were burnt down and which was a real rort. The government create a shocking system and then have to spend all that time fixing up the problems they started.
Someone should point out to the government that, if you take appropriate action to start with, you get the job done right and do not have to spend double the time and money fixing it up later. This government have spent a lot of extra time and money fixing up mistakes, and it has come to be the norm to expect Labor to make very costly mistakes. The set-top box funding announced in this budget is the latest example. The story broke, and not long after the Treasurer had to defend his government's program and promise it would not be rorted like so many other programs under Labor have been.
The issue of dumping in Australia is just the same—the government knew about the problems but failed to act. The Australian Workers Union has been running its own antidumping campaign, and you would think that, given the union's love of the Labor Party and vice versa, the government would listen to the union. However, all the union's boss, Paul Howes, had to say was, 'Go and speak to your local MP about it.' But I can assure you that they have spoken to me, and the government have done nothing. (Time expired)
I thank the House for its consideration for those members who, like myself, are part of the Selection Committee. In speaking to the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011, I say that dumping is defined by Australian Customs as a form of price differentiation whereby goods are exported to Australia at a price that is below the normal value. Dumping also includes the use of export subsidies paid either directly or indirectly to the foreign exporter of goods into Australia, which gives a price advantage to the foreign entity and causes or threatens to cause material injury to an Australian industry, as we heard from the member for Barker. Put simply, antidumping measures apply a temporary import duty on products that are sold in Australia below the cost of production in the country of origin and impose a countervailing duty for subsidised products for the purpose of eliminating the price advantage that gives the foreign supplier that unfair commercial advantage and causes, as we heard earlier, significant damage to or destruction of local production.
Antidumping measures are just one small step in the fight to level the international playing field, which is supposed to be the basis for free international trade. Yet the playing field remains far from level. Many countries around the world provide advantages—including low levels of government regulatory compliance measures, direct subsidies and low labour costs—for their industries. These in turn provide cost advantages for products sold in mature overseas markets such as Australia's, where our local producers are inundated with compliance and cost issues such as the proposed carbon tax, which will add another layer of issues for them.
In this international marketplace, Australia, which produces some of the world's best quality agricultural and food products and manufactured goods, is forced to struggle to compete on price and price alone. This price disadvantage is exacerbated by the Labor government's consistently making compliance more onerous and more expensive for Australian businesses while at the same time making access to our markets easier and cheaper for our competitors. You just need to look at the New Zealand apple imports—the government has said that the compliance burden will rest on those who will profit most from exporting the apples. What a dreadful joke on our Australian growers, especially those in the south-west of Western Australia. They are distraught at this one. This government has an embarrassing record of increasing the cost of doing business in Australia compared to our international competitors. It now proposes to make this worse by imposing, as I said, the carbon tax, which will hit every business that uses power to manufacture its products, and that is almost every business in Australia. They will be less competitive, and that is if they are able to export; they will also be less competitive in our own domestic markets, competing against foreign imports, which will not have that same tax.
Of course, it is really important, as we are an exporting nation, that we are able to compete, and it is important to note that the Labor government has a poor record of defending Australia's borders and maintaining our quarantine and biosecurity. The Beale quarantine and biosecurity review that was commissioned by Labor called for hundreds of millions to be spent on AQIS and quarantine annually just to provide proper and real protection for our nation's borders. Instead of responding to this report, the government has failed to act, except to spend the 2½ years since its release running down the report and stripping out its assets.
This is particularly important in this debate because without price advantage Australian producers and manufacturers have to rely on quality and safety to compete effectively in the marketplace, be that domestic or international. For example, Australian agriculture and food producers rely on our clean, green image of high quality to find and retain markets. Agricultural production in this country drives $155 billion a year in economic production, which is over 12 per cent of GDP, generating around 1.6 million Australian jobs and $32 billion a year in farm exports. In competing with cheaper foreign food products which are underwritten by cheap labour or low quality control and compliance, our producers absolutely rely on our capacity to produce a higher quality, safer and more ethical product. But this is being undermined by the changes that the government is going to make to the import options for these New Zealand apples. We are opening our borders to New Zealand apples and to a whole raft of pests and diseases that we do not have and have never had but that New Zealand has. Around the world, Australian produced food is regarded as safe, clean and green, and it is absolutely critical that we maintain that reputation. That is all we have. However, it is this very reputation that is put at risk by Labor's really incompetent neglect of our nation's border security and biosecurity.
Our worst fears look increasingly likely as the government continues to ignore glaring failures in proactively protecting Australia's shores from pests and diseases. Australian farmers and food manufacturers know that their greatest marketing asset is our virtually disease-free status. That is at risk. For example, the 2009 federal budget took $35.8 million from quarantine and biosecurity budgets, reducing the number of inspections of arriving passengers and cargo and leading to the loss of 125 jobs. More recently, another $58 million was slashed from the Customs budget, leading to 4.7 million fewer air cargo consignments being inspected each year and 2,150 fewer vessels being boarded on arrival. So, if you are a producer, these issues are front and centre in your consideration.
Vets, scientists and other experts in the field know that with such a poor focus on biosecurity and border protection the next major outbreak of an industry-crippling exotic disease, foreign pest or weed incursion is a matter not of if but more of when. They know this because, from what we can see, the aim of Biosecurity Australia is not to prevent the entry of exotic diseases and pests but to minimise the risk of diseases or pests entering with other products. This simple statement means that it becomes a numbers game. Even with low statistical risk, and even if enough product is imported, a breakdown will eventually occur, and this is what is concerning my apple and pear growers in the south-west.
In addition, Australia's status as a premium international tourist destination makes vigilance in pest and disease protection paramount. Our native plants, animals and ecosystems are a major part of the attraction that brings tourists here, and protecting them should be a government priority. Sadly, it is not. We have seen the government fail to quarantine, contain or eradicate the native South American myrtle rust, detected over a year ago, a yellow fungus that attacks a wide range of trees and plants and reduces timber yield by up to 40 per cent. There are now Asian bee incursions. There is the issue of the three tonnes of missing diseased Malaysian prawns and, from two years ago, the still unresolved issue of hamburger meat coming from China, now claimed to be from New Zealand. The bill before the House fails to address any of these important issues. It deals with the need to update the review process so that the minister can revoke an antidumping measure after a review instead of waiting for a five-year sunset period. The bill is a response to the full Federal Court decision in the Minister of State for Home Affairs v Siam Polyethylene Co. Ltd. In that case the court found that, if the parameters that existed to cause an antidumping measure to be initiated no longer exist, then the measure should be removed—that is, the measure should be removed unless the Australian industry or an Australian producer or manufacturer would suffer material injury. It is unfortunate that the court considered the antidumping provisions in isolation and could not consider the greater lack of a level market playing field in coming to its decision; however, that is the role of law-makers in parliament.
The bill also defines the test that the minister must apply in deciding whether to remove the antidumping measure. In this regard the bill may achieve a measure of success. However, it falls short of all of the reforms needed to the Australian customs system. An improvement has been foreshadowed in the Senate which may, in some part, add strength and integrity to the system. In seeking to put the onus of proof onto those seeking to import into Australia, those amendments are an acknowledgement of the potential impacts, including the cost of assessment on Australian industry. But that is only a small step, and the issue that deserves to be debated is the lack of a level playing field for trade. There is no greater acknowledgement of the lack of equity in trade than the failure of the Doha Round to deliver that level playing field for Australian growers and exporters. Professor David Hughes recently said that, taking into account what we consume domestically and those we feed in international markets, Australian farmers today are effectively feeding 60 million people. The global food task is going to increase significantly. The world's projected population growth will be between nine and 10.5 billion by 2050.
So the importance of not only maintaining but growing our agricultural and food production capacity is really quite clear, which is one reason why the cuts to research and development, biosecurity, AQIS and agriculture budgets are so critical. But the government is really quite used to using the agriculture budget as a cash cow—a pretty accurate term. In this budget the government has not provided information on what is going to happen with the funding of research and development. It is really clear that the government places no value on growers, on agriculture or on the nation's food security, food self-sufficiency or those engaged in food manufacturing. This is in direct contrast to many other countries, particularly where they have or have had food shortages, and there is no doubt that other countries view food security as a national security issue.
During a recent visit to my electorate the US Consul General, Aleisha Woodward, talked about the strong relationship between the US and Australia. However, when it came to government subsidies for agriculture, Ms Woodward said, 'I think every country has a challenge in balancing national security issues and free market economics. There are some very powerful companies in the US that argue that a lot of our agriculture is a national security issue, so the government is not willing to let it be completely subject to the forces of the market. And it is still the biggest issue in free trade today.' Perhaps that is the reason that, historically, no foreign developed nation has been, or appears to be, willing to sacrifice their own food manufacturing industries or their own farmers completely in the name of absolute free trade. The President of Uruguay is on record as saying:
… there is no more noble undertaking for mankind than to be engaged in the production of food.
I note that the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, spoke about the surge of business between WA and India, including Perdaman Industries' investment of $3.5 billion in a coal to urea plant in my electorate. The Premier has called for agriculture to be included in any free trade agreement, which is reported to be unlikely because rice and wheat are heavily protected in India. When you look at the website of the Indian Central Board of Excise and Customs, you can see what our Australian growers are up against: meat, chicken, vegetables and fruit have tariffs of 100 per cent or more, wine has 150 per cent, wheat has 100 per cent and rice 70 to 80 per cent. Any reduction or removal of tariffs on agriculture and food products would benefit Australian growers, who have had to operate in very efficient ways in that rarely level international playing field.
I know that the coalition is very active with its antidumping task force and is working at fixing current issues, but I am seriously concerned that the federal government through Biosecurity Australia is putting every south-western apple and pear grower at risk by lowering quarantine standards for New Zealand apples in ports, and is relying on standard farm practices and every backpacker who is actually picking or packing in New Zealand having a good day every day when they are picking or packing fruit. That is the level of scrutiny that will be applied. They will only be inspecting 600 pieces of fruit per consignment, and when you look at the size of a consignment that could be one out of a million apples. And of course the fire blight, the European canker and the leaf-curling midge are really serious issues that we do not have here. At this point the New Zealand practices are confidential on-farm and we cannot access those, so really Biosecurity Australia is outsourcing responsibility for our biosecurity and quarantine risk basically to New Zealand growers. That is of serious concern. No other country accepts quality assurance and management systems as a quarantine measure.
I have very serious concerns. This bill is one small step but I hope that one day we will be able to debate Australia taking a giant trade leap. I have great confidence in the findings and work of the coalition antidumping task force and its findings ahead.
Tonight we have had a number of contributions to the debate on this bill because it is an important bill. It is a measure to ensure we have a better process in place with respect to our antidumping regime. Whilst you could be forgiven for thinking that opposition members are voting against the bill, they are actually voting in favour of the bill without amendment. I thank them for that. Whilst there were contributions that would have given the impression that some of the opposition members thought they had stumbled into the Appropriation Bill debate, the facts are that there is no dissent when it comes to this bill because this bill is a good bill and is responding importantly to improve the effectiveness of the antidumping regime. The government will have more to say on these matters.
I will add one final thing given that the member for Indi chose to speak very broadly on this area of public policy. In the 11½ years of the Howard government there were no changes whatsoever to the antidumping regime, there were no reforms put in place to make it more effective. So what we are dealing with here, if there are changes that may need to be made, is a construct that was not changed one iota by the Howard government.
Having said that, in brief response to some of the broader matters that were raised in this debate, I would like to thank all speakers for their contribution. The Customs Amendment Bill 2011 will clarify the circumstances in which the minister may revoke antidumping measures as a consequence of a review of the measures. The amendments will improve procedural fairness by making the process of applying for a revocation review transparent to all affected parties. The amendments will also give interested parties adequate time to defend their interests and will ensure that investigators have time to consider the issues before reporting to the minister. The amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Customs and Border Protection Service, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and are consistent with Australia's international law obligations. More importantly, the amendments will ensure that where measures have been put in place to address injury faced by Australian industry as a result of unfair trade practices, those measures remain effective.
These amendments have been welcomed by the Australian Workers Union, the CFMEU, the AMWU, the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the Australian Industry Group among others. Australian manufacturers have applauded these amendments because they restore the appropriate balance between the interests of Australian manufacturers and importers by ensuring that measures are not unduly or prematurely revoked.
I commend the bill to the house.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I would like to thank all the members who contributed to the debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 3) Bill 2011. Schedule 1 to this bill provides a 12-month export period for the GST-free supply of recreational boats. This removes a competitive disadvantage that the Australian boating industry faces due to Australia's geography. The distance and sailing conditions between Australian and foreign ports makes it difficult for the boat buyers intending to have an extended sailing holiday before leaving Australia to meet the normal 60-day export requirement under the GST legislation and so purchase the boat GST free. This is easier to do in several other countries. The supply of the boat will be GST free if the boat is exported from Australia within 12 months of delivery. The boat must be a new boat of the kind used for recreational purposes. The boat also must not be used for commercial or financial gain before it is exported.
The measure is in addition to the standard 60-day export period for goods. The schedule applies to contracts entered into on or after 1 July 2011. This measure will assist Australian boat builders to compete in the international market for recreational boats. Regional ports will also benefit as boat buyers are encouraged to take an extended sailing holiday in Australia before leaving with their boats.
Schedule 2 removes the technical deficiency in the tax law and provides for the effective and uninterrupted collection of general interest charges. This ensures that all taxpayers will be subject to general interest charges if they have not paid their income tax or shortfall interest charge liabilities on time. The bill deserves the support of the parliament.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message received from the Administrator recommending appropriation announced.
Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 is a housekeeping bill which comes before the House each year. As the Assistant Treasurer outlined when he introduced this bill just last week, this increases the thresholds in line with the increase in the consumer price index. So in that sense, it is a housekeeping bill. The Assistant Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech that historically this bill has received bipartisan support. It is my happy duty to report to my honourable friends opposite that that remains the case. Throughout our period in government we put this bill with the budget bills, as the Parliamentary Secretary, my friend the member for Blair will know. It is a housekeeping bill to ensure that those thresholds are adjusted for the annual increase in the cost of living. If my memory for these things serves me correctly I know that not everyone will be interested in this but the member for Blair is interested in the detail of these things.
I think the House and the Senate have passed this legislation every year since the introduction of the relevant levies, with the exception of one year, in the early 1990s, when it was not required because inflation was negative. That stuck in my mind because I have been talking on this bill each year. On behalf of the opposition I commend the bill to the House. I thank the parliamentary secretary for thanking me in advance for my contribution and the member for Blair, who I know will speak next and who, no doubt, will be here at the same time next year speaking on the same bill.
I thank the member for Casey for apprising me of the history of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel as if I am crashing your party. I hope that the member Casey and the member for Blair do not mind my making a contribution. Since I was in the Main Committee I thought I would stick around. As the shadow minister has said this is a very straightforward and technical bill but, like all Labor members, I never knock back the chance to speak on a bill relating to Medicare. It is one of our great Labor initiatives—something that we are very proud of as a party and as a government. Medicare is an enduring feature of our social contract in Australia, so any legislation that acts to preserve its integrity in what it is setting out to achieve is important even though it is a fairly simple measure.
Medicare is built on fairness and it is designed to be progressive. It aims to provide universal access to health care funded by a community-wide contribution to meeting the cost of that health care. This bill amends a number of pieces of legislation to increase the thresholds below which low-income earners and pensioners do not have to pay either the Medicare levy or, in some cases, the Medicare surcharge levy. So the bills increase those thresholds to take account of inflation and to make sure that those people who are pensioners or low-income earners who have not paid the Medicare levy in the past will not, by reason of inflation, be liable for it in the coming year.
I commend the bill to the House—the member for Blair is quick off the mark!—and I acknowledge that it has bipartisan support. I think it is worth just reminding the House that this is a measure that is consistent with the government's efforts to assist pensioners and low-income earners with the costs of living. In doing that, and two years on from the landmark budget of 2009, it is worth reminding the House that it was this government—in just our second budget; a budget that was delivered under the shadow of the global financial crisis—that undertook the ambitious $14 billion reform of the pension system. As a result, age pensions have now increased by $128 per fortnight and $116 per fortnight for couples. Those pensions are now indexed every March and September in a more generous and relevant way than they had been in the past.
I just thought it was worth mentioning, as we all join to support this bill, that this is just one more example of this government being in touch with the needs of pensioners and low-income people, taking these sorts of measures that address those cost of living expenses. We will continue to do that in our policies in the years to come.
I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011. As the member for Capricornia and the member for Casey have said, this is quite a technical bill that has the support of both sides of the chamber. Certainly, when the Howard government was in power they did allow adjustments in relation to the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge every year, taking into consideration the CPI, except in 1998 and 1999, where there was a negative movement in the CPI. But I do not think there was a reduction in the surcharge or threshold levels.
As the member for Capricornia said, this legislation certainly allows people of middle- and low-income status not to fall into the trap of paying higher Medicare levies. That is of course important. A Medicare levy is imposed at a flat rate of 1.5 per cent on a person's entire taxable income. However, low-income earners are not liable for the levy and that is consistent with the progressive nature of the income tax assessment legislation.
It has not always been the case that those opposite have supported us in terms of health reform and Medicare. The member for Capricornia talked about the financial aspects for pensioners and low-income earners. I want to talk just for a couple of minutes on the health aspects of Medicare, because Medicare is integral to the health system in this country. Those opposite, as I said, have not always supported Medicare.
Former coalition Prime Minister, John Howard, infamously described Medicare as a rort. Certainly, when the forerunner of Medicare, Medibank, was introduced by the former member for Oxley, the Hon. Bill Hayden, the peak doctors' bodies opposed it tooth and nail and so did the coalition. We are pleased to say that they have now been converted to the cause of Medicare. This is a great Labor initiative of the Hawke and Keating governments. One of the proudest moments in that government's long and illustrious history of economic reform was when Medicare was brought in to help those who were struggling to meet healthcare costs.
But this legislation is part of a whole package, as the member for Capricornia said, in relation to what we are doing to assist low-income earners. Also, let us face it, we are investing massively in terms of health and hospitals in this country, with a 50 per cent increase in health and hospital expenditure, $16.4 billion by 2020; 6,000 more training places for doctors; 425 existing GP practices, including the Flinders Peak Medical Practice in my electorate which will get additional assistance; primary care infrastructure funding; 64 GP superclinics, including the Ipswich GP superclinic in my electorate; 22 regional cancer centres; 44 more specialised breast cancer nursing centres; and 24-hour online assistance to patients who are in need. That online assistance will be rolled out by July 2011.
Only Labor is committed to a public health and hospital system that is viable, world class and that actually cares for the needs of Australians. We have a long history of being committed to Medicare, a long history of being committed to public hospitals and a long history of being committed to helping those in need, the poor, the challenged, the weak, the pensioners and the low-income earners, and Medicare is part of that long history of Labor's commitment to those in need.
I would like to thank all of the members who have taken part in this debate—the members for Casey, Blair, and Capricornia—and note that the members for Casey and Blair are becoming the heavy lifters when it comes to these tax law amendment bills. The Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy and Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 increases the Medicare levy low-income thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the consumer price index. The individual threshold amount is to be increased from $18,488 to $18,839. The level of the family income threshold is to be increased from $31,196 to $31,789. The Medicare levy low-income threshold for pensioners below age pension age is also increased so that individuals in this cohort do not pay the Medicare levy when they do not have a tax liability.
The low-income threshold in the Medicare levy surcharge provisions is similarly increased. This change ensures that a low-income member of a family will continue to be exempt from the Medicare levy and Medicare levy surcharge. The amendments to the Medicare levy low-income thresholds apply to the 2010-11 year of income and later income years. The annual adjustments to the Medicare levy and the Medicare levy surcharge low-income thresholds have enjoyed bipartisan support for over a decade, as the member for Casey indicated. Full details of these measures are in the bill and are also contained in the explanatory memorandum. I would again like to thank all of those who have participated in this debate and commend the bill to the House.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise to speak on behalf of Mr Keenan, the member for Stirling, on the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011, which amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Acts Interpretation Act is an important Commonwealth act that provides general guidance and rules for interpreting all Commonwealth legislation. The bill's explanatory memorandum includes a quote from Australia's first Attorney-General, Alfred Deakin, who said on the second reading of the Acts Interpretation Bill on 6 June 1901, the act:
… is a measure providing for the simplification of the language of Acts of Parliament and the shortening of their terminology. It constitutes in a sense a legal dictionary, particular meanings being assigned by it to particular phrases, which must be used over and over again in almost every Act of Parliament.
The coalition supports the passage of this bill, which aims to modernise the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 by: co-locating the definitions currently scattered throughout the act; placing the act's provisions in a more logical order; providing that an action by a minister other than the minister who is authorised to perform that action is not invalid merely on that basis; inserting a new section to confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that the common law de facto officer doctrine applies, which will ensure that if an officer has been invalidly appointed, acts performed by the officer in that position are not automatically invalidated, a doctrine that was affirmed by the High Court in Cassell v The Queen (2000); specifying that everything in an act as enacted by the parliament should be considered part of an act; allowing meeting participants to be in different locations and to participate using technology such as video conferencing; and adjusting the definition of 'document' to include things like maps, plans, drawings and photographs.
In 1993 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs published a report on the drafting of Commonwealth legislation titled Clearer Commonwealth law. One of the committee's recommendations was that the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel should publicly review and rewrite the Acts Interpretation Act. In response, the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel jointly issued a discussion paper entitled Review of the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 in 1998. Following consultation on the discussion paper, a number of recommendations were made to improve the useability and readability of the Acts Interpretation Act. The member for Sterling would gladly tell you that this Bill is the result of that process and I commend the bill to the House.
I speak in support of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011. The fact that the Acts Interpretation Act was passed in 1901 is an indication of the importance of that legislation since Federation. In the early days we passed some legislation in the House of Representatives and we now look back upon it. In fact I think the first piece of legislation passed in the House of Representatives enshrined what we now call the 'white Australia policy', so we do not think every piece of legislation that was passed in the earliest days was good, but the Acts Interpretation Act certainly was.
The member for Herbert mentioned Alfred Deakin before. I am 100 per cent convinced that in view of his attitudes to social reform and industrial relations if Mr Deakin were here today he would be a member of the Labor Party. I am convinced of it. I do not think he would be a member of the Liberal Party, which is certainly not the party of Deakin, that is for sure. He was a great reformer and a terrific Prime Minister. I think he would have fitted in quite well to the Labor Unity faction of the Australian Labor Party—a moderate reformer I can truly say, but that is another story for another day. Certainly we will have that debate, but I claim Deakin as a forerunner to the Labor Party these days.
This legislation actually makes some changes. It provides general rules for interpretation of all Commonwealth legislation and improves its structure, its readability and its operation. I think that there clearly is a need for legislation you can refer to, because a lot of legislation actually has at about section 4 or 5 an interpretation and definitions section and it does not always cover the nature of definitions that are required. Having one source means that it is easier for parliamentary draftspersons to draft legislation and have everyone know what the true meaning of it is, because it can be found in the Acts Interpretation Act. It is semantic, but it is a really useful interpretation guide. In this regard, clearer laws are very important not just for courts and lawyers but for the general Australian population.
The bill amends the Acts Interpretation Act by co-locating definitions and co-locating other provisions that are not currently in logical order and by modernising concepts that we would not have found in 1901. There are important measures such as the concept allowing participants to be in different locations and to use technology such as videoconferencing. I am convinced that that was not around in 1901! Also, the bill amends the definition of 'document' to include things like maps, plans, drawings and photographs, and certainly photography has come a long way since 1901.
As the member for Herbert said, there is a long history to this. It went through quite a process to get there. The Attorney-General's Department engaged in a lot of consultation. All Commonwealth agencies were actually involved in the process from some years ago. A public exposure of the draft bill was released for consultation on 20 January and 25 February this year. Also, the bill was revised to take into consideration comments from various government departments, a steering committee, representatives from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, the Australian Government Solicitor and a variety of other people. So there was a lot of input into this legislation. It is important because it helps us, and the Australian population, to understand the law. It updates concepts and languages that are important and it decreases the size of the Commonwealth statute book by including general rules and definitions. Anyone who studied the Income Tax Assessment Act, as I did at law school all those years ago, will realise you could have used it as a dumbbell rather than read it, because it was so heavy. I recall the size of it and I understand that it has gotten bigger under successive governments since that time. But we have undertaken the task of making it more modern and improving its readability.
There are significant improvements in this legislation. They will improve the clarity of Commonwealth legislation generally. That is consistent with our commitment to ensure the accessibility of the criminal and civil justice systems of this country to all around the country. We hope that people will have a better understanding of Australian Commonwealth law as a result of the Acts Interpretation Act amendments.
On behalf of the Attorney-General, I thank members for their contribution to the debate. In the 2009-10 financial year, 220 bills, totalling around 9,300 pages, were introduced into this parliament. The number of pages would have been significantly larger if it were not for statutes such as the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which includes common provisions that do not need to be repeated across Commonwealth legislation. These common provisions relate to matters such as the commencement dates of acts, the effect of the repeal of an act, rules about acting appointments, referencing gender, attainment of age, determining distance and time, as well as definitions of readily used terms. Over the years, these provisions have been amended, or new provisions have been added, without particular regard to the overall clarity of this legislation. Many of the provisions also retain the old drafting style of the early to mid-1900s.
The Acts Interpretation Amendment Bill 2011 addresses these issues by comprehensively amending the Acts Interpretation Act to improve its structure, language and application to modern technology. By restructuring this act, the important rules and definitions contained within it are now much easier to find. Simple measures such as co-locating definitions in part II of the act and listing these in alphabetical order increase the usability of the act tenfold. The redrafting of many of the older provisions in plain English will also assist users to understand how these provisions apply to their situation. Importantly, for the 21st century the bill provides that participants of a meeting can be in different locations and can dial in using technology such as Skype and videoconferencing, as the member for Blair indicated. The drafting of these provisions was deliberately broad so as to encompass further technological changes that may occur.
As the Attorney stated when introducing this bill:
Modernisation of one of the first Commonwealth acts will help to reduce the complexity of legislation that has developed since Federation.
Complex legislation makes it difficult, expensive and time consuming for people to understand their legal rights and obligations. This creates burdens for business and restricts access to justice. This bill underlines the government's ongoing commitment to take measures to improve the clarity and accessibility of laws. On behalf of the Attorney-General, I would again like to thank the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the significant time and effort that went into preparing this bill. I would also like to thank the individuals and organisations who made comments on the bill when it was released as an exposure draft earlier this year. Finally, I would like to mention the 1993 report of the House Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Clearer Commonwealth law, which recommended that a public review of the Acts Interpretation Act be undertaken and led to the amendments that are included in this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House express its deep regret at the death on 21 May 2011 of the Honourable Ralph James Dunnet Hunt AO, a Member of this House for the Division of Gwydir from 1969 to 1989, place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
I rise tonight to pay tribute to Ralph James Dunnet Hunt, who was born at Narrabri on 31 March 1928 into a long-established grazing family.
He didn't have a good start then, did he?
No, he did not—he started before the Depression and probably saw a few along the way. Ralph's interest in politics was evidently fostered around the kitchen table, with his father, Claude, being one of the central characters in the formation of the Australian Country Party in northern New South Wales. His initial foray into party politics was during his school years, when he boarded at the Scots College in Sydney. It prompted him to join the then fledgling Liberal Party. But, on his return home, a Country Party representative visited the family farm to encourage Ralph's dad to pull together a local branch. Fortuitously, Claude suggested that Ralph would be just the man for the job, and so began a lifelong commitment to the party. He would have been in his early 20s at that time. Ralph joined the party in 1950 and was on the Central Council of the Country Party of Australia, New South Wales, by 1953. In the same year, he took the chairman's role in the Gwydir Federal Electorate Council—the body for the federal seat. It was a position he held until 1969. Between 1956 and 1968 he served his local community as councillor on the Boomi Shire Council and he also held the position of vice-president of the council between 1962 and 1968. About the same time, between 1964 and 1969, Ralph served as the New South Wales party chairman, and in 1968 and 1969 he served as the federal party chairman. It is unusual for someone to hold those two roles simultaneously.
Also during this time as New South Wales party chairman, he got right behind the idea of establishing the youth wing of the party and worked hard to see it come to fruition. In 1965 the Young Country Party was formed in New South Wales. This was a few years after it had been formed in southern Queensland. In his role as executor of the organisation of the party, you would think that he had taken on enough roles, but in 1969 he contested the by-election for the seat of Gwydir. He won the seat and held it for the next 20 years, until his retirement in 1989.
He was initially appointed Minister for the Interior in the Gorton-Anthony ministry in February 1971 and held that position until the defeat of the government in 1972, with the start of the Whitlam era. That was the period in which I knew him well in a number of capacities. I was active in the Young Country Party and in 1969 I was actually its state president in Queensland. We were agitating to get a seat on the federal council of the party because we knew the youth were going to have to have a voice in the party. To have a role in the decision making, they had to have a voice. So I took off for the federal council meeting as an observer in 1969. I remember typing up the submission in what is now the Hyatt. It was quite an experience for me because, in those days, the giants of the party were Charles Cutler, the education minister and Deputy Premier of New South Wales, and John McEwen—Black Jack McEwen. They were heady days. In fact, I remember the two of them having a fight at that meeting—which Ralph was chairing, of course, as the federal president—about the first money that was going into high school science blocks and libraries. It was the first time this money was moving into the state high school system. I remember the two of them having a blazing row, but when it really got down to their respective arguments, it was all about whether the corridors of the Dubbo High School needed to be 4-foot six or 4-foot nine wide. It was a very interesting introduction to politics under his chairmanship.
At that meeting Ralph said, 'Look, Paul, you can't move that motion because you're not yet a member of the council.' I was feeling quite despondent, having come all that way to present the case. But Kevin Lyons, who was the Deputy Premier of Tasmania and a member of the Centre Party, as they called the Country Party in Tasmania, said to Ralph, 'No, I'll move it.' So I got my day in court, so to speak, to argue the case for the youth party to have a seat on the council. I presented the case but I did not win it. Nevertheless, Ralph was a very fair man. He certainly nurtured a youth movement in politics, initially in New South Wales and then throughout the Commonwealth.
I grew to know him at the time he became minister and at the various state and federal conferences we attended. The second capacity in which I met him was in my home town of Bundaberg. We were going through a bad economic downturn, and it was decided to form a development board—but not one of these flash-in-the-pan ones where you raise a bit of money on the spur of the moment at a meeting one night, you have spent it the next year and then it all fizzles out the year after. In fact, we engaged someone that honourable members would be familiar with, Everald Compton, who in those days had Compton and Associates, which was a fundraising organisation. We decided that, if we were going to have a development board, it was going to be the best in Queensland, so we decided we would raise the money for the first five years so there would be no doubt that the thing would get off to a flying start. But we needed a big launch pad. We needed to impress on the local district how important this new board would be. So we put it to Ralph Hunt, who was the Minister for the Interior at the time; we asked whether he would come up and launch it, and indeed he did. It had the required effect: hundreds of people came on board and it was a model among development boards for many years to come.
Returning to his career, 1972 to 1975 was the Whitlam era, and that was a tough time for all those Country Party members. But, at the end of that period, Malcolm Fraser and Doug Anthony came to office in 1975, and they appointed Ralph Hunt to be Minister for Health. Fraser said to him, 'I've got a good one for you, Ralph: Health and Medibank.' Ralph responded by saying he had never made a speech in parliament on either of those two subjects. 'Good,' replied Fraser. 'Then they can't quote anything back to you.' In December 1979 he was made Minister for Transport, and his portfolio was expanded in 1982 to make him Minister for Transport and Construction. Ralph Hunt oversaw the massive highway development under the famous 3c-per-litre levy on all vehicle fuels. He became deputy leader of the party between 1984 and 1987 and retired from parliament in 1989.
At that point, you would think, Mr Deputy Speaker, he would probably have had enough. He had worked on the land, he had worked in his local council, he had worked in the administration of the party, he had worked in parliament and he had been a minister. You would think he would want to walk away; he had done his bit. I am sure we see in all three major parties in this parliament that there are some people who enjoy the fruits of being part of a party and then, when they come to retirement, they walk away, not doing anything to enhance the role of those who follow them. But not so with Ralph Hunt. His commitment to the party went on, and he served as federal treasurer of the party from 1987 to the year 2000. He was instrumental in the development of our federal secretariat, John McEwen House, and that was at the time a very risky financial move. Ralph and a handful of people really steered the party through that very important phase, which gave the National Party—no longer the Country Party by that stage—a very fine national headquarters.
In 1990 Ralph was made an officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his work in the parliament. Last year, after 60 years of service, at our federal conference we awarded him a rare honour, the Earle Page Medal for Meritorious Service. The Nationals federal president, John Tanner, paid tribute to Ralph's work and legacy over recent days, saying that he would 'be remembered as a tireless servant of the people of regional Australia and a champion of the Nationals'. I can echo those sentiments, because I think a man's worth cannot be gauged just by dates and titles he has held. Ralph was much more than that. He was a farmer. He was a worker. He was a much-loved family man, a good husband to Mim—whom he married in 1953—and a wonderful father to his three children. On behalf of my family, my colleagues and the party itself I offer my sincere condolences to Ralph's family and hope they realise the incredible impact he had. He was more than just a participant; he was a champion, and I salute him.
It is indeed a great honour for me to be speaking here tonight on this condolence motion in memory of the life of the Hon. Ralph Hunt. I will not go into the detail in the House. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition very eloquently went through Ralph's accomplishments, and my colleague the member for Hinkler has done a very fine job of that.
Ralph Hunt represented the seat of Gwydir, which was abolished in 2007. The former seat of Gwydir fits wholly and solely inside the seat of Parkes, so I am now representing the same area of New South Wales that Ralph did. My recollections of my earlier years are entirely of Ralph Hunt being the member for 20 years, from my time in primary school until the first time I ever voted in a federal election. I am proud to say that I voted for Ralph Hunt. Following Ralph Hunt and his successor John Anderson in this place means that sometimes I have to pinch myself to realise I am in the role that they had. My memory of Ralph Hunt from when I was growing up was of someone who was very much respected, someone who was considered a true champion for the area that he represented. To find myself in that same position is a very humbling experience.
Ralph's road to federal parliament was not dissimilar to my own. He started off his public life as a councillor of Boomi Shire Council and he was also the chairman of the Gwydir Electorate Council. I am very proud to say that I was also a shire councillor and chairman of the Gwydir Electorate Council before I came to this place. Ralph was very much loved and adored by nearly everyone he represented, except probably the owners of hire car companies. He had a fearsome reputation of being a very fast driver on what can only be described as substandard roads. I know that when Ralph retired the hire car firm in Moree heaved a sigh of relief that he would no longer be knocking their vehicles around to the extent that he had. Ralph Hunt spent a large part of his life living on the farm property Dunumbral, which is between Lightning Ridge and Collarenebri and quite an isolated place. To represent an area the size that he did pre mobile phones, pre internet and pre computers was a remarkable achievement. To be the deputy leader of a party and a cabinet minister from a property at Collarenebri was a remarkable achievement.
Ralph rose to great heights in this place, being a minister in two different governments. He was also a great champion of the Country Party and later the National Party and a very much loved member of the north-west of New South Wales. I would like to express my sincere condolences to Mim and Ralph's family, including Ralph's brother John, who now lives at Narrabri. I know him quite well. As the current member for Parkes, formerly Gwydir, I would like to pay my respects.
Anybody who does not like the fact that I am in parliament or wishes that I were not here will need to blame Ralph Hunt. I knew Ralph Hunt, but I did not know him at all well until after he had left politics, and then I got to know him very well indeed. Ralph was somebody who put his money where his mouth was. After 20 years in politics and, as you have heard from other people, a very full life otherwise in local government and various other things, Ralph did a lot of things for which he got no recompense, and probably no recognition, but he did them because he believed that he should. When Ian Causley, a former member of the federal parliament, was Minister for Lands in New South Wales back in the early 1990s he formed the Western Lands Advisory Board, and he asked Ralph to chair it. Ralph did that and I was one of the first members on it. For the next few years I got to know an absolute gentleman very well.
As my leader, the member for Wide Bay, said yesterday during the condolence motion, Ralph was one of nature's gentlemen. He was a gentleman in politics. He was very tough but he was a gentleman at all times. He just believed that he had a duty to help agriculture and he had a duty to help people. He chaired a western lands board but he had never owned land in the western lands. He had certainly been the member for a lot of the western division in New South Wales. In fact, I remember Ralph telling me that when Bourke was added to the seat of Gwydir the then mayor of Bourke took him into one of the hotels. He said: 'I'm trying to make the right impression, as you do. This big chap walked up, said something to the mayor and the mayor king hit him, and bang, he went out like a light.' Ralph said he thought to himself: 'This is not going to be a good look. Front page: "Candidate for Gwydir involved in brawl,"' at a particular hotel in Bourke. He said: 'Everybody in the pub yelled out, ''Good on you, Wally, the bloke deserved it,'' and so we were heroes.'
Ralph was one of nature's gentlemen and a lovely man. Ralph was actually a redhead, but I guess he had lost most of his red hair when we knew him. But the red hair was as true on him as it is on most redheads: he certainly could get stirred up. I knew a couple of blokes who went to school with him at Scots in Sydney and they said that the red hair belonged on him. He was a tough bloke, even though he was a gentleman.
More than anything, the more I got to know Ralph the more I thought, 'Whatever parliament does, it must make you aware of everybody you look after and are responsible for.' We had an awful lot of fun, and he taught me a heck of a lot about the side of politics that is not talked about very much, about how people in politics can be of different persuasions but still be very good friends, as rigorous as it might get. Even with somebody like Ralph, who you might think everything went well for, he and Mim had issues. I do not mean between them, but they had family issues and things they had to deal with that would have put stress upon anybody, and they dealt with them magnificently. Their children would go through hell and back for them, pretty much as they did for one another and for their family.
For the National Party I guess Ralph was—to use a Labor saying—a 'true believer'. He did a lot towards McEwen House. He and Doug Anthony were very good mates. Ralph would be on the phone and would be talking to Doug and they would be trying to coerce someone to do something. It would not matter much who it was for and Ralph would say, 'I rang him last time, Doug; it's your turn to ring this time and stir him up and get him going.' As time goes on, you always think that it was simpler before you. But they had very clear lines of demarcation, if I can put it that way. They stood by one another. He and Peter Nixon and Ian Sinclair were a very tough and motivated crew. They all worked together. They worked with the Liberals very well. I would like to think that Mim knew how much we all appreciated everything Ralph did for the Australian parliament, for the coalition and for the National Party. He gave his heart and soul to it. After he left—after he walked away from this place—he still gave his heart and soul to the people he had represented for all those years. He still did things that the rest of us hope to do after we leave here. He was a very unselfish man and I am very proud to have known him.
Ralph James Dunnet Hunt was a man who built up his outstanding reputation through dedication and hard work but most of all his sense of staying true to himself and his country values. A farmer and grazier, Mr Hunt served on the Boomi Shire Council on the Moree Plains from 1956 to 1968 and, after the retirement of Ian Allan in 1969, served in the House of Representatives from 7 June 1969 until his retirement on 24 February 1989. Mr Hunt originally started out in the Country Party, which then became the National Country Party in 1975, before broadening to the National Party of Australia in 1982.
In Mr Hunt's inaugural speech on 21 August 1969 he declared that he joined the party to lend his support to the sound national policies of this committee but also to help ensure that those who live outside the great metropolitan areas of this country enjoy their full share of this new and exciting era of development and prosperity. This was an exciting time for Mr Hunt and for his electorate of Gwydir, a Federation seat. He was to represent his electorate with an agricultural background which was vast. He served it with distinction and honour for more than two decades, with the clear objective to see that those regional areas were helped so that they would make an increasing contribution to an even greater nation in the future. This is the attitude of a man of integrity, an attitude that flows through the roots of the entire National Party. His passion for and commitment to regional Australia is what makes me proud to be a Nationals member following in his footsteps.
Mr Hunt held four portfolios while serving in the House of Representatives. From 1971 to 1972, he was the Minister for the Interior. From 1975 to 1979, he was Minister for Health. From 1979 to 1982, he was Minister for Transport. From 1982 to 1983, he was Minister for Transport and Construction. He continued a high standard as Deputy Leader of the Nationals and that benchmark has been emulated by all of those who have followed: Bruce Lloyd, John Anderson, Mark Vaile, Warren Truss and now Senator Nigel Scullion.
However, what saddens me is that the amount of dedication and energy that one man put into regional Australia is sometimes ignored today. One of Mr Hunt's greatest passions was equality and fairness for country students, things that are not always achieved in the present. Hailing from a farming background, Mr Hunt knew the importance of advanced education in rural areas not only for the men and women living in towns but for the ones who decided to go back and manage their properties. While there has been a great leap in rural education since 1969, with more colleges, universities and schools opening in regional Australia, there is still a large education barrier dividing regional and metropolitan students.
Here are the words of Mr Hunt's successor in Gwydir, John Anderson: 'From the night of 21 August 1969 there followed all but 20 years of dedicated service to the people of Gwydir and to the people of this nation. I am constantly reminded, both in this place and at home in the electorate, of the regard in which he was held and the thankfulness which people feel for the contribution that he made'. At this time, the Nationals in particular extend our deepest sympathy to Ralph's wife Miriam and their three children. His family was his greatest achievement. I thank them for giving our party so much of Ralph's wonderful life. Ralph's energy for and commitment to public life, to the Nationals and to regional Australia will be evident for years to come. His legacy will be long lasting. May he rest in peace.
As a mark of respect, I invite honourable members to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
Debate adjourned.
I move:
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
I rise to speak on the report School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia. By way of background to the report, notifications announcing the establishment of the inquiry were made on 18 March 2010 for the 42nd parliament and on 25 November 2010 for the 43rd parliament. Through the committee's website and the Australian, the inquiry was advertised to the public. As a consequence, a total of 386 submissions and nine supplementary submissions were received from a variety of sources, including individuals, education departments, schools, teachers and community groups.
The inquiry offered relevant stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the contribution made by school libraries and teacher librarians to education in Australia as well as to examine what else might be done to increase their value. This report is the result of both the submissions and the evidence gathered for the inquiry into school libraries and teacher librarians in the last parliament.
On 23 May 2011 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, of which I am a member, tabled its report. The library and information management sector has for some time now called for an inquiry such as this so that the work of school libraries and teacher librarians could be reviewed. I note particularly the positive role the inquiry and report have made in raising the often unassuming and understated role of teacher librarians and the constructive contributions they make to our education system. Having said that, I share the concern of my colleague and deputy chair of the committee, the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, that teacher librarians are probably not as valued by schools as an educational source as much as they should be—although I do note that, anecdotally, teacher librarians are more likely to be given higher seniority when the schools are more engaged with their librarians.
There is a widespread lack of understanding about the role of a teacher librarian, not only within schools but also in the broader community. A New South Wales teacher librarian stated to the inquiry:
Students and teachers expect to be able to select and use resources in a library but have no idea of the time and effort it takes to develop and maintain a library collection. Many primary school parents are surprised to learn that the teacher librarian actually teaches their children.
I will now briefly discuss some of the recommendations set out in the report. Eleven recommendations were made, revolving around four central areas: the impact of recent Commonwealth government policies and investments on school libraries; the potential of school libraries and librarians to contribute to improved educational and community outcomes; the recruitment and development of teacher librarians; and partnering and supporting school libraries and teacher librarians.
The important role the internet and online technology now plays in educating our children in the 21st century was recognised, and it was recommended that a discrete national policy statement be developed with cooperation from the Commonwealth government and the states and territories. This statement will define the importance of digital and information literacy for learning and will be an effective guide for our educators. It was also recommended that all Australian schools have access to online database resources through Commonwealth funded partnerships with education authorities. Emphasis was also placed on the need for the Commonwealth government to provide support for the promotion of reading as well as an assessment and study of the links between library programs and student literacy achievements. It was also recommended that a component of training for teacher librarians should be included in the rollout of the new national curriculum. Having met with nearly all of the principals, headmasters and heads of school from both independent and state schools in McPherson, I know that this would be something that they would most likely support.
A further recommendation was made that the Commonwealth government, through the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood and Youth Affairs, discuss ways to enhance partnerships with the state, territory and local levels of government to support school libraries and teacher librarians. The report demonstrates a clear theme that centres on the promotion of improved federal, state and local government relations to support school libraries and teacher librarians. This has been a theme in discussions that I have had with educational leaders in my electorate of McPherson.
Soon after my election, I took the opportunity to convene a meeting with most of the lead educators in McPherson. The consistent issue raised by those educators was the need for increased support, certainty and uniformity from all levels of government. This view is relevant not only to teacher librarians but to a range of education issues. At a local level, I have seen the wonderful work done by teacher librarians as they work directly with students and I will continue to support the schools in McPherson and especially the teachers, principals, headmasters, heads of school, students and teacher librarians.
I also rise to speak on the School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia report. I would like to make some brief comments in relation to it. Like the previous speaker, the member for McPherson, I was not a member of the primary committee that did most of the work in this area, a committee in the 42nd parliament. We, the present House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, took most of their work and the findings of their inquiry and finetuned it. The purpose of the inquiry was to look into and report on the role, adequacy and resourcing of school libraries and teacher librarians in Australia's public and private schools. Specifically, the committee was to focus on the impact of recent policies, the future potential of school librarians and the factors influencing the school librarian workforce.
While libraries are just a small component in some respects of a school, the report was quite timely, because school libraries—indeed, libraries in general—are going through a period of fundamental change due to rapid technological advances. When we went to school, all of the information was contained physically at the library, and that is where you went. Maybe it was a little bit different for the member for Longman, who is sitting behind me in this chamber, but when I went to school that was the case. But these days a lot of the information is indeed online. Certainly at the secondary school level, in doing research projects and the like, students are searching online for their information and so do not necessarily have to go to the physical location of the library to find that information. And it is similar even at the primary school level. Increasingly, primary school students are accessing information through online media. That changes the fundamental nature, purpose, role, structure and staffing of libraries. So the report was timely in that regard in that it could examine a lot of those issues and determine therefore what the right policy responses should be to support the evolving nature of the school library.
I should point out, of course, that the federal role in school libraries is quite a small one. The federal parliament has no jurisdiction over employing librarians, it does not manage the schools, it does not allocate the resources as such—they are all the role of state and territory governments, in the case of state schools, and non-government authorities or non-government individual school principals in the case of the independents and Catholic school sectors. So we have to bear that in mind that, in terms of the recommendations which were made in this report. We cannot be overly prescriptive in the recommendations made, and can really only provide some high-level policy overview and some guidance rather than detailed prescriptions, which are rightly left in the hands of the school authorities or the school principals themselves.
Some of the issues which did arise in this particular report—you should see them if you just pick up a copy of the report and scan through it—included accessing the databases of resources, which of course is a very important thing, and not all libraries are equal in that capacity; different libraries have a different number of resources to be able to purchase the databases which the students are relying upon.
The issue of cyber-safety arose, inevitably, and that is an issue that arises in almost every single school setting. It is certainly something that I hear in my electorate from parents, teachers and school principals. There were issues around technical support for teacher-librarians, and how that is provided these days. There were additional issues that came up through the inquiry about the status of librarians these days, and how arguably that has declined—and therefore how that contributes to fewer applicants applying to be librarians, it contributes to retention issues et cetera. Indeed, it was even pointed out in the inquiry by a number of submitters who said that there is a bit of a vicious circle as well—if you do not have enough senior librarians and senior staff to then be able to train more junior librarians, you start to be faced with a real issue.
So this particular committee, as I said, was largely the work of the 42nd parliament rather than the committee which I was part of in the 43rd parliament, but we did agree to a number of recommendations. They were largely established in the earlier parliament but we also agreed to them. They picked up some of the issues which I have just outlined. Probably the most important recommendation I would highlight is the first recommendation, which is to fund the provision of a core set of online database resources which are made available to all Australian schools. The rationale, really, for the Commonwealth to be involved in doing that was a belief by the committee that there would be economies of scale to be had by the Commonwealth being bulk-purchasers, if you like, of those databases. My natural inclination would be to leave it to the individual school principals to determine what databases they want, but I think there is some justification in this instance from a purchasing-power perspective.
Recommendation 2 was to develop a discrete national policy statement that defines the importance of digital and information literacy et cetera, which of course is relatively straightforward. It makes recommendations around the Commonwealth government initiating an Australian based longitudinal study into the links between library programs, literacy and student achievement. Again, it seems sensible to do further research into this to fully understand what the impact is on students' achievements. There are also some recommendations around the teacher-library workforce, in terms of doing some further research to understand what the gaps are and what additional training is needed. Finally there were some recommendations which concerned partnering relationships in terms of encouraging individual schools to partner with other schools and indeed for partnerships between states and territories to share learnings and best practice. Again, I think that is good common sense. Hopefully that would occur without necessarily the recommendation of a parliamentary inquiry to make it happen.
Let me conclude by reiterating the importance of the school library despite the changes that we see in today's school environment and despite the changes that we see in the broader community with the advent of technology. The library itself may have changed in terms of its focus and the technology and skills required; nevertheless it still has a very important place in Australia's schools. Hopefully the recommendations arising from this inquiry will further enhance the importance of school libraries in Australia's school systems.
I want to take the opportunity to welcome the report School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia produced by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment given that I was the chair of the former House Standing Committee on Education and Training, which originally commenced the inquiry in the previous parliament. I was very pleased that post the election the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth asked the new committee to continue with the work of the previous committee and to produce this report. I commend the chair, Amanda Rishworth, the member for Kingston, for the work that has been done and all members of the committee in following up and producing this final report. I do so in particular because the issue was originally brought to my attention as a result of an online petition that had been running amongst teacher librarians. They were particularly concerned about the fact that in the digital age, for some reason—I think we gathered a lot of evidence that is reflected in this report about why this was happening—people were coming to the view that teacher librarians were not necessary in schools, where in fact quite the opposite could well be argued to be true. With the depth, complexity and breadth of information available to young people today, they need an experienced navigator more than ever to assist them in assessing the source, the legitimacy and the value of information that they are accessing, in particular, online. It was something that, particularly as a former teacher, caught my attention. We sought a reference from the minister, the current Prime Minister, and undertook to do a study into the matter.
As previous speakers have said, the Commonwealth is not the direct employing authority, so some of the issues that particularly exercise teacher librarians around staffing formulas used in the provision of their expertise in schools are directly matters for employing authorities. In the quality agenda in terms of school leadership and digital education that the Commonwealth was involved in, there may well be some useful actions that we could take in order to provide national leadership on the issue of teacher librarians and the resourcing of school libraries. I commend the work in this report and hope that the government takes up every one of the recommendations and pursues them. The importance of this issue is reflected in a quote on page 36 of the report:
Each day we are inundated with vast amount of information [through television, radio and an immense array of online resources]. Though we may know how to find the information we need, we must also know how to evaluate it … This new type of literacy requires competency with communication technologies, including computers and mobile devices that can help in our day-to-day decision-making.
That is a quote from President Obama's proclamation of a digital literacy awareness month in October 2009, where he was emphasising the importance for all Americans to be adept in effectively navigating the information age. I think that there is a profound argument, which is made in this report and was brought to the attention of the committee by teacher librarians across the nation, about the significance of full digital citizenship, full participation in the digital age, enabling all of our students to manage this sort of information. I think there are real threats if we do not get on top of this. Cyberbullying, as some of the previous members have talked about, is an emerging issue that is very much at the forefront of the minds of educators and parents. But, more broadly, digital citizenship is an important issue that all young people are going to have to come to terms with. There are, for example, the privacy implications of digital participation. With the posting of photographs on social websites, the exposure of personal information will exist in that environment for a lifetime. All of these conversations are occurring now.
It is important to acknowledge that the dual qualification of a teacher librarian—the teaching qualification, which helps them to understand the pedagogy, the curriculum and the developmental issues with the young people that they are working with, combined with the library qualification, which gives them the expertise in information management and assessment—is a unique combination that is invaluable in a school. We could see, when we took evidence from some of the more well-to-do private schools, that, where they had the capacity, they were investing in these resources in very significant ways. The teacher librarian leadership in their libraries was in fact part of the school leadership and was developing the schools' digital policies, digital citizenship policies and education programs. Teacher librarians across all sectors were very keen to take up the new responsibilities and to play a greater role in their schools in this way.
There is much in this story of their involvement that should be shared. We found in some states—and it is identified in the report that a couple of states did not give evidence to the committee, although most did—that there was a very sad depletion in the numbers of teacher librarians. They were down to what you might call critical mass if you were looking at figures for the survival of a species. They were really, really low numbers. If you have gone through as the leader of the school never having had the value of a teacher librarian, then, not surprisingly, you are unlikely to seek that out and value it. And yet all the international evidence, including the Lonsdale report in Australia, backs up the argument that there is a direct link between a fully resourced library with a qualified teacher librarian working in it and improved literacy and numeracy results in a school. If more people in school leadership roles were aware of this evidence, they would be more likely to seek out and to utilise more effectively their teacher librarians. I think it is a real asset that we should be looking not only to maximise but to expand.
I am encouraged by the fact that the member for Kingston, as chair of the committee, reports that there has actually been increased enrolment in teacher librarian courses at universities this year. Some of that may have been as a result of the conversations that occurred as this inquiry took place, raising the awareness.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to challenge some of the evidence that was given to us, when I was chairing the committee, that all teachers would do this and therefore there was no requirement to have a specialist in the school. As a former history teacher, I am acutely aware of the importance of resources. I am also acutely aware of the multiple pressures on the time of a classroom teacher. The thought that you would say to a history teacher in my day, 'There are a thousand text books published in this particular topic; go out and have a look at them and work out what is most appropriate for your curriculum,' is ridiculous. The average classroom teacher does not have the time or capacity to engage in that way. The teacher librarian is a specialist who does that for you and provides good quality resources for your classroom. It is a tremendous partnership that I relied on on many occasions. I think it is very short-sighted of education authorities to think that this role can just be subsumed into the classroom teacher's role. I would challenge them to have another look at what the evidence actually shows about the importance of the teacher librarian.
I want to commend the recommendation around the provision of at least a base level of online resources to schools. Schools reported to us widely variant amounts of resources that they had available to purchase products for their libraries. It is important that we keep books, that we keep reading and that we keep the love of literacy, but it is also important that we keep good quality based resources available online. I think that this is a good proposal.
Finally, because I did not have a chance in the former parliament, I also want to acknowledge the work of the secretariat: Glenn Worthington, the secretary; Justin Baker, the inquiry secretary; Ray Knight, a senior researcher who I worked with; and Daniel Miletic and Tarran Snape. They are not my committee secretariat anymore, but they were a fantastic group who did tremendous work. It is certainly reflected in the support that they have given to the current committee and I absolutely commend the recommendations in this report to the government. I look forward to seeing some action come out of all the work and the commitment of teacher-librarians who gave us evidence across the nation.
I rise to welcome the document too. As a new member of the parliament I did not get to be a participant in all of the hearings. But certainly, in the early part of my parliamentary career the latter part of this report was pulled together and I had the opportunity to hear some evidence from some key participants in the field of teacher-librarianship. I acknowledge the previous speaker, the member for Cunningham, and I come to this assessment of the inquiry and its report from the point of view of being a teacher myself. I have never been a librarian and I have always held them in great esteem. The access that teacher-librarians have provided for my own children in the primary context has been a transformational learning experience.
A teacher-librarian is an amazing asset to any school. Teachers have a curriculum to contend with. They have their own pedagogy to continue to work on. As the member for Cunningham has indicated, the capacity to be across the entire range of articles that are available, the entire range of resources that are available for your field and the entire range of literature that is available for your own students—particularly for me looking at it from that point of view as an English teacher—is simply impossible without an outstanding teacher-librarian. I think of my own experiences of how different the experiences were in the primary school setting, the secondary school setting and then the tertiary setting, not only because of the developmental differences that need to be addressed in those different contexts but also because of the different needs of students at those different points.
Being able to access your teacher-librarian outside of the classroom—during recess, at lunchtime, and before and after school—can become transformational learning moments for young people in school. I recall, very fondly, a teacher-librarian who worked at my school during my secondary schooling. As the eldest of six children I can say that our house was a very busy place. In the weekend leading up to the HSC she gave me access to the library so I had a bit of quiet time and a bit of space and access to the books on the shelves to do my final preparation. I am forever grateful to Miss White for giving me that opportunity. Sadly, for a whole generation of young Australians the role of teacher-librarian has become an indication of a crisis in staffing capacity.
I want to address the recommendations of the report in particular. There are five core recommendations. The first section relates to the impact of recent Commonwealth government policies and investments in school libraries. Recommendation 1 is particularly important at this time because it recommends that the Commonwealth government partner with all educational authorities to fund the provision of a core set of online databases which would then be made available to all Australian schools. Of course, books remain a very important part of what a library offers and many debates in many parts of academia and the general community abound about the difference between books and digital information. I note the digital engagement of my two colleagues in the chamber at the moment. We want information. We want to access information and we know that the digital world is out there. How then can we as Australian educators resile from the responsibility to make sure that excellent data access is available to those people in our schools who need to learn about how to responsibly use digital information? The capacity to interact with databases and high-quality academic literature is a very important element of preparing our senior students in secondary schooling to take on the breadth of information that is out there in the world and to be able to make very careful, informed decisions about the quality of the types of articles they are reading. To be able to do that before you get to university really enhances your learning as a student in the later parts of your senior secondary education. It also certainly sets you on the right path for engaging with that digital literacy in the tertiary context.
The second recommendation that comes under the impact statement is regarding the work that needs to be undertaken with the states and territories to develop a discrete national policy statement that defines the importance of digital and information literacy for learning in the 21st century. This needs to be used as a tool to guide teachers and principals on the centrality of deciding how we use resources in schools, how funds are allocated to and for learning in a digital way with the librarian and through a library or how they might be allocated to other things. Without a framework that articulates the importance and the centrality of our teacher librarians and the work that they do, they become extremely vulnerable. That is what we found in the inquiry. Although I only heard the end of the inquiry, certainly that remained the case as the inquiry closed.
The second section dealt with the potential of school libraries and librarians to contribute to improved community educational outcomes. This really goes without saying. The reality is that teacher librarians bring a special set of skills and competencies to any school community. They are an asset to the local community, who have come to use the library in many situations. Right now in Spencer on the Central Coast a community school library is being constructed with funds from the Building the Education Revolution. I also want to note in my own electorate the amazing facility that the Central Coast Grammar School have built. The access that they provide for the community to that resource is a fantastic thing. The teacher librarians were an absolutely vibrant part of the conversation about how that physical space could be shaped and also how that space could be used most effectively for the students.
One of the other critical recommendations that I want to address in the time that I have remaining regards perhaps the core issue that triggered this report, and that is the issue of recruitment and development of teacher librarians. As the member for Cunningham expressed in her speech just a few moments ago, we have hit a point where we have lost so many teacher librarians that they are nearly extinct. There are many reasons we could explore for the reality we currently face, but the reality of the future is what we need to be focused on. That is why this report offers us some very important signposts for the way we proceed.
One of the things that needs to be addressed is the reality of some teachers returning to work from periods of time where they may have been unwell, and instead of being supported adequately, they are simply farmed off to the library, which positions the library as a mere adjunct, something perhaps much less important than what happens in the classrooms. We have heard comments that the perception that teacher librarians do not make a significant contribution has actually become alive and well in some of our schools. It is hard to believe that we could have reached this point in an age when we talk about literacy so frequently and openly. And the multiplicity of literacy that we need to acquire demands that we have even more skilled teacher librarians than has been the case in the past. Instead, a number of principals have told me that they put the worst teachers in the library because that is where they will do the least damage. There can be no possible way that it would ever be okay, not only for the students but for the teacher themselves, to put a poor teacher—a teacher who is struggling in any situation where they are interacting with young people—in that situation, regardless of whether they are delivering a curriculum or delivering critical digital literacy, critical thinking and critical support for students in a teacher-librarian context inside a library. This goes to the heart of the professionalism that is required. The professionalism of the teacher librarians that I, along with my colleagues on the committee, took evidence from was absolutely outstanding. They deeply understand what a teacher librarian can bring to learning and to life outcomes for young people.
I definitely commend the report to the House and I look forward to the minister's action in this area.
I would like to start off by thanking the member for Robertson for a very good speech, which went to the depth of the report. She has really expanded on a lot of the issues in it. The committee inquiry went for a long time. I have had the benefit of being in both the last parliament and the present one, but the member for Robertson had to start about three-quarters of the way through the inquiry, and I think she has truly grasped the gist of it.
As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training in the 42nd Parliament, which commenced this inquiry, and a member of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment in the 43rd parliament, which concluded the report, I have no hesitation in commending the report to the House. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of the member for Cunningham, Sharon Bird, for her work in chairing the committee in the 42nd Parliament and the work of the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, for her work in chairing the committee and in concluding the report in the 43rd Parliament. Although the terms of reference at first glance may seem quite limiting, this was one of those inquiries where the more questions were asked the wider our scope seemed to get. Because of the change of parliament, the inquiry actually went longer than planned. But I am very pleased, standing here tonight, to be able to say that we completed the job we were given, and I think the committee as a whole completed it very well.
The inquiry's schedule for hearings took us to every state and territory. There are vast differences between the state and territory systems, which we saw in our travels and heard about from witnesses. No two states or territories were the same but, having said that, there was nowhere that I would give a pass mark to. Everywhere we travelled we heard of the problems of teacher librarians in the system and with the resourcing of libraries, and in most cases it was a long-term trend that was heading down.
There were exceptions, however. I found the exceptions quite surprising, but on reflection they are probably not. We found that private sector schools overall greatly valued teacher librarians and used teacher librarians as a selling point to attract parents to their schools. It was a fairly simple argument that they put to us, and it came from many sources: having teacher librarians in our schools improves our results. I do not doubt that. Having heard from so many teacher librarians, their associations and various other groups during the inquiry, and seeing international evidence as well, this issue came up time and time again. Whereas some state systems were inclined to use teacher librarians as relief staff if a teacher was sick or could not attend class for some reason, that certainly was not the case in the evidence that we heard from the private schools. As a better qualified person than a 'standard' qualified teacher, if that is the right description, the teacher librarian has knowledge above and beyond, and to be put into a position where you can be called away from your job at any time to go and mind a class because someone is not available really undervalues the profession. I would also like to say that we took some very good evidence from the various professional associations. One thing I would really like to highlight in my time here is the summation of what a teacher librarian does, because many people do not quite understand. They think, 'A teacher, a librarian—maybe it's someone who files the books.' That really undervalues the profession in a huge way. The summation of what a teacher librarian does I will leave to the words of the Australian Library and Information Association. I think they got it quite right in their submission to the inquiry. What they said was:
Teacher librarians support and implement the vision of their school communities through advocating and building effective library and information services and programs that contribute to the development of lifelong learners …
The teacher librarian is both an educator and an information manager with integrated understandings from both areas. Professional staff qualified in teacher education and librarianship (teacher librarians) are responsible for both shaping and reflecting the school’s objectives with respect to library and information programs and services.
As an integral partner in the school’s teaching and learning team, the teacher librarian has a role in the planning, implementation and evaluation of education policies, curricula, learning outcomes and programs, with particular reference to the development of learners’ research and information literacies.
I think the key words in those few paragraphs are 'information literacies'.
As we conducted the inquiry, it became more and more apparent that the way many schools teach has changed rapidly in recent years. Information literacy now includes the digital world. We found too often that it was taken for granted that teachers and their students would know by instinct how to research on the internet. We heard large amounts of evidence as to why this was not the case. It was very interesting to hear that in many cases the role of a teacher librarian directly suited the role of a digital gatekeeper for information. I must say, I had not thought of that at the start of the inquiry, but by the end of the inquiry I was quite convinced that this is a new and expanded role for teacher librarians. It probably builds the case more than ever for having teacher librarians in greater numbers in as many schools as possible. There will always be the small schools that have only two dozen students where it is not going to be feasible to have a full-time teacher librarian, but there are many schools of hundreds or a thousand plus students where it should be an absolute necessity. The report certainly goes into some of those areas and the reasons why.
Talking of digital literacy, I have a school in my own electorate, Ringwood Secondary College, which did something that was at the time fairly new. It has caught on so quickly it is not notable anymore. In 2010 all 300 of their year 7 students were required to have an iPad instead of textbooks. From memory, I think they actually had one textbook and everything else was on the iPad. That is a 300-strong army of iPads, if you like, that need looking after from the school's point of view as well as the student's—someone to guide what goes on and how they are used. That is not going to happen without someone who has knowledge and understanding of where the information comes from. That was in 2010, and I note that in 2011 there are many schools in my local area that now have iPads as part of their school equipment. I am sure that in the next couple of years it will become a very standard item. It is good from the student's point of view—they do not have to carry around a schoolbag with a dozen or so textbooks in it—and it is good from the school's point of view because they can update texts as they go through the year. That is one of the great points going forward where teacher librarians can be a real asset to any school. There are, of course, many other things that they do, and I am not going to go over everything that is recommended in the report. I thoroughly agree with all 11 recommendations in the report, and I certainly recommend that report for reading by the wider public and especially the education sector.
Further to that, we heard a lot about access to online libraries and the price that schools had to pay to be able to do that. In many cases it was quite an exorbitant fee for not a whole lot of use. We heard evidence that school libraries could spend 25 per cent of their budget subscribing to an online database, and you cannot expect many schools to do that. There is a resource called Electronic Resources Australia that offers a very wide range of data and can be accessed across all schools. I think one of the key recommendations of the report was that governments at both levels put money and resources into allowing schools to be able to access that at a bulk rate as cheaply as possible. I commend the report to the House.
It is certainly my pleasure to stand and support this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, titled School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia. The member for Deakin and I were both members of the committee in the previous parliament, which commenced this inquiry, and I want to acknowledge the chair of that committee in the previous parliament, the member for Cunningham, who I know has spoken on this report. I also want to acknowledge the contributions of the member for Kingston, who is now the chair of the education and employment committee, and also the member for Robertson. I know all of these people are extremely passionate about education. This was a comprehensive inquiry. It received hundreds of submissions from teacher librarians across Australia to give evidence, and teacher librarians appeared in hearings in each state and territory. It just shows the importance of this issue to education.
The federal Labor government has made a strong commitment to investing in education. We have built, and continue to build, new libraries and resource centres, and we refurbish existing libraries and resource centres in every single primary school across this country. I have seen the benefits that have flowed from those facilities across the primary schools in the electorate of Petrie. What these facilities do is provide opportunities. It is what happens inside these facilities that is so important. That is where the learning truly happens. If we are going to optimise those opportunities, get the most from them and provide the best possible education for our children, we need to make sure that we have the skilled teachers to be able to utilise those facilities and work not just with the children but with their peers and the whole school community.
That is what we heard through this inquiry. We heard examples of teacher librarians who are working so closely with their school communities and with their principals. They are not just the teacher librarian; they are the head of curriculum. They are on the key body within the school to decide how that education is rolled out across all of the various curricula. Then we heard the examples where the teacher librarian has really become a relief teacher or is now there simply to teach people how to use the computers or the Smart Boards but not how to really utilise that resource. It was interesting that, as the report notes at 3.40, in the survey that was undertaken of librarians:
It was almost unanimously agreed (99 per cent) amongst librarians surveyed that:
And they are seeing these results in NAPLAN results. That was the evidence of the teacher librarians.
I just want to go to some of the recommendations, and I know the member for Deakin has spoken about some of these as well. On the last point that the member for Deakin raised in relation to online database resources: how can we expect that every child in every school will get the same opportunity if they are not getting access to the same resources? That is clearly the case. That is the evidence we saw across the country. There are those schools that can afford it and are able to subscribe to the broader online databases and then there are those schools who just cannot find sufficient funds in the budget to subscribe adequately to those databases. You can put in computers and you can train the teachers but, if you do not have the resource there for them to use, the children will not get the benefit and the children will not get the same opportunities, irrespective of where they go to school. The first recommendation that we make in this report is:
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government partner with all education authorities to fund the provision of a core set of online database resources, which are made available to all Australian schools.
We also saw that there was an issue with the intake of students, those who are doing degrees in education who are going on and doing a masters of education in teacher librarianship, in that really this was not being promoted as a potential career path. I note the comment of the chair in the foreword of the report:
The Committee was advised that Charles Sturt University’s second semester intake of students into its Master of Education (Teacher Librarianship) had doubled in 2010, and, it was suggested that the publicity surrounding this inquiry may have been a factor in the increased numbers being attracted to the teacher librarian profession.
If that is what this inquiry did, if it does nothing else, that is a fantastic result.
But there is much more to be done. We need to make sure that, in the development of the curriculum and in every aspect of government policy and work being done to ensure the best education possible for our young people, we are looking at the role of our teacher librarians and the important function that they have within our schools. Recommendation 3 is:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority include statistical information about the breakdown of all specialist teachers, including teacher librarians, on the My School website.
This recommendation was made because it became clear that we do not know what specialist teachers we have in our schools. We found out in Queensland that you may have done a masters in teacher librarianship, you may be a specialist in this area, but when you register in Queensland as a teacher there is not even a category to identify yourself as a specialist in this area. That needs to be rectified. It also showed once again that we do not have consistency across the states. If we want consistent outcomes then we have to have consistency across the states on the value of teacher librarians and the recognition of this as a very important specialist teacher role.
There are many other recommendations in this report. I support each and every of one of those recommendations, as does every member who has spoken on this report. I know that this report was unanimously supported by all members from both sides of this parliament, as it should be. This is an extremely important report. It is one that I know many in my electorate have been eagerly awaiting the release of. I look forward to forwarding copies of this report out to those teacher librarians in the schools so that they can see what their effort to bring information to us has resulted in with these recommendations. I commend the report to the House. It is an extremely important report and one that I hope the government follows closely.
Debate adjourned.
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
It is my privilege here tonight to speak on the review of the Reserve Bank Annual Report 2010, the second report, which was tabled in 2011. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics from time to time questions the Reserve Bank by calling governors as witnesses to further expand on monetary policy and how it interacts with Australian fiscal policy. Let me say from the outset that I commend the Reserve Bank under the stewardship of Glenn Stevens. While I am talking about Mr Stevens and his role as governor, I also want to take the opportunity to welcome some of the new board members and thank the outgoing board members.
I would like to pass on my congratulations on the magnificent effort over the last 10 years of one Warwick McKibbin. He had been a member of the board since July 2001. He was the director of the Centre of Applied Macroeconomic Analysis at the ANU. He was the director of the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University. He is a professional fellow of the Lowy Institute for International Policy, a non-resident senior fellow of the Brookings Institute USA and the list goes on. He is a man of immense talent.
He has been replaced by Catherine Tanna. Catherine comes with myriad experiences from the resources sector—particularly the gas sector. Those skill sets will serve her one in this two-speed economy and the terms of trade that we are dealing with at the moment, which I will speak more about during my speech. I also want to take this opportunity to welcome Dr John Edwards, a man of immense talent. In summary, he was a senior economist for HSBC and has a strong academic background. He will fill that void at the Reserve Bank and complete that team.
I want to encourage the ongoing independence of the Reserve Bank and its separation from government and how it sits at arm's length. I support their charter and the way that works autonomously. The Reserve Bank Board normally meets 11 times a year—on the first Tuesday of each month except January each year. At least one meeting is held in Melbourne, usually in the first half of the year. From time to time the board also meets in other capital cities. I would also like to take this time to acknowledge and thank Glenn Stevens again for making time to be available to come to Canberra. Later on in the year, we will be meeting again in Canberra.
To speak more directly to the report, one of the first things that I want to go over is the issue of inflation and some of the pressures that that will put on our economy moving forward. I am a commercial businessman, so I do not have an economic background as such. At university, I did a couple of subjects in it, so I understand the basic fundamentals of economics. What I remember is that when measuring GDP the formula was consumption plus government expenditure plus investments plus exports minus imports. Our exports and imports are our terms of trade. At the moment they are going off like a rocket. That is on the back of very little that we do with reference to fiscal policy. They are going off like a cracker because of the demand on our resources by international trading partners, given that they would be China and India. We do not have a lot of influence on that part of the equation when it comes to trying to stay within our inflation range of two to three per cent.
When you go through and start pulling that formula apart, you have consumption. Some will say consumption figures are up. Others will say they are down. The guys that are saying that consumption figures are up are referring to the lower household budgets, where people are struggling under the cost-of-living pressures—increases in rent, increases in energy prices and new taxes on energy and fuel. Those guys who are saying that the cost-of-living pressures are down are the ones who are saying that the monetary system, with reference to consumption in that formula, is drying up. There is very little stimulus in our retail market. When you have a look at business receivables ledgers, people are struggling to find the capacity to pay their bills.
We do as a government, through fiscal policy, have the capacity to affect consumption. But the most important part of that formula is government expenditure. I will use the NBN as an example. For the sake of an economic debate, whether you believe the NBN is good policy or not, set that aside and just look at it as a capital investment of government. We have heard the analogy of our two-speed economy. We have a resources sector that is going off like a cracker then we have another speed in our economy which the Reserve Bank refers to as the multispeed economy. I refer to it as a two-speed economy. The government refer to it as a patchwork economy. The definitions may differ but the fundamental principles of what we refer to are overwhelmingly the same. My concern is that capital investment in an NBN program in excess of $43 billion is just about to come online into that formula at the very time when the resources sector is going through a one-in-110-year spike in capital investment on the back of this unfathomable terms of trade. What we have are some things that we can control in that formula and some things that we cannot.
From a macroeconomic perspective, a fiscal policy perspective, I believe that large government spending programs need to be wound back to allow the private sector room in the marketplace. The predominant funding capacity in the NBN program is civil works, and they are very civil works that compete against the resources sector. What does that mean? When we are out there in the marketplace looking for loader drivers and graders and tractor drivers, the telcos are looking for those very same skill sets. I am sure when they did their forecasting they would have found that you would normally buy those commodities at around $60,000 to $80,000 a year per head. The resources sector pay $130,000 to $150,000 per head. That puts upward pressure on wage inflation, which then trickles down. That is a long way of going about it to try to explain how inflationary pressure works. I can assure you it is a challenge for our Reserve Bank moving forward when it comes to trying to cope with the inflationary pressures that we have.
I have already spoken about the capital expenditure with reference to the mining sector and the impact that that will have on our economy. I want to now speak about those small communities in regional Australia, even some of the cities, that have no linkages to the resources sector, and about how isolated they are. What happens is that as inflationary pressures push up the cash rate and so push up our mortgages and our cost of living, we find that those people who do not have access to the resources sector, to those inflated disposable incomes, when the upward pressure of inflation tunnels in and has virtually a multiplier effect, it does most harm to the people that can least afford it in our community. I just counsel the Reserve Bank when making their deliberations when it comes to movements in the cash rate that they are very mindful of those communities like mine in the seat of Wright in Queensland that do not have linkages to the resources sector, and that they take that into account.
I would like to speak about three things today: the recent appointments to the Reserve Bank board and the members who are stepping off the Reserve Bank board; the broader outlook for inflation in the Australian economy; and the current low levels of government debt. Firstly looking at appointments to the Reserve Bank board, I want to use the opportunity to put on the record my thanks to Don McGauchie and Warwick McKibbin for their service to the Reserve Bank board. Warwick McKibbin is not only an extraordinary Australian economist but was also my immediate boss before I came into parliament. Warwick is the director of the Research School of Economics at the Australian National University and in my last position at ANU I was his deputy director. Warwick is an extraordinary economist, someone who was awarded his PhD from Harvard University studying under Jeffrey Sachs. He has been awarded the Centenary Medal for service to Australian society for economic policy in tertiary education, and was made a fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences at the age of 40. I wish him well in the next public endeavours that will occupy his now freed-up weekends.
I also note that joining the Reserve Bank board are Ms Catherine Tanna, who is currently the executive vice-president of BG Group and managing director of its Australian unit, QGC Pty Ltd, and also Dr John Edwards. Dr Edwards is somebody who has a long and distinguished career in economic policy-making. He has served the Australian public well as a senior economic adviser to then Prime Minister Paul Keating. He has been actively engaged in policy debates for a number of decades and has also produced a number of terrific books over this period. He is in every sense a public intellectual and the Australian public are fortunate to have his skills joining the Reserve Bank board.
The second issue I want to speak about today is the issue of inflation. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the statements made during our last Reserve Bank hearing regarding Australian inflation. On the headline number, I would like to quote from the Governor's opening statement when he said:
It is worth recording that a combination, on the latest figures, of a 5 per cent unemployment rate and an inflation rate clearly 'in the 2s' is a pretty favourable one by the standards of recent decades.
In questioning, the Governor was drawn out on the issue of inflation perceptions and made some comments that I think are particularly salient in the current policy debate. It is always important to focus on the cost of living but we need to do so by looking at the facts rather than some of the spin that is occasionally heard from those opposite. The Governor said:
People do, though, tend to overlook prices that fall a little bit, and 30 per cent of the CPI items actually had a negative price change in the latest quarter. There are certain things that people do not buy quite as often as the weekly groceries and it is human nature that we tend to forget that those prices go down in many instances. So I think that is a factor and it is understandable. But, in the end, the consumer price index samples 100,000 prices every quarter. There is a far better sampling there than any of us could do by keeping a casual tab on our grocery bill ...
The governor went on to say:
The prices of many goods at the moment are declining. If you go through the CPI over the past year, you see that the price index for clothing is down six per cent, the price index for major household appliances is down four per cent, the price index for audiovisual equipment is down 18 per cent, the price index for furniture is down two per cent and the price index for linen, manchester, is down around two per cent. Almost all the goods in the CPI are down quite significantly. I think many people, because they do not buy these goods on a regular basis and have in their mind a clear concept of what the actual price is for a shirt or some Manchester, do not feel price declines but they are real and they are happening. What people are noticing is the higher price of utilities in particular.
The governor went on to speak about some of those prices. But as we know, households make a set of consumption purchases and we need to look at those consumption purchases as a whole, not simply cherry pick parts of the consumer price index but look at the overall picture that Australian households are facing. For example, if we look at the year-on-year percentage change for the current March quarter, the latest figures available at the moment, we have a fall over the last year in clothing and footwear prices of one per cent, in household contents and services of around half a per cent, in communications of 0.2 per cent and in recreation of 1½ per cent.
So it is important to keep all of those factors in mind when we are looking at the overall picture for inflation. I think it is that overall picture which has naturally led the governor to point out that Australia's inflation rate is clearly in the twos, certainly not a picture that one would receive if one were to listen solely to pronouncements from those opposite. I think this is important and goes to the very heart of the economic challenge. If those opposite intend to be taken seriously as economic managers then it is important that they focus on the facts rather than the spin.
Finally, I said that I would go to the issue of government debt. Here again, I think it is important to lay out the facts. Ross Gittins, in an opinion column on 15 November last year, wrote as follows:
Even the press gallery is buying the Libs' propaganda about excessive, wasteful spending and the need for swingeing spending cuts to get the budget back on the rails. Nonsense. The real story is how amazingly responsible the government's been.
He goes on to say:
From the start, the government adopted a "deficit exit strategy" to bank all revenue growth and limit real spending growth to 2 per cent a year until the budget was back in surplus. No government has ever voluntarily donned such a chastity belt.
Those opposite would have you believe that Australia's government debt is out of control, and they would do so because I sometimes believe they live in a little bubble, a little bubble in which climate change is not real, a little bubble in which you can ignore everything happening in the rest of the world, a little bubble in which the only thing that drives asylum seeker arrivals is Australian policy rather than wars going on overseas. Of course, if you take a global perspective, and any responsible economic manager does take a global perspective, you are immediately struck by how low Australian public debt is.
A special report on the world economy in The Economist quoted research by Carmen Reinhart of the University of Maryland and Ken Roghoff of Harvard University looking at the effects of a couple of centuries of sovereign debt. It reads:
Their verdict is that public debt does little discernible harm until it reaches about 90% of a country’s GDP, but then the effect on growth can be sudden and big.
This is relevant because there are OECD countries that are looking at debt loads at that level. Every member of the G7, according to The Economist report, will go over a threshold of 77 per cent of GDP. The article noted:
The IMF says governments should aspire to cut their debt ratios back to 60% by 2030. To do so they will have to perform some fiscal heroics.
Australia is simply not in that ballpark. Our debt level remains well below 10 per cent of GDP and will continue to do so. The government will bring the budget back into surplus in 2012-13. Australia is better off for having taken on that public debt. That is what mainstream economics tells you. When faced with the largest global downturn since the Great Depression, it was the right decision to put in place a timely, targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus—saving 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses—and then to responsibly pay back that debt. At the end of that, not only do we have lives that were not blighted by periods of unemployment and small businesses that did not go to the wall but we also have public assets future generations will look back to: public assets such as some of the valuable school infrastructure in my own electorate of Fraser; infrastructure such as the Amaroo school's investments that allow their teachers to do team teaching; and infrastructure such as a school hall that allows all of the children in Black Mountain special school to attend the same assembly. It is infrastructure of which I am proud, and I wish those opposite were equally proud of it. (Time expired)
I always love listening to the contributions from the member for Fraser. I think it is terrible what they do to him as he tries to defend the government's economic record, but he does try valiantly, and I am going to make a couple of comments on it tonight.
I rise to speak on the review of the Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 2010 and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics hearing with senior members of the Reserve Bank, including the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens, in February of this year. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics is in fact the only committee that has oversight on monetary policy settings, which of course is why it is so significant. Also, it is the only committee that has the opportunity to question the Reserve Bank on monetary policy settings, and that happens twice a year. When speaking about monetary policy and the management of the Australian economy we cannot ignore the government's fiscal policy settings. This was also a feature of the report and has been a feature of much economic analysis subsequent to the report.
Tonight I just want to touch on a couple of overarching points. The government has cherry-picked aspects of the RBA's report and testimony to congratulate itself on its economic management of the Australian economy, for its handling of the GFC, its stimulus spending and the forecast surplus yet to be delivered. It blames events like Cyclone Yasi and the floods for having a negative impact on GDP growth, and its need to both tax more and borrow more at unprecedented levels.
Of course, there are other very important structural reasons why Australia came through the GFC. Give credit where it is due. It was the Hawke-Keating government that floated the dollar, allowing our exchange rate to dive at the end of 2008 to support our export industries. And there was bipartisan support for a wholesale funding guarantee for our banking system and for retail deposits in the dark days after the Lehman collapse. But it was the hard work of the Howard-Costello government in paying off Labor's $96 billion of debt and investing in the Future Fund that meant the national balance sheet was strong—strong enough to support those contingent liabilities. It was the coalition's regulatory reform agenda that struck the right balance between regulation and flexible markets. We introduced a dedicated prudential regulator in APRA, which conducted regular stress tests on the banks. We reformed the Corporations Act to facilitate faster and more efficient capital raisings. Our financial services reforms, while not perfect, stood in the way of a US-style subprime mortgage market emerging. A long history of stable coalition government and mature policymaking gave international investors confidence and reduced foreign capital outflows.
Our tax reforms improved budgetary stability during a volatile period. We left the country with a $20 billion surplus. It was the Howard-Costello government that enshrined the Reserve Bank's independence, with the RBA ensuring that our economy did not overheat, pre-GFC. What is more, our RBA was able to deliver a huge stimulus directly into the economy, because most Australian mortgages are floating rate.
Finally, the coalition ensured that we maintained and nurtured diversified trading relationships, including with China, because it has been China's massive stimulus spending that has underpinned the Australian budget. In contrast, the government would have you believe that we have seen off the GFC due to pink batts, BER blow-outs and $900 cheques. This is not sustained by a proper analysis of the evidence. We need a government that can set aside the spin and understand what drove Australian exceptionalism compared to the rest of the developed world during the GFC. Without that understanding, the government will invariably continue to make mistakes. It will continue to introduce regulation where regulation is not required. It will spend where it is unnecessary and counterproductive. And it will play political games with our international reputation, just as the government did with their first attempt at their mining tax. The latest budget is, of course, more of the same. From the latest budget papers we see that the budget deficit has soared to $49.4 billion and the forecast deficit in 2011-12 has blown out by $9.6 billion to $22.6 billion. We also have $107 billion in net debt. Something that the government also tried to do the other week and continued to try to do this week and also going into next week is lift our gross debt ceiling. This was already expanded in 2009 from $75 billion to $200 billion, and the government is trying to increase this further. These are all very important matters.
Whilst these are matters in this debate, it is a bit hard to talk about something that has happened this week when we are referring to a report that was done some time ago and the Governor of the Reserve Bank could not have referred to it.
I will take it back then to the topic if you think I am wandering off it.
Just a tad. I would really like you to try, thank you.
I think it is important to look at the evidence, because there are some warnings in the RBA's evidence that they presented to us. There will always be those who use a crisis to further their own agendas, and this government has used the cover of the GFC to continue its large spending program and to introduce new taxes. The government has already gone beyond its mandate at the last election and significantly reregulated the labour market in a way which will mute our competitiveness and jobs growth over time. The warnings are such that we need to be concentrating on a couple of key points, and they are these: the cost of living for Australian families; the danger of inflation as restated in the latest monetary statement; our two-speed economy and the challenges that poses; the sustainability of the resources boom and our reliance on China; the challenge of a volatile Australian dollar; capacity constraints; and the need to focus on improving the nation's long-run productive capacity, on which this budget has not done terribly much. The government needs to recommit to the economic fundamentals: sound budget settings, a prudent debt position and a transparent and well-managed financial system. I look forward to the next opportunity to hear from the Reserve Bank, in August. Before I conclude, I would like to add some remarks to those of my colleagues presented earlier as to the outgoing members of the RBA board, Donald McGauchie and Warwick McKibbin. We do appreciate the incredibly valuable service that they have provided to the RBA. We appreciate the expertise that they have provided for the good of the Australian people in developing sound monetary policy settings and we look forward to their contribution in other ways through other forums that no doubt they will now participate in. We thank them.
Debate adjourned.
Main Committee adjourned at 21:24
asked the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, in writing, on 25 November 2010:
(1) How many (a) mobile phones, (b) blackberries and (c) I-Pads are currently allocated to the (i) Minister, and (ii) the Minister's ministerial staff.
(2) In respect of mobile phone usage between (a) 3 December 2007 and 24 November 2010, and (b) 24 June 2010 and 24 November 2010, what was the total cost for (a) the Minister, and (b) the Minister's ministerial staff.
(3) For each month since December 2007, what was the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the (a) Minister, and (b) Minister's ministerial staff.
The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows, noting that the ministerial portfolio of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities was established following the formation of the new government:
(1) (i) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) –
(a) 1
(b) 0
(c) 0 (The Minister has access to Departmental i-Pad devices, used specifically for parliamentary purposes.)
(ii) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) ministerial staff:
(a) 4
(b)
(c) 6
(2) (a) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke):
(a) $722.75 (GST Exc)
(b) $722.75 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett):
(a) $10,972.63 (GST Exc)
(b) $570.96 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong):
(a) $20,262.30 (GST Exc)
(b) $0.00 (GST Exc)
(b) In relation to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) ministerial staff:
(a) $3,205.02 (GST Exc)
(b)$3,205.02 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett) ministerial staff:
(a) $127,272.86 (GST Exc)
(b) $17,127.23 (GST Exc)
In relation to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong) ministerial staff:
$77,408.08 (GST Exc)
(b) $191.50 (GST Exc)
(3) (a) A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
October 2010 $678.21 (GST Exc)
November 2010 $44.54 (GST Exc)
A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
*The total expense figure for June 2008 of $3,359.22 comprises charges that covered periods dating back to December 2007 to March 2008. Data to split the charges by month is not readily available.
A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong) cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
* From July 2009 the former Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts transferred payment of mobile phone expenses to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency for the then Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong).
(b) A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Burke) ministerial staff cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
October 2010 $2,862.72 (GST Exc)
November 2010 $342.30 (GST Exc)
A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts (Garrett) ministerial staff cannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
*The total expense figure for June 2008 of $14,931.34 comprises charges that covered periods dating back to December 2007 to March 2008. Data to split the charges by month is not readily available.
A comprehensive answer to the cost of mobile phone usage for each mobile phone account allocated to Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (Wong) ministerial staffcannot be provided as such information is not readily available. What is readily available is mobile phone account invoices paid in each month. Accordingly, the data that follows is based on the payment of invoices in that month, noting also that invoices paid may cover mobile phone usage over more than one monthly period.
*From July 2009 the former Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts continued to process payment of mobile phone expenses for the Water responsibilities of Minister Wong's Office.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will provide a separate response relating to Minister Burke's time as their Minister.